Cry me a river.
You specifically claimed to be an expert in accounting. On no stronger a basis than your personal say-so—and ostensibly under color of this purported authority—you have accused the villain in your conspiracy theory of suspiciously arranging his finances so as to breathe life into your further claim that he is manipulating an official investigation. After scrutiny, your accusations boil down (as usual) to misconceptions and wanton ignorance of the underlying legal and financial principles. And, as usual, your claims to expertise do not absolve you from that particular error—and this time you actually made that claim and can't pretend otherwise.
If you don't like people measuring your claims and insinuations to authority according to what you can instead (fail to) demonstrate, stop doing that. If you don't like people properly questioning your claims whose basis is nothing more than your own proffered authority, stop doing that. Don't whine because your ham-fisted ploys don't fool anyone.
And as usual, if you believe you have been attacked personally or abused, report the post for moderation. Do not continue to signal your faux leniency as cover for making accusations you are unwilling to submit for adjudication.
And when you went on to try to equate this with Sunak's trust—blind or otherwise—you tipped your hand. You specifically argued that the purported secrecy endemic to this company's registration made Sunak's blind trust beyond the scope of "legal recognition by U.K. courts" and therefore suspicious. Those two concepts have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and there is no requirement that a trust or trustee be "recognized" by ,or otherwise identified to, a court in order for the trust to have legal effect.
Still not the right word or concept. You're still trying to cobble up some "Because I want it to be this way" excuse for your prior conflation of company governance with trusteeship. You're still trying to argue that a company in the Cayman Islands and Sunak's blind trust ought to have anything to do with each other.
You can do whatever you want. But at this point all your doing is confirming that you really don't know what you're talking about and that your judgment on these matters can be properly dismissed no matter how many "Masters-equivalent" certifications you claim to have in the field.
Still irrelevant to what a trust is, blind or otherwise.
"I never said I was a forensic accountant, but I was a forensic accountant."
You don't know anything so far, and there's the "on my own authority" basis that you seem to think is off-limits to point out. This is literally you making up a scenario you think might be the case, and measuring it against rules you're making up because you don't actually know what you're talking about. You have nothing to offer.
.
