Two true trustee's chosen by the murdered Settlor: How Control of the Trust Changed After the Murder of James William Durrant

During his lifetime, Mr James William Durrant appointed two individuals whom he trusted to act as trustees of his personal and family wealth.

The first of these was Mr Arie van der Vaart, a close friend of Mr Durrant’s. The two men were associated through the Anglo-Dutch Lodge of Freemasonry during the mid-1970s, a period in which their professional and personal relationship developed.

Mr Durrant asked Mr Arie van der Vaart whether he would assist in his business affairs and act as trustee in respect of certain funds that were to be held on trust in Jersey. These arrangements were connected to activities and charitable funds associated with the Anglo-Dutch Lodge of Freemasonry and wider Masonic charitable structures in the United Kingdom.

In later proceedings, lawyers acting in relation to the trust have described Mr van der Vaart as the “appointor” of a trust deed. However, this deed does not refer to the Durrant family by name and does not contain Mr Durrant’s signature. The authenticity, timing, and provenance of this document are formally disputed.

It is the position of the family that this documentation only emerged after Mr Durrant’s murder, and that reliance upon it resulted in control of assets accumulated by Mr Durrant over many decades being transferred away from his family. These issues remain central to the ongoing dispute.

The trust deed relied upon by the current trustee is dated 23 November 1978. However, this document is disputed by the family.

It is the family’s position that the original and operative trust arrangements date from 1975, and that these earlier documents do not identify the Freemasons as beneficiaries of Mr Durrant’s lifetime wealth.

The discrepancy between the 1975 arrangements and the later 1978 deed, and the authority attributed to the latter, lies at the heart of the ongoing dispute concerning control of Mr Durrant’s assets.

In September 2022, Jordan Durante attended a meeting at the London offices of the impostor trustee together with his elderly parents. During that meeting, Jordan asked the company to explain who Mr Arie van der Vaart was and where he could be located, given that he was being described as the appointor of the trust deed relied upon by the trustee. A company director present at the meeting, Mr Bruce [surname withheld], stated that the firm did not know who Mr van der Vaart was, nor where he could be found. The meeting was audio-recorded with the consent of all parties, and the recording will be made public in due course.

A significant issue for the trust service provider is that the company had in fact been in contact with Mr Arie van der Vaart since at least 2003, while at the same time representing to the family that it did not know who he was or how to locate him. Correspondence later obtained indicates that Mr van der Vaart was misled for many years as to his true legal status in relation to the trust. Based on his professional experience and the inconsistencies in the statements made at the September 2022 meeting, Jordan Durante formed the view that the information being provided was unreliable. He therefore undertook his own enquiries. Using longstanding personal contacts in continental Europe, including introductions facilitated by retired law-enforcement professionals in the Netherlands, Jordan was able to locate Mr van der Vaart and obtain verified contact details, including his photograph, email address, telephone number, and residential address. This information directly contradicted the trustee’s earlier claim that Mr van der Vaart could not be identified or located.

In early January 2023, Jordan Durante spoke by telephone with Mr Arie van der Vaart. The call was audio-recorded, and during the conversation Jordan explained who he was and that James William Durrant, Mr van der Vaart’s former friend, had been murdered in 1988.

Mr van der Vaart expressed shock at this information and stated that he had never been informed of Mr Durrant’s death by the trustee that later relied upon a deed naming him as appointor.

Following this call, Jordan and Mr van der Vaart agreed to meet in person. Jordan travelled alone to the Netherlands, where he met Mr van der Vaart for the first time and discussed his historical role in relation to the trust arrangements that followed Mr Durrant’s death.

Since that meeting, Jordan and Mr van der Vaart have remained in regular contact and have met on multiple occasions. Further details of these interactions will be addressed later, in the context of the Isle of Man proceedings, which are examined separately.

Mr van der Vaart retained original correspondence from Mr Durrant dating back to the mid-1970s. One such letter, reproduced below, documents the basis on which Mr van der Vaart became trustee in 1975 under what the family maintains was the original Emerald Trust arrangement. This earlier documentation contrasts with the later, unsigned deed relied upon by the current trustee, which does not identify Mr Durrant or his family by name.

The deed reproduced below is the document that Mr James William Durrant asked Mr Arie van der Vaart to sign, and to have witnessed by a notary in the Netherlands, as part of the trust arrangements in place during the mid-1970s.

This same document was later sent back to Mr van der Vaart by the trustee, prior to Jordan Durante meeting him in person.

It is the family’s position, based on this deed and contemporaneous correspondence, that the original Emerald Trust arrangements date from 1975, rather than from 1978. The family further maintains that the 1975 documentation does not identify the Freemasons as beneficiaries of Mr Durrant’s lifetime wealth, in contrast to the later deed relied upon by the trustee.

The deed shown below is the document relied upon by the trustee. Notably, it records an out-of-date address for Mr Arie van der Vaart. Mr van der Vaart has stated that, had Mr Durrant executed this deed, he would have been aware of Mr van der Vaart’s correct and current address at the time. This discrepancy was specifically pointed out by Mr van der Vaart during discussions with Jordan Durante. The deed also states that an official seal was applied in the presence of two named individuals. Questions have been raised about this assertion. Jordan Durante has since obtained what is described as the trustee’s version of this deed. A comparison between versions reveals material differences, including variations in paper and font, the positioning of signatures, and the appearance of a seal not present in earlier copies. These differences give rise to serious questions as to how and when the document was produced. The comparative documents and supporting material will be published in full so that the public may examine these discrepancies for themselves.

When contact was made at that address only from the 1975 deed, the individual responding was asked to refer specifically to “Emerald” and indicated that the trust was understood to be for the benefit of Mr Durrant’s three children.

This raises a fundamental question: how and when did the Freemasons come to be identified as beneficiaries, when contemporaneous references to the Emerald Trust described it as benefiting Mr Durrant’s children?

The family’s position is that references to the Freemasons as beneficiaries only appear after the murder of the settlor, Mr James William Durrant, and that this change requires clear explanation.

Below is a letter written by Jordan Durante’s father, Mr Christopher Durante, to his UK solicitor. In this letter, Mr Durante records that at the funeral of Mr James William Durrant, he was told by a senior representative of the Freemasons Anglo-Dutch lodge that the trustee was a Dutch man—a description consistent with Mr Arie van der Vaart.

Below are internal notes held by the trustee in which it is recorded that Mr Arie van der Vaart was the original trustee.

These internal records raise two fundamental and unresolved questions:

How did control of the trust pass from Mr van der Vaart, the original trustee, to the subsequent trustee now in place?And how did the Freemasons come to be identified as beneficiaries, when earlier documentation and internal notes refer to a different trust structure?

These questions go to the heart of the dispute and have never been refused to be answered by the impostor trustee who should be removed from the industry as a matter of national importance and to protect the public and investors in these islands.

gg

Below is an email sent by a lawyer Caroline XXXXXXXXX acting in relation to the trust to Mr Arie van der Vaart. In that correspondence, the Emerald Trust is referred to as dating from 1975.

The email also illustrates an ongoing inconsistency in how Mr van der Vaart’s legal status has been described. In some private discussions, he has been referred to as a trustee, while in written communications addressed to him he has been described instead as an appointor or protector of the trust.

Mr van der Vaart has maintained a bank account in Jersey since the mid-1970s, and lawyers involved with the trust have made use of this named account for decades. Despite this, Mr van der Vaart has not been provided with information from either the bank or the trustee regarding the trust’s affairs and did not even know about this Jersey bank account being active for so many decades.

This raises an obvious and unresolved question: on what basis was Mr van der Vaart described as a “protector” or “appointor” if he was not given information or afforded any meaningful role in the administration or oversight of the trust?

What has been done with my murdered grandfather’s trust structures, companies, and the Jersey bank account held in a Dutch man’s name remains a central and unresolved question.

Mr Arie van der Vaart has stated that he was only made aware of a Jersey bank account in his name after the Dutch tax authorities contacted him to ask why it had not been declared. His recorded response was, in effect: “What account?”—because he had not knowingly declared or operated any such account.

These issues are highly relevant to the wider narrative and will be addressed further when the Black Eagle Trust information is released.

Years later, a further email from the Caroline xxxxxxxxxx lawyer acting in relation to the trust again states to Mr Arie van der Vaart that the Emerald Trust deed dates from 1975.

This correspondence was sent well before Jordan Durante had met Mr van der Vaart and before any exchange of experiences, documents, or concerns between them regarding the conduct of the trust or the actions of the impostor trust service provider.

As such, the reference to 1975 arises independently from the trustee’s own legal correspondence, and not from information later shared by Jordan or from documents subsequently assembled by the family. This consistency across separate communications forms part of the documentary record now held by Mr van der Vaart and Jordan Durante.

It should also be noted that Subject Access Requests (SARs) made to Bridson Halsall, the Isle of Man firm acting for Mr Smalley, and to the trustee in Jersey, returned material indicating that Jordan Durante’s mother was recorded as a trustee for many years, in a manner consistent with the role previously held by Mr Arie van der Vaart during Mr Durrant’s lifetime. [Anna as trustee file coming soon].

The family’s position is that, following the financially motivated murder of Mr James William Durrant, neither of the originally appointed trustees continued to act, and control of the trust structures was instead assumed by a subsequent impostor trustee's.

It is further alleged that this change in control occurred in circumstances that were not transparently explained to the family, and that John [surname withheld] was, at the relevant time, a beneficial or undisclosed shareholder in the Jersey-based trustee companies sister company called xxxxxxxxx. These matters form part of the wider dispute concerning how control of Mr Durrant’s trust structures was transferred after his murder.

This case, and the work surrounding it, has the potential to take the reader across multiple countries and jurisdictions, intersecting with high-profile individuals and major crimes, many of which remain unresolved today. Further material will be released in due course, and with it the opportunity for greater clarity and accountability.

The public is encouraged to ask questions, examine the evidence, and share this case in the interests of justice—not only for one family, but because it highlights wider social and economic issues created by secretive offshore financial systems and the lack of effective oversight in certain jurisdictions.

These issues do not exist in isolation. For example, material already in the public domain shows that the Post Office scandal connects through corporate and address links in Jersey which JOHN used to use along with Mr Smalley,demonstrating how offshore structures can intersect with major domestic injustices affecting thousands of ordinary citizens.

This case is therefore not only about the past, but about how such systems continue to operate today, and why transparency and accountability matter for society as a whole.

No justice can be achieved without transparency. Until full disclosure and proper discovery are provided, serious questions will continue to surround the conduct of the trust service industry, policing oversight, political accountability, judicial processes, and associated law firms involved in this case.

Meaningful reform cannot occur unless these systems are subject to scrutiny. The secretive operation of certain offshore financial jurisdictions has had far-reaching social and economic consequences, and in my view warrants urgent and independent review.

Thank you for taking the time to read this material. I encourage readers to share the case, ask questions, and engage critically, in the interests of justice, reform, and public accountability.

A renewed and independent review of the murder of Mr James William Durrant is long overdue. Concerns surrounding the original investigation, and the role of institutional culture within policing, have been raised repeatedly. The requirement for police officers to declare Freemasonry membership did not arise in a vacuum, and I believe it is relevant to the issues examined on this site, including correspondence with senior policing offices[Sir Mark Rowley] referenced in earlier posts.

Only through openness, accountability, and reform can confidence in these institutions be restored.

Kind regards,

Jordan Durante