Print Article

A look back to February 2019 and Guernsey ML conviction of Peter Dawson-Ball


On the 31 December 2020 the GFSC announced that on 15 November 2019, it applied to the Royal Court of Guernsey under section 427 of The Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (the "Companies Law"), to seek a disqualification order against Mr Dawson-Ball*.

The following provides a look back

Peter Dawson-Ball background

  1. Peter Dawson-Ball was responsible for looking after GcMAF, and Immuno Biotech's money was unanimously found guilty in February 2019 by Guernsey's Royal Court
  2. Peter Dawson-Ball, 64, faced
    • Three counts of knowingly benefiting from the proceeds of crime, one across a number of months, and
    • Two more specific charges.
  3. During the week-long trial, Peter Dawson-Ball argued total ignorance of the illegality of his job.
  4. While he pleaded not guilty to all three, the Jurats found the evidence to be compelling of the fact he knew exactly what was happening.
  5. As it was a criminal trial, they had to be sure of Dawson-Ball's guilt, or they could not convict him.
Background of the case

  1. GcMAF claimed to cure cancer, Alzheimers and more. But it had never been through any clinical trials, and the only licensing it had worldwide was that of a food supplement akin to cereal.
  2. Telephone transcripts of conversations Dawson-Ball had at the time of the arrest of David Noakes - the boss of Immuno Biotech - lay at the centre of the prosecution's case, as they showed the defendant arranging for 'cleaners' to sweep a farmhouse in France, and also for a colleague to make sure a car was "clean".
  3. There was also an email chain showing Dawson-Ball had worked with a potential buyer of GcMAF in the United States to find a way to evade the country's customs to import the product.
  4. In those emails, the customer asked Dawson-Ball to delete the email chain when they had finished discussing it.
  5. Finally, when Immuno-Biotech's bank accounts were frozen in Guernsey, Dawson-Ball used his expertise in the industry to help Noakes kick off companies and bank accounts in the Netherlands because the tax on supplements was particularly low there.
  6. From that point on, a great deal of GcMAF business was run through those companies, of which the defendant was the Ultimate Beneficial Owner.
  7. David Noakes was sentenced to 18 months in prison toward the end of last year in front of Southwark Crown Court. He was charged with manufacturing and distributing an unlicensed medicine, and also money laundering - a similar charge to Dawson-Ball.
  8. Dawson-Ball's defending argument was built on the fact he was always oblivious to the fact GcMAF was an unlicensed medicine - saying he believed it was a supplement that did not need licensing at all.
  9. On this basis, Dawson-Ball's lawyer argued he could not be guilty because he was charged with knowingly benefiting from the proceeds of crime - he would not be guilty if he benefitted unknowingly.
  10. However the Court decided this was not the case after hearing from a number of witnesses brought forward by both the prosecution and the defence.
  11. During his closing speech Crown Advocate Will Giles said

  • That a man who admits they are as "fastidious, cold and clinical" as Dawson-Ball would have never missed a detail as important as what classification the product they were selling was.
  • "This is a man who treats detail very, very seriously," he said, adding Dawson-Ball did not only work for David Noakes, but "managed [him] so the scheme could continue".
  • "David Noakes pulled the strings, and in order to pull the strings, you need people standing by, you need lieutenants. Mr Dawson-Ball was one of those people."

  1. It was made clear to the court that Noakes, was very manipulative of his staff, and had them convinced everything he said was true. The question really came down to whether Dawson-Ball was in the know along with Noakes, or was one of those "conned" by him.

  1. Previously, Dawson-Ball has also run foul of the Guernsey Financial Services Commission. In 2010 it carried out an investigation into him, and eventually sanctioned him for breaking fiduciary rules. He was banned from working in that sector for life.


The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more


View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more


Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email