PRESS RELEASE

Potential Contempt of Court Proceedings Relating to Ongoing Private Prosecution

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Date: 15 February 2026

 

Empower the People (EtP) previously issued a public statement confirming that criminal summonses had been granted in respect of a private prosecution alleging a sustained course of online harassment. At that time, the names of the 3 defendants were not stated.

Since then, all three defendants have publicly identified themselves online and have continued to publish commentary about the ongoing proceedings. In addition, a fourth individual — Mr Iain Clifford Stamp, who is not a party to the case — has begun publishing material that appears to contain extensive extracts, summaries, or commentary derived from the prosecution case bundle.

EtP is now compelled to issue this statement due to the serious and escalating concerns arising from the unauthorised disclosure of prosecution material, public commentary on live criminal proceedings, and the active involvement of a fugitive from UK justice, with whom it appears that at least one of the defendants appear to be colluding.

Background Concerning Mr Stamp

Iain Clifford Stamp, also known as Iain Clifford, is currently the subject of ongoing enforcement action by the Financial Conduct Authority. He has a long and documented history of abusive and pseudo‑legal financial schemes, as found by multiple High Court and Crown Court judgments, and has absconded from UK jurisdiction, currently residing in Northern Cyprus which does not have an extradition treaty with the UK.

In June 2023, proceedings were brought by the FCA under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.  The Crown Court at Southwark imposed a Criminal Restraint Order relating to assets and financial activity. Following repeated breaches of that order, including non‑attendance at hearings, refusal to comply with disclosure obligations, and the filing of documents described by the Court as “gibberish… with no proper or recognised meaning in law or common sense”, the Crown Court subsequently found Mr Stamp in contempt of court and imposed a 12‑month custodial sentence in July 2025.

Separately, in May 2024, the High Court referred Mr Stamp for consideration of an Extended Civil Restraint Order, following repeated abusive litigation. A General Civil Restraint Order was subsequently imposed in those civil proceedings (until July 2027).

These civil and criminal orders arise from distinct proceedings.

EtP notes that Mr Stamp has a long‑standing history of hostility toward EtP and its trustees, arising from 2022–2023 when EtP members supported a crowdfunded effort to assist victims of his unrelated activities in seeking legal remedy. More recently, Mr Stamp has escalated his attacks towards EtP, publishing a series of documents, videos, and “forensic reports” in which he:

• claims to act as a legal authority or “law firm” under the name Ecclesia Law,
• asserts that he is assisting or representing the defendants,
• purports to analyse prosecution material,
• publishes fabricated “regulatory findings”,
• misstates UK and US law,
• falsely alleges misconduct by EtP, its trustees, and its legal team, and
• falsely claims that EtP is under investigation for offences that do not exist.

These materials contain false, misleading, and speculative assertions and EtP wholly rejects any allegations made or repeated by Mr Stamp. These claims do not originate from any legitimate, independent, or credible source. They appear designed to influence public perception, intimidate participants in the proceedings, and interfere with the administration of justice.

For the avoidance of doubt: “Ecclesia Law” is not a regulated law firm, but a trading style used by Mr Stamp through entities he controls.

Judicially Established Pattern of Behaviour by Mr Stamp

 

1. Judicial Review Attempts (2023–2024)

Sweeting J dismissed Mr Stamp’s challenge to the validity of POCA and FSMA as “not arguable”, noting:

• • “Contrary to [Mr Stamp’s] grounds there has been a monarch of the United Kingdom since 1973,”and
  • “It is not arguable that the FCA was seeking to entrap [him] or abusing its powers.”

This reinforces that his challenges to lawful authority are frivolous and legally baseless.

2. High Court Strike‑Out Order (KB‑2023‑003656)(May 2024)

The High Court of Justice (King’s Bench Division) struck out Mr Stamp’s claim against two of EtP’s Trustees on 9 May 2024 as “totally without merit” and referred him for consideration of an Extended Civil Restraint Order. In doing so, Master Cook expressly found that:

• • he had issued multiple abusive claims,
  • he had encouraged over 230 similarly abusive claims through “MatrixFreedom”, and
  • there was reason to believe he had profited substantially from these activities.

These findings form part of a wider judicial record demonstrating a pattern of vexatious, abusive, and pseudo‑legal litigation.

This conduct was shortly followed by Mr Stamp’s use of pseudo‑legal “Court of the Executor” documents, including demands for £1.5 million in damages against the two trustees, accompanied by threats that they would be “liened” by him. We understand that similar styled paperwork was directed at the FCA, Southwark Crown Court, tax lawyer Dan Neidle, as well as numerous victims.

3. Stamp v CHL Mortgages [2024] EWHC 1092 (KB)

The High Court struck out 230 mortgage‑securitisation claims promoted and sold to the general public by Mr Stamp, with Master Gidden describing them as:

• • “a get rich quick scheme… fundamentally wrong,”
  • “a nonsensical and harmful mix of legal words… a parody of the real thing,”and
  • “incoherent… making no sense and failing to disclose a legally recognisable claim.”

This judgment confirms a pattern of abusive, pseudo‑legal litigation.

4. Stamp v Open Democracy [2024] EWHC 1574 (KB)

Open Democracy had published an investigative article examining Mr Stamp’s activities, including:

• • the FCA’s civil action against him;
  • allegations that he had taken £19 million from clients through “Matrix Freedom”;
  • the nature of Matrix Freedom’s purported “debt elimination” model;
  • his use of pseudo‑legal “sovereign citizen” arguments; and
  • the FCA’s allegation that he had misled consumers.

Mr Stamp issued defamation proceedings, asserting that the article damaged his reputation.

The High Court (Williams J) struck out Mr Stamp’s defamation claim against Open Democracy, finding it had no real prospect of success and was an abuse of process. The judgment held that:

• • his pleadings were incoherent, failed to identify any actionable defamatory meaning, and did not meet the statutory requirement of serious harm under s.1 Defamation Act 2013,
  • the article complained of was responsible public‑interest journalism, accurately reporting on FCA enforcement action and relying on official documents, and
  • many of the statements challenged by Mr Stamp were substantially true, or were clearly presented as allegations made by the FCA

The court further noted that the claim was part of a wider pattern of misconceived and pseudo‑legal litigation, consistent with other proceedings involving Mr Stamp. This judgment reinforces the judicial consensus that his legal challenges are frivolous, abusive, and grounded in fundamental misunderstandings of law.

5. FCA v Stamp [2025] EWCR 6 (Southwark Crown Court)

Judge Baumgartner found that Mr Stamp:

• • repeatedly breached a Criminal Restraint Orderunder POCA 2002,
  • absconded abroad while subject to the order,
  • failed to attend hearings, and
  • filed documents described as “gibberish… with no proper or recognised meaning in law or common sense.”

In July 2025 the court passed a one years’ sentence of imprisonment for contempt of court in relation to multiple breaches of a restraint order

This judicial history provides essential context for understanding the nature and purpose of the material Mr Stamp has recently begun publishing about these proceedings.

Unauthorised Disclosure of Case Material

Prosecution material is served solely to enable defendants to understand and answer the case against them. It is not public information. It is subject to a statutory embargo under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA 1996). The appearance of such material in the hands of a third party raises serious concerns, including:

• unauthorised disclosure,
• breaches of confidentiality, and
• conduct capable of amounting to contempt of court.

EtP confirms that no prosecution material has been provided to Mr Stamp by EtP, its trustees, or its legal representatives. The disclosure therefore appears to originate from one or more of the defendants.

Public Commentary on Live Proceedings

Since identifying themselves, one or more of the defendants have continued to publish commentary, analysis, and opinion about the case, including:

• misleading claims about the status or outcome of the proceedings,
• commentary on evidence served,
• attempts to influence public perception, and
• amplification of third‑party publications containing apparent extracts from the case bundle

These publications are now being reviewed in the context of potential proceedings for contempt of court and interference with the administration of justice.

Serious Concerns

Mr Stamp has published multiple documents and videos in which he claims:

• to be assisting or representing the defendants,
• purports to analyse prosecution material,
• makes assertions about the conduct of the prosecution, and
• presents commentary that is inaccurate, misleading, or speculative.

EtP notes with concern that Mr Stamp is a person:

• found by the High Court to have issued abusive claims,
• found by the Crown Court to have breached a Criminal Restraint Order,
• sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for contempt, and
• subject to both civil and criminal restraint orders.

Any engagement by any person with Mr Stamp involving the dissemination and/or discussions of prosecution material supplied to him, significantly aggravates the seriousness of the situation and may amount to aiding and abetting a contempt of court.

EtP reiterates that Mr Stamp is not a party to these proceedings. His involvement is unsolicited, unauthorised, and not independent. EtP wholly rejects the allegations he has made.

Attempts to Interfere with Legal Representation

EtP is aware of recent attempts by both a defendant and Mr Stamp to target EtP’s legal representatives, including:

• filing complaints against counsel,
• contacting Chambers with unfounded allegations, and
• circulating misleading claims about the role of EtP’s legal team.

These actions appear designed to:

• intimidate legal representatives,
• disrupt the conduct of the prosecution,
• undermine confidence in the integrity of the proceedings, and
• interfere with the proper administration of justice.

Such conduct has been recorded and will be placed before the appropriate court. EtP has full confidence in its legal team and regards these actions as part of the wider pattern of harassment and interference.

Statement of Principle

EtP remains committed to:

• protecting the integrity of the justice process,
• ensuring that all parties are treated fairly, and
• upholding the rule of law.

No further comment will be made while these matters are under active legal consideration.