Tag: ABbey Financial Solutions

RL360 and FPI – ’til death (or poverty) do us part
RL360’s acquisition of Friends Provident International may be set to ruin even more investors internationally. It will certainly increase competition with Quilter (or Skandia, or Ann Summers or whatever OMI are calling themselves this season).

The biggest question – and one which International Adviser’s Kirsten Hastings forgot to ask RL360 David Kneeshaw when she interviewed him on 16.7.2020 – is:

Why on earth RL360 wanted to buy a company which is being sued for £millions after thousands of FPI victims lost their life savings in a high-risk fund mis-selling scandal?

During the International Adviser 12-minute video, Kirsten never brought the subject up once. Forgetfulness? Deliberately avoiding the issue? FPI is being sued alongside Quilter – main sponsor of International Adviser.

Kneeshaw seemed like an amiable fellow in the interview as he proudly announced that “all good things come to those who wait” (a sentiment with which thousands of death bond investors would strongly disagree). Kneesup also proclaimed that he is glad to be able to integrate the businesses and that the marriage has produced a “good, strong, stable company”.

But the question hung in the air like a fart in an elevator: what about the £100m+ worth of high-risk funds which were “entirely inappropriate for unsophisticated investors” (International Adviser’s words – not mine). And why didn’t Kirsten mention it? And why didn’t Kneesup explain what provision he has made to compensate thousands of FPI’s victims?

Kneesup confirmed that RL360 paid £259 million for FPI (£209 million in cash and £50 million in deferred cash). So has he kept back another hundred million or so to settle FPI’s liabilities to its victims who have lost their life savings?

Victims staring financial ruin in the face will want to know why RL360 didn’t just pay – say – £159 million for FPI and keep back £100 million for the victims. Or perhaps the £50 million in “deferred cash” is being put aside for that?

Or maybe, FPI should have paid RL360 to take the company away and sort out the toxic and destructive mess which has ruined thousands of policy holders.

Kneesup went on to proclaim that the future of FPI “is secure and can carry on as normal”. Well, I bloody well hope not! “Normal” has been an absolute disaster which has resulted in a catastrophe of epic proportions. FPI was giving terms of business to hordes of unlicensed, unscrupulous, unqualified “advisers” (in reality, just bond salesmen).

These “Chiringuitos” (as the Spanish regulator refers to them in their warning about financial scams) have destroyed £ millions in their relentless quest for commission.

The deeply iniquitous practices – so enthusiastically facilitated by life offices – included charging victims fees, plus an 8% commission on the (entirely unnecessary) insurance bonds, plus further commissions on the toxic investments offered by the life offices.

Another “hot” topic that Kneesup failed to mention was how the RL360/FPI “marriage” intends to compete with Quilter in the “race to the bottom” of offshore financial services. Of course, it won’t exactly be difficult since Peter Kenny – CEO of Quilter/Ann Summers – will deal with any old “advisers”. Kenny certainly isn’t fussy: the sole director of one of his leading “clients” from 2010 to 2017 was a former prostitute and porn star (whose firm destroyed much of the £100m placed in insurance bonds and invested in structured notes).

However, I really do like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that Kneesup does have at least a few honourable intentions, here are some friendly suggestions as to how the RL360/FPI marriage could help clean up this toxic “death bond” industry:
- Don’t deal with advisory firms which don’t have a license
- Don’t deal with advisory firms which don’t have an investment license
- Don’t deal with advisory firms whose “advisers” aren’t qualified
- Don’t deal with advisory firms who have a history of investing their victims’ life savings and pensions in toxic crap (high-risk, professional-investor-only funds and structured notes)
- Don’t pay commissions – if the insurance bonds are any good, and the clients genuinely need them, the products will sell themselves
- Don’t tie investors in for fixed terms – give them the flexibility to get out whenever they want or need to
- Don’t offer investments – the industry has shown it is incapable of performing asset reviews and weeding out toxic rubbish
- Keep the fees in proportion to the fund value – allow flexibility/drawdown without unnecessary “drag” on the funds
- Only allow advisers to sell insurance bonds when they are actually needed (which is hardly ever)
But the biggest friendly suggestion of all to the amiable Mr. Kneesup with the fringe on top is:

Address the elephant in the room: pay compensation to the thousands of FPI and RL360 victims who have lost their life savings and are facing financial ruin.

In his euphoria at the completion of the acquisition of FPI, Kneesup must remember that the insurance bond is the World’s biggest cause of offshore financial crime. Insurance bonds have been ruled by the Spanish Supreme Court as being invalid for the purpose of holding investments. Virtually all insurance bonds ever sold in Spain have been done so illegally – it is a criminal offence to sell insurance bonds outside the precise stipulations of the Spanish insurance regulations in Spain.

I really hope that the elephant in the room will be dealt with. David Kneeshaw has a golden opportunity to help reform the offshore financial services industry. He can emerge from the appalling news of this marriage made in hell as a hero in shining armour – or just another sordid perpetrator of scams and financial crime. He can put Quilter’s Peter Kenny to shame, or become just as bad as him. The World will be watching. Let us hope Kneeshaw chooses wisely – and becomes “Kneesup” rather than “Kneesdown”.

A number of “advisory” firms are now facing criminal proceedings for fraud, disloyal administration and falsification of commercial documentation – all of which involved the illegal sale of Quilter, RL360 or FPI insurance bonds. Kneeshaw now has a choice: help tackle this widespread crime, or keep on facilitating it.
July 21, 2020
Ten Essential Standards For Pension Advice
Ten Essential Standards For Pension Advice:

The ongoing war against pension scammers continues with no sign that the end is near. The authorities stand idly by – facilitating mis-selling and outright fraud.

HMRC happily registers pension scam after scam after scam (followed by tax demands). Prosecutions are few and far between.

The only conclusive way to stop scammers is to ensure there are no victims for them to scam. AND the only way to do this is to educate consumers and drum the TEN STANDARDS into them.

PENSION SCAMMERS MUST BE STOPPED!

Ten Essential Standards For Pension Advice:

Do you know what a pension scammer looks like? The unfortunate answer is, he looks like any other Tom, Dick or Harry (or James, Stephen or Darren) walking down the street. Not only is he good at disguises, he also has the gift of the gab and he will have you convinced that the pension transfer he is offering you will pave the rest of your life with gold. In reality though, the gold will be short lived (or non-existent), and some or all of your fund will probably go poof! (along with the adviser).

Much as a master illusionist takes your breath away with his magic, a master scammer takes your money away with his silver tongue. You will be left wondering just how this smart-looking, sleek-talking ‘adviser’ managed to leave your pension – and probably your life – in tatters.

We have compiled a list of ten standards that EVERY firm offering pension advice should adhere to. Every qualified adviser working for an advisory firm should also be able to meet all of these standards. On Facebook recently, one reader stated: “Why would anyone respond to an unsolicited offer to manage their money from a complete stranger?” The answer is, “I don’t know, but they do!“. So, get to know a financial adviser long before you let them anywhere near your finances.

In the case of Capita Oak, for example, we saw many targeted victims who were struggling financially. So, the offer of a lump sum release and the opportunity of an investment that promised “guaranteed returns” was music to their ears.

Many of the victims didn’t stop to think; didn’t pause to ask the right questions; or do any research to make sure the pension offer came from a viable, credible, regulated firm. The victims just said “yes” as they thought the transfer would make life easier.

For example, with the awful benefit of hindsight – six years on – the Capita Oak victims are grappling with tax demands from HMRC and the possibility that the investment they are trapped in will go into liquidation. These people all wish they had stopped and thought before going ahead.

Sadly, the Capita Oak members who were defrauded by a bunch of scammers, (many of which are under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office) such as XXXX, Stuart Chapman-Clarke and Stephen Ward, are not alone. Thousands of other victims of both UK-based and offshore scams and mis-selling are facing similar regrets: these include victims of scams such as Evergreen New Zealand QROPS; Fast Pensions, Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund/STM Fidecs; Blackmore Global Fund; and Continental Wealth Management.

Mastermind serial scammer Stephen Ward has orchestrated a whole array of different scams over the last nine years. One of the biggest ones was Continental Wealth Management – a 1,000-victim scam. Ward was once a fully qualified and registered adviser and a pension trustee. He has destroyed dozens of pensions funds and thousands of victims’ lives. Yet he has never been prosecuted or forced to pay back even one penny of his victims’ losses. Only at the end of 2018 was he finally banned from being a pension trustee.

Most of the known scams used cold-calling techniques to reel in their victims. Whilst we saw a cold-calling ban on pension sales in 2019, we have already had reports that sneaky firms have changed their scripts to avoid fines. AND we are now seeing scammers focus their targets back onto expats. Which makes us worry there will be more QROPS disasters in the pipeline from now on.

Just a few minutes of research – as well as knowing the right questions to ask and understanding what standards an adviser and firm should adhere to – could have prevented past victims from losing so much of their precious pension pots. We can’t change what happened in the past – other than to take action against the scammers and negligent advisers – but we can help consumers understand what they should be looking for in an adviser:

STANDARDS ACCREDITATION CHECKLIST FOR FINANCIAL ADVISERS:
1. Proof of regulation for all services provided by the firm and individual advisers in the jurisdiction where advice is given
2. Evidence of appropriate qualifications and CPD for all advisers
3. Professional Indemnity Insurance
4. Details of how fact finds are carried out, and how clients’ risk profiles are determined and adhered to
5. Details of the firm’s compliance procedures – assuring clients of the highest possible standards
6. Clear and consistent explanation and justification of the use of insurance bonds for pensions and investments
7. Clear policy on structured notes, UCIS and in-house funds, non-standard assets and commission-paying investments
8. Full disclosure of all fees, charges and commissions on all products and services at time of sale, in writing
9. Account of how clients are updated on fund/portfolio performance
10. Evidence of customer complaints made, rejected or upheld and redress paid
If the firm you are thinking about using for your pension transfer do not adhere to all of these standards, find one that does. Your pension pot is your life savings – so don’t entrust it to any old unregulated firm or dishonest scammer. Remember, thousands of victims have already failed to ask the above ten questions – and will regret it for the rest of their lives.
March 11, 2019
No more bogus life assurance policies in Spain
The Spanish Insurance Regulator – the DGS (Dirección General de Seguros y Fondos de Pensiones) – has made a most welcome judgment. This outlaws the mis-selling of bogus life assurance policies as investment “platforms” – aka “life bonds”. Read the translated summary below.

The iniquitous practice of scamming victims into these expensive, pointless bonds – so beloved by the “chiringuitos” (scammers) on the Costa Blanca and Costa del Sol for many years – will now result in criminal convictions for the peddlers of these toxic products.

The DGS’ judgment has provided reinforcement to the earlier Spanish Supreme Court’s ruling that life assurance contracts used to hold “single-premium” investments are invalid. This heralds a huge step forward in cleaning up the filthy scams which have for so long proliferated in popular British expat communities – making the victims poor and the perpetrators rich. This evil practice came to a head when scammers Continental Wealth Management collapsed in a pile of debris in September 2017. The main perps: Darren Kirby, Dean Stogsdill, Anthony Downs, Richard Peasley, Alan Gorringe, Neil Hathaway, Antony Poole all ran for the hills. Other scammers who played supporting roles – including Stephen Ward, Martyn Ryan and Paul Clarke – slithered away quietly to ply their scams elsewhere.

The DGS ruling has opened the way for criminal prosecutions against all those at Continental Wealth Management who profited so handsomely from flogging “life bonds” by Old Mutual International (aka OMI and Royal Skandia), Generali and SEB. While it goes without saying there will be a hearty cheer about the jailing of Darren Kirby and his merry men, they will soon be joined by other individuals who have joined in the bogus life insurance fest just as enthusiastically. And, of course, the life offices – from OMI, Generali and SEB, to Friends Provident and RL360 – will be treated to a proceeds-of-crime party.

Guest of honour will, of course, be Peter Kenny of OMI. But just to make sure nobody feels left out, Hansard and Investors Trust will certainly get their invites. Maybe Wormwood Scrubs will set up their own wing for life-office scammers.

It has long seemed curious that such a delightful part of Spain as the Costa Blanca should have fostered such an evil industry. From the arch scammer himself – Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions, and his many associates including Paul Clarke who was helping him flog Ark before he joined CWM to learn to scam on a much larger scale. But anywhere along that delightful stretch of coastline running from Valencia to Alicante there are dozens of firms giving the life bond machine plenty of welly.

So popular is the use of life bonds among the seedier sector of the financial services industry, that multi-national firm Blevins Franks have their own their “exclusive” offering of bogus Lombard bonds. And you can see why: these scammers earn 8% from flogging these bogus life assurance policies. That’s 8% for doing nothing – and for trapping their victims into paying back this commission over up to ten years. Often long after the victims have worked out that the bond serves no purpose except to prevent the funds from ever growing.

The victims themselves – hundreds of which lost most (or in some cases all) of their life savings to Continental Wealth Management – will indeed see the DGS’ ruling as wonderful news. They will certainly celebrate the fact that justice has at last prevailed and that the law in Spain has made it clear that selling life assurance policies the traditional scamming way is illegal.

Continental Wealth Management (CWM – “sister company” to Stephen Ward’s Premier Pension Solutions) was set up initially to provide the cold calling and lead generation services to support Ward’s many scams – including the Evergreen (New Zealand) QROPS scam. Evergreen was swiftly followed by the Capita Oak and Westminster scams (now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office). Unregulated, and staffed by unqualified salesmen who took it in turns to sport grand titles such as “Managing Director” and “Investment Director”, most of these spivs had been car salesmen or estate agents before flogging QROPS and life assurance contracts used to hold the toxic structured notes which destroyed so many millions of pounds’ worth of the victims’ life savings. Many of these bonds were supplied by Old Mutual International, who despite the huge losses on the funds, continued to take their fees monthly.

Back in April 2018, OMI and the IOM were defeated by Spanish courts ruling that the jurisdiction in litigation against them for facilitating financial crime should be in Spain. This was a welcomed victory for the victims in the face of so much corruption and fraud in Spain for many years. It is certainly a turning point in the quest for justice by the thousands of victims of scammers such as Continental Wealth Management and life offices such as Old Mutual International, Generali and SEB.

I will be writing to all advisory firms who are selling life bonds to victims in Spain to advise them that this is now a criminal matter and to warn them that they will be reported to the DGS.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Madrid, 10 January 2019

General Directorate of Insurance and Pension Funds (DGS)

Complaints service file number 268/2016

COMPLAINT BY A CONTINENTAL WEALTH CLIENT IN RESPECT OF HEAVY LOSSES INCURRED ON HIS PENSION TRANSFERRED TO A BOURSE QROPS AND PLACED IN A GENERALI INSURANCE BOND.

The Directorate General of Insurance and Pension Funds is competent under the powers conferred on it by Article 46 of Law 26/2006 of 17 July, on the mediation of private insurance and reinsurance, to examine the claim formulated for the purpose of determining non-compliance with current regulations on the mediation of private insurance and reinsurance, and whether this is decisive for the adoption of any of the relevant administrative control measures, particularly those of administrative sanction, which contravene the aforementioned Law.

Article 6 of Law 26/2006, of 17 July, on private insurance and reinsurance mediation, which regulates the general obligations of insurance intermediaries, states:

“Insurance intermediaries shall provide truthful and sufficient information in the promotion, supply and underwriting of insurance contracts, and, in general, in all their advisory activity….”

Article 26 paragraphs 2 and 3 of Law 26/2006, of 17 July, on private insurance and reinsurance mediation, which refers to insurance brokers, establishes the following:

“Insurance brokers must inform the person who tries to take out the insurance about the conditions of the contract which, in their opinion, it is appropriate to take out and offer the cover which, according to their professional criteria, is best adapted to the needs of the former. The broker must ensure the client’s requirements will be met effectively by the insurance policy.”

Article 42 of the Private Insurance and Reinsurance Mediation Act, which refers to the information to be provided by the insurance intermediary prior to the conclusion of an insurance contract, provides:

“Before an insurance contract is concluded, the insurance intermediary must, as a minimum, provide the customer with the following information:
1. a) The broker’s identity and address.
2. b) The Register in which the broker is registered, as well as the means of verifying such registration.”
Insurance agents must inform the customer of the names of the insurance companies with which they can carry out the mediation activity in the insurance product offered.

In order for the client to be able to exercise the right to information about the insurance entities for which they mediate, insurance agents must notify the client of the right to request such information.

Banking and insurance operators, in addition to the provisions of the previous letter, must inform their clients that the advice given is provided for the purpose of taking out an insurance policy and not any other product that the credit institution may market.

Insurance brokers must inform the client that they provide advice in accordance with the following obligations:

“Insurance brokers are obliged to carry out and provide (to the customer) an objective analysis on the basis of a comparison of a sufficient number of insurance contracts offered on the market for the risks to be covered. Brokers must do this so that they can formulate an objective recommendation.”

On the basis of information provided by the customer, insurance intermediaries shall specify the requirements and needs of the customer, as well as the reasons justifying any advice they may have given on a particular insurance. The intermediary must answer all questions raised by the client regarding the function and complexity of the proposed insurance contract.

All intermediaries operating in Spain must comply with the rules laid down for reasons of general interest and the applicable rules on the protection of the insured, in accordance with the provisions of Article 65 of the Law on the Mediation of Private Insurance and Reinsurance.

Every insurance intermediary is obliged, before the conclusion of the insurance contract, to provide full disclosure. In the event that a mediator was an Insurance Broker or independent mediator, he is also obliged to give advice in accordance with the obligation to carry out an objective analysis. This must be provided on the basis of the analysis of a sufficient number of insurance contracts offered on the market for the risks to be covered. The mediator can then formulate a recommendation, using professional criteria, in respect of the insurance contract that would be appropriate to the needs of the client.

In the case in question, there is no evidence that the aforementioned information was provided to the client before the investment product was contracted. Therefore, Article 42 of the regulations has been breached.

Therefore, this Claims Service concludes that the mediator must justify the information and prior advice given to his client, so that the obligations imposed by the Law of Mediation can be understood to be fulfilled with the aim of protecting the insured. Failure to comply with their obligations could be considered as one of the causes of the damage that would have occurred to their client.

The claim is understood to be founded. In the opinion of this Claims Service, the mediating entity has committed a breach of the regulations regulating the mediation activity – specifically of the provisions of articles 6 and 42 of Law 26/2006 of Mediation of Private Insurance and Reinsurance.

The DGS requires the mediating entity to account to this Service, within a period of one month from the notification of this report, for the decision adopted in view of it, for the purposes of exercising the powers of surveillance and control that are the responsibility of the Ministry of Economy and Enterprise.

The interested parties are informed that there is no appeal to this judgment. Both the claimant and the mediating entity are made aware of their right to resort to the Courts of Justice to resolve any differences that may arise between them regarding the interpretation and compliance with the regulations in force regarding the mediation of private insurance and reinsurance, in accordance with the provisions of articles 24 and 117 of the Constitution.

Chief Inspector of Unit

Ministry of Economy and Enterprise

Secretary of State for the Economy and Business Support
February 17, 2019
NOVIA GLOBAL VS OLD MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL

The problem with money is that it blows away if you don’t hold it down, tie it up or stuff it down your knickers. That’s why you need to put it somewhere safe: in a shoe box on top of the wardrobe; under your mattress; in the safe or – if you’re feeling really brave – in the bank. Trouble is, left in cash, money shrinks (inflation, charges, moths). This is why so many advisers recommend a platform – aka “somewhere safe” to keep your money.

So, let’s look at two possible alternatives: the Novia Global platform and the Old Mutual International “bond”.

I’ve met Bill Vasilieff who runs Novia Global. He serves Earl Grey and nice biscuits. A man of few words, and even fewer syllables, he gave me a quick rundown on how the Novia Global platform works – and how much it costs.

I haven’t met Peter Kenny of Old Mutual International (OMI) – although I have spoken to him several times. As broadly Irish as Bill is Scottish, Peter Kenny also comes across as a softly-spoken and sincere chap. But there the similarity seems to end. Peter stood me up – I got a view of his office waiting room but wasn’t offered a cup of tea (let alone a biscuit).

Mind you, there isn’t much I don’t know about the Old Mutual International bonds. I’ve seen thousands of their policyholders’ statements – and they are frighteningly ugly and depressing. They accurately, faithfully and unemotionally report the destruction of their victims’ atrocious losses. And OMI regularly (like clockwork!) take their quarterly fees – irrespective of how deep the destruction of the policyholders’ funds is. In fact, some victims even find themselves in negative figures as OMI continue to account for their fees long after the whole blooming lot has gone.

Anyway, back to Bill and his welcoming teapot….I can’t really compare him to Pete but I can compare the two products. So here is a brief and brutal side-by-side line up of what the two “platforms” offer. And how much they cost. And how difficult they are to get out of. And how much financial crime they are associated with.

So the OMI “life bond” costs almost six times as much as the Novia Global platform. But that is if you are locked in for five years. You can get it cheaper – 1.15% – if you get locked in for ten years. But you must remember that if you are scammed, then OMI will have paid the scammer an 8% commission and you could get stuck with paying the quarterly fees for the next ten years, even if you’ve figured out you’ve been scammed. And the quarterly fees are based on your original investment – not on the impaired amount. If you’ve been scammed, and your fund value drops inexorably, the 1.15% will become bigger and bigger. And even if you lose your whole fund, OMI will keep taking their charges and pushing you further and further into debt.

A bit like the lyrics to Hotel California, with an OMI “bond”, you can’t check out any time you want, and you can only leave after between five and ten years. OMI will take that number of years to claw back the commission paid to your adviser – even if you have long since learned that your adviser was an unregulated scammer and has conned you into unsuitable, high-risk, high-commission investments that have badly damaged your fund. You are stuck with paying the quarterly fees to OMI – even after your whole fund has gone. One victim went from plus £300k to minus £25k – and counting. As your funds inside the OMI bond shrink, the 1.15% grows and helps destroy what is left of your fund even faster. But with the Novia Global platform, you can leave any time you want. No exit penalties. No hard feelings.

In Spain, the Supreme Court has ruled that bogus life assurance policies – such as those provided by Old Mutual International – used to hold investments are illegal. This is because they are neither proper insurance policies (which take risk in the interests of the consumer) nor are they proper investment platforms. The Spanish aren’t stupid – they can spot a scam much more easily than other jurisdictions and take action to prevent them from ruining future victims. This is in stark contrast to the likes of the Isle of Man and Gibraltar – which seem to revel in encouraging scams and protecting firms such as Old Mutual International (and STM Group) which facilitate financial crime on a massive scale.

January 30, 2019
OMI AND IOM DEFEATED BY SPANISH COURT

One small stumble for the Isle of Man – one giant leap for victims of OMI and CWM.

We never thought the litigation against the scourge of financial services – the insurance giant Old Mutual International – was going to be easy. And we knew these negligent and greedy firms would try every trick in the book to get off the hook for betraying so many innocent victims.

In the case of a claim by two victims of Abbey Financial Solutions (based in Spain) and OMI, represented by Antonio Flores of Lawbird, OMI tried to contest the established jurisdiction of Spain on the basis that it should be the Isle of Man. A judge in the IoM ruled that jurisdiction should indeed be IoM (I’m in danger of getting my acronyms muddled up if I don’t concentrate hard while writing this). This judge also threatened the claimants and Antonio Flores with prison if they tried to bring the case in any other jurisdiction other than IoM.

However, undeterred and not prepared to bow to bullying by either the IoM court or the giant insurance scammer OMI, Antonio Flores went ahead and referred the jurisdiction matter to a Spanish court. And now jurisdiction is established, by an EU State (which IoM is not), that jurisdiction should be Spain.

This is a major victory not only for the two claimants who were victims of financial loss at the hands of Abbey Financial Solutions and OMI, but also for Lawbird – as a firm which is prepared to stand up for justice and decency. This also signals an important precedent for the hundreds of victims of Continental Wealth Management (CWM) who have, between them, lost many £ millions of their retirement savings.

This legal precedent will also work for the other two insurance giants who were equally culpable: SEB and Generali. And also means that the CWM victims now have an even greater chance of success.

OMI might, of course, appeal this decision and throw more money from their deep pockets at trying to wriggle out of their clear and indisputable negligence and culpability. And I would not be surprised if they did so. The reason they are so desperate to get these proceedings out of Spain is that the Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that life assurance policies should not be used to hold investments. The reason given by the court was that this practice goes against the actuarial nature of insurance. However, natural justice will also support the fact that these life assurance policies – or wrappers – have for many years routinely been used and abused by scammers across the globe to give unlicensed investment advice, sell unsuitable investments and earn huge commissions.

If OMI does try to appeal against the Spanish court’s ruling that jurisdiction should be Spain, there will obviously be a public outcry. OMI has already acknowledged publicly that the CWM scam was exacerbated by the Leonteq structured note scam.

OMI cannot now try to cherry pick which bits of the scam should be brought to justice and which should be let off. OMI was in it with Leonteq – and idly sat by as the Leonteq notes failed and victims lost anything up to 100% of their funds due to the very high-risk nature of these toxic derivative investment products (which, in reality amount to nothing more than gambling).

The World will now be watching OMI’s every move. I doubt that either the public, the regulators or the industry will tolerate any hypocrisy on the part of OMI. Further, I doubt that the IoM’s reputation as a global financial centre will ever recover from this astonishing and indefensible conduct. The IoM is already ranked 57 in the World (well over halfway down) as a “safe” financial jurisdiction – after Mauritius, Monaco and Bahrain (and only just ahead of the Bahamas and the British Virgin Islands). But now, I reckon it will continue its inexorable downward trend and end up at the bottom of the charts below Almaty, Baku and Dalian.

Or maybe it will disappear altogether – and some good Samaritan will tow it out into the Atlantic for hosting and harbouring so many scams and scammers in recent years.

The details of the case are set out below – translated from the original court rulings in Spanish.

REPORT AND BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL BY OMI TO HAVE JURISDICTION ESTABLISHED AS IoM (comments in brackets are mine)

A judge threatens to imprison an expatriate couple who are suing on the Costa del Sol to recover a failed investment (with Abbey Financial Solutions and Old Mutual International). The threat may extend to associated lawyers and court personnel

The Isle of Man is a small offshore territory between Ireland and England (and with which, now, neither will want to be associated). It does not belong to the EU (phew), but it does belong to the United Kingdom (not for long, hopefully), which provides it with a defense and foreign policy (but no guidance on avoiding scams and scammers). Despite having only 75,000 inhabitants, it has shown pride (in hosting so many financial scammers?).

One IoM judge has threatened a group of British pensioners who are suing in Marbella against one of its companies, Old Mutual Isle of Man, which they accuse of cheating them out of a complex financial product – (yet another one) – sold to British pensioners on the Costa del Sol. According to the judge, if the claimants continue to move forward in Spain, they face prison terms or the seizure of their property in the UK, as do their lawyers, “helpers” and even court staff.

The Costa del Sol is a British scam paradise. Tens of thousands of expatriates live in this “bubble”, without knowing the Spanish language or laws, and often trust their compatriots and their financial products (fearing that Spanish advisers might, somehow, “mislead them” because of the language barrier?). Some have suffered the rigours of the Spanish picket fence, others took out reverse mortgages with Rothschild who ended up in court and others left their savings in the hands of Naughty Nigel, a rogue poker player who claimed to invest in the stock market. There are countless examples.

Others invested in Old Mutual, Isle of Man, (now known as “Quilter” an insurance company that sold them a complex financial product from IoM, an offshore territory with thousands of advisory companies (selling the company’s pointless insurance bonds). When the investments went wrong, they turned to the Spanish courts, which have condemned rogue banks and financial scammers to pay redress for the money lost.

This was done by a couple of expatriates, a journalist and a physiotherapist, based in Marbella. On July 31st 2017, they filed a lawsuit against Old Mutual for the annulment of their life insurance policy in a court of law in Marbella. Their lawyer, Juan Martínez Soler, of Lawbird in Marbella, argued that the Isle of Man is not an EU territory and that although the contract stipulated that the differences would be settled there, this clause is null and void, as are so many such abusive contracts (of insurance policies used to hold investments invalidly).

In the complaint, the two claimants argued that Old Mutual was never authorised to operate as an insurance agent in Spain despite the fact that it offered their insurance products from an office in Marbella through (unlicensed) intermediaries such as the AFS (Abbey Financial Solutions) Europe Alliance. According to the claim: ‘the information available to the public concerning the authorisation to operate in Spain is false’. The AFS Europe Alliance “advisory” firm, which marketed the insurance products, is registered as an advertising company (on the Spanish Mercantile Registry), but neither the CNMV (investment regulator in Spain) nor the Directorate General for Insurance (insurance regulator in Spain) was aware of them.

In 2011 the claimants had taken out a policy called an ‘executive investment bond’: a life policy in which, upon the death of the insureds, the beneficiaries of the insurance receive the investment plus 1%. In total, they invested £688,000 (about 780,000 euros), out of which they lost £198,000 (207,000 euros). In the lawsuit, the investors argued that it was irrelevant how Old Mutual lost the money – as that would be “like trying to establish the malpractice of a fake surgeon” – but that OMI did not have any license to operate in Spain. They claim that the contract was abusive by imposing a judge on the Isle of Man and not in Marbella (Spain) to settle disputes.

In addition, Spanish insurance law establishes that “contracts made by unregistered entities, such as Old Mutual in Spain, shall be null and void”. The Marbella courthouse admitted the claim and began the slow process of these proceedings. So far, it would be just (yet) another case of British people claiming money lost on the Costa del Sol in strange ‘offshore’ investments (there are Danish banks and Gibraltar-based companies in similar lawsuits).

Insurance law in Spain provides that ‘contracts made by unlicensed entities shall be null and void’.

But last January there was an unexpected turn of events. Old Mutual filed its own motion in an Isle of Man court to stay the proceedings in Spain. And the IoM court found in OMI’s favour (surprise surprise!). On 31 January 2018, the Isle of Man High Court issued a criminal notice warning the couple (claimants) that if they pursued their case in Spain, they could be convicted of “contempt”, and risk imprisonment, fines or having their property seized.

Not only that, but the judge warned that the same could happen to “anyone else who knows about this order and helps the plaintiffs”. Ultimately, this even applied to Spanish justice personnel. “It’s absurd, the Isle of Man threatening the Spanish court with criminal prosecution. It’s unprecedented,” explained Antonio Flores, director of Lawbird. The court in Marbella is now analysing the jurisdiction of the case.

A spokesman for Old Mutual said by email that they are not trying to dissuade anyone from the lawsuit, but that it should take place in the Isle of Man: “Old Mutual International is not trying to stop the lawsuits from going on. The trial only affects where the lawsuit should be heard, and the Isle of Man high court has ordered it to be on the Isle of Man. Any further issue arises from the continued refusal to comply with a Supreme Court order. This rejection is regrettable, but it has nothing to do with Old Mutual International.”

But then, on 23^rd April 2018, the news was announced of a Spanish Court’s contrary ruling that the jurisdiction should, indeed, be Spain:

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE NO. 8 OF MARBELLA
5 DOHA STREET
Tlf.: 952913282-952913278. Fax: 951891378
NIG: 2906942C20170005505
Procedure: Ordinary Procedure 624/2017. Negotiated: 06
From: D/ña. XXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX
Procurator Sr./a.JUAN CARLOS PALMA DIAZ
Counsel Mr./A.ANTONIO FLORES VILA

Against D/ña.AFS EUROPE ALLIANCE SL and OLD MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL ISLE
OF MAN LIMITED
Procurator Sr./a.DAVID SARRIA RODRIGUEZ and JOSE MANUEL ROSA SANCHEZ
Counsel Mr./A.ENRIQUE RAMON BARRERA GOMEZ and FRANCISCO MANUEL
OSOBLIWA

In MARBELLA, on April 17, 2.018
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
FIRST: For the procedural representation of the defendant entity Old Mutual International Isle of Man Limited has filed a pleading of objection to jurisdiction on the understanding that knowledge of the case is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals of the Isle of Man.

SECOND: The objection was accepted for processing and was deferred for a period of five days – after which the plaintiff’s case was upheld and the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts was established.

LEGAL GROUNDS

FIRST: one of the defendants, AFS Europe Alliance, S.L., has its address and social security in Spain, so that Article 22b(1) of the LOPJ would apply, and which would apply to all grants of jurisdiction to the Spanish courts when the defendant is domiciled in Spain. For this reason, there being a co-defendant, the Organic Law of The Judicial Branch grants jurisdiction to the Spanish courts, and the plaintiff may choose, in the case of several co-defendants, the jurisdiction of any one of them.

With regard to the express submission invoked by the co-defendant to the courts – Isle of Man General Consumer Protection Act, Section 90.3 – the clauses that establish the express submission to judge or court were ruled as being abusive.

A copy of this ruling can be viewed online: https://ws121.juntadeandalucia.es/verifirmav2/

This document incorporates a recognized electronic signature in accordance with Law 59/2003, of 19 December, on electronic signatures.

SIGNED BY ROSA MARIA FERNANDEZ LABELLA 18/04/2018 10:03:06

SIGNED BY DIONISIO CARRILLO FUILLERAT 18/04/2018 14:11:55
The place of domicile of the claimants or the place of performance of the obligation is an
invalid clause in application of consumer law and cannot therefore be regarded as
needing to be taken into account in determining the jurisdiction of the Isle of Man courts.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for costs as soon as the articles governing the dismissal (of OMI’s case) do not provide for a decision on costs.

RULING:

The court declares the jurisdiction of the Spanish Courts to hear the case of the present suit.
An appeal for reversal may be brought against this order.

Rosa Fernández Labella, Magistrate Judge of the Court of Justice of the Court of First Instance No. 8 in Marbella.

April 24, 2018