Tag: Angie Brooks

OMI SUES LEONTEQ over undisclosed commissions

A fine journalist at International Investment reports that Old Mutual International is taking legal action against Leonteq. She reports that this action is being taken on the basis that Leonteq lied about commissions paid to advisers for using high-risk structured notes.

This news is, of course, very welcome news – especially if it succeeds in securing redress for the “significant financial losses” for the Continental Wealth Management victims. OMI has stated:

“Had the true level of commission been disclosed, the high-risk structured notes would not have passed Old Mutual International’s (OMI) criteria, and no investments would have been made”.

OMI has mentioned the “true level of commission”. What it is referring to is the fact that for some particularly toxic notes, the commission paid to the scammers was 8% instead of 6%. The victims ultimately pay this commission – which is always hidden from them – but in reality the difference between 8% and 6% pales into insignificance when compared to the actual losses themselves.

Leonteq’s high-risk structured notes had been failing and causing crippling losses for years. Just as RBC’s, Commerzbank’s and Nomura’s had also done. One victim saw his £38,000 pension pot dwindle down to £800 since 2015.

The truth of the matter is the none of the victims should have had any of their retirement savings invested in high-risk structured notes which clearly state on the term sheets:

FOR PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS ONLY

Continental Wealth Management – an unlicensed firm of scammers – bought more and more structured notes. CWM was not licensed for either insurance or investment advice.

But this raises an important question:

Why aren’t SEB and Generali suing Leonteq?

The SEB and Generali victims suffered very similar crippling losses to OMI’s. What are they doing about this fiasco? What would their “criteria” have done to intervene had they realised Leonteq was paying the scammers 8% instead of 6%?

Apparently, Leonteq is now disclosing commissions on the term sheets for their products. Great. Problem is that the victims never get to see the term sheets – or at least not until it is way too late and they have lost half of their life savings. Having had access to a Leonteq termsheet which clearly states:

This Product may only be sold to qualified investors (the term “qualified investor” has the meaning as defined in Section 10 of the Swiss Federal Act on Collective Investment Schemes “CISA”).

and

Given the complexity of the terms and conditions of this Product an investment is suitable only for experienced Investors who understand and are in a position to evaluate the risks associated with it.

But even if the victims had seen these warning and the fact that they were paying 6% or 8% – on high-risk structured notes – to have their fund systematically destroyed, what could these people have done about it? Because, at the end of the day, the client is not the client (apparently). The client is the life office. OMI, SEB and Generali are the legal owners of these dodgy structured notes. Or perhaps the trustee is the legal owner? Depends on who you ask and why – the answer is always different.

Fortunately for OMI clients – the MD of OMI – Peter Kenny – has said the company is “taking a firm stand against the behavior which has led to such devastating consequences”.

Kenny goes on to say that OMI “will do all that we can to bring to account those responsible.” And is “encouraging all market participants to help rid the industry of inappropriate structured products, which are having a damaging impact on investor confidence and outcomes”.

The International Investment journalist ends her article with Kenny’s parting comment:

“I would encourage all industry participants to work together to eradicate poor practices once and for all.”

For some, however, the damage has already been done.

A life’s worth of savings has already been destroyed.

******************************************

As always, Pension Life would like to remind you that if you are planning to transfer any pension funds, make sure that you are transferring into a legitimate scheme. To find out how to avoid being scammed, please see our blog:

What is a pension scam?

FOLLOW PENSION LIFE ON TWITTER TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THINGS PENSION RELATED, GOOD AND BAD.

April 12, 2018
EVERGREEN RETIREMENT TRUST QROPS SCAM

EVERGREEN RETIREMENT TRUST QROPS SCAM – HOW DID IT ALL WORK?

Victims were cold called by Continental Wealth Management (CWM) and duped into transferring their UK pensions into the Evergreen New Zealand QROPS on the promise that they could access 50% of their pension. CWM acted as the “sister” company to Stephen Ward’s Premier Pension Solutions (PPS).

Once the 300+ victims had been sold this idea – on the promise by pensions “expert” Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions that the 50% in cash would not be taxable – the transfers went ahead. More than £10 million pounds’ worth.

CWM assured the victims that the 50% cash would not be taxable because the scheme was set up and run by international pensions expert and author of the Tolleys Pensions Taxation manual Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions.

Once the transfer had gone ahead, and the victims were eagerly awaiting their 50% in cash (albeit having to pay 10% in fees for the privilege), they then started to chase up their cash. There were delays after delays.

After many weeks of frustration, the victims were then told they had to apply for a loan. They were told that this was merely a formality – paperwork to ensure that the cash would not be taxable by HMRC. And they were sent loan application forms from a company called Marazion – Stephen Ward’s company in Cyprus.

Victims were then forced to sign a five-year Marazion loan agreement. And forced to sign a five-year Evergreen “lock in”. Clearly, this was designed to stop victims from transferring out of Evergreen before their Marazion “loans” were paid off.

Evergreen recently sent out a notice to victims advising them the Evergreen Scheme is being wound up. (Surprise surprise!!). Here is the Evergreen notice with my comments in bold:

Evergreen Retirement Trust – closure and winding up

We are writing to inform you that the Evergreen Retirement Trust (“ERT”) is being closed and wound up with effect from Friday, 6 April 2018. So why, just days earlier, were you writing to victims to tell them could take their 30% tax-free lump sum and transfer out? You knew this day and the winding up would eventually take place – and why as well as when. And yet you have misled and distressed a large number of your victims knowingly and intentionally.

Why is ERT being wound up? We all know exactly why ERT is being wound up. HMRC realised that the scheme was operating pension liberation fraud in partnership with Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions early on – in 2012 – so removed it from the QROPS list in November 2012. Your Manager’s Report for the year ended 31.3.16 refers to “concerns raised by HMRC” but you do not disclose the fact that you had been caught and the scheme removed from the QROPS list as a result. The other reason the fund is being wound up is that you have run out of excuses now the five-year lock-in period is up. In your Manager’s Report, you claim that service contracts were entered into by Evergreen Retirement Trust for admin, trustee and other services which have minimum fixed fees. But you have never provided evidence of these alleged “contracts” – nor have you explained why you have carried on paying these unaffordable costs. You have been trying to obscure the fact that 41% of the underlying assets of the fund were in Penrich and Spectrum and that this is where the loan funds came from. You have for years tried to pretend that you knew nothing about the Marazion loans. But the original trustee – Perpetual Trust – even had a virtually identical logo to Marazion!

We have been considering the future of ERT for some time. Despite our best efforts, ERT has not been as successful as we had originally hoped. This is the understatement of the century surely? Best efforts? I would really hate to see your worst efforts. You’ve spent the last five years telling members they can’t transfer out because of the five-year term Marazion loans – and knowing all along that you were always going to wind the scheme up because there was nothing to be done about at least 41% of the scheme being in illegal loans using Penrich and Spectrum funds – the underlying assets of the scheme.

The main reasons for this have been the inability to attract new membership into ERT and the increased compliance costs arising from transition to the new, more rigorous, Financial Markets Conduct Act regulatory framework that now applies to it. And what exactly did the “more rigorous regulatory framework” say about the scheme operating pension liberation fraud as part of the scheme?

Although we explored a number of avenues to resolve these issues, we ultimately determined that it would be in members’ best interests for ERT to be wound up and the scheme brought to a close. What would have been in the members’ best interests would have been to allow the members to transfer out several years ago when we first asked Evergreen for transfers. It is clear from your own accounts that you have indeed allowed 10 people to transfer out £500k worth of funds last year – presumably these were people without Marazion loans?

What happens next? Until 6 April 2018, ERT will continue as normal and you will have the same rights and benefits as before. On and from 6 April 2018, the assets in your member account will be realised and the proceeds paid into your nominated bank account after the deduction of applicable fees, expenses and any taxes in respect of the winding up process. So for people under the age of 55, you are proposing triggering an unauthorised payment which would be taxed at 55% by HMRC? Unbelievable.

A final set of scheme financial statements will be prepared, audited and sent to all members, and the relevant regulatory notifications will be filed. So how are you going to account for the Marazion loans? You must surely realise that this is a huge problem and you can’t just keep ignoring it and pretending you weren’t involved in this aspect of the scam.

To allow this process to occur in an orderly fashion, members will not be able to request transfers (except as set out below) or make further contributions, and benefit payments will be put on hold pending the final distribution of wind up proceeds. So how are you going to account for the Marazion loans? How will these be factored into the wind-up proceeds?

Some of the scheme’s assets are illiquid and as a consequence the winding up process could take some time. Why on earth are any of the assets illiquid? No pension scheme assets should be illiquid. You have been dealing with this matter for more than five years and you always knew that there was a purported five-year lock-in, timed to coincide with the five-year term of the Marazion loans. So why on earth invest in illiquid assets?

Based on current market conditions, we expect the winding-up process to be fully completed and a final distribution to be made around December 2019. So what you are saying is that you never intended to honour the five-year lock-in in the first place. You wanted a seven-year lock-in so that you could continue to hide the Marazion loans.

Prior to the final distribution of wind up proceeds, partial distributions may be made as assets are realised, provision for anticipated costs are made and as such funds become available to make those partial distributions. In 2016 you purchased £5.87 million worth of assets. Why – in the full knowledge that you were going to wind the fund up a couple of years later – did you buy illiquid assets?

What are my options? Unless you advise us otherwise by 6 June 2018, you will receive your winding up proceeds in cash to the bank account nominated in accordance with the requirements noted below once the winding up process above has been completed. For members under the age of 55, you cannot do this as it will trigger an unauthorised payment and the victims will get taxed at 55%.

For members who have not been tax resident outside the UK for five clear and consecutive UK tax years, receiving winding up proceeds in cash could have adverse UK tax consequences. We are therefore offering members the option of having their winding up proceeds transferred to another QROPS or registered UK pension scheme instead of being paid directly in cash. But you are asking other trustees to accept in specie transfers of unknown provenance (by your own admission at least half of the fund is illiquid) and with at least 40% of the fund subject to a fund which provided the Marazion loans.

These members are strongly encouraged to obtain professional tax advice from an independent and qualified UK tax adviser before making any decision. Of course they do – including tax advice on the 50% Marazion “loans” which you facilitated and of which you have always been not only aware but in which you have been complicit.

If you wish to have wind-up proceeds transferred to another scheme you will need to provide us with notification by 6 June 2018. And which “other scheme” is going to accept illiquid – possibly toxic – assets bought by a clearly inept and irresponsible trustee which has also facilitated pension liberation? Any members with a Marazion loan will be deemed to be “high risk” by any new pension trustee and a mechanism for repayment of the loan will need to be put in place.

Please note that transfer of the assets will occur over time, in line with the distribution of the funds to other members. What do I need to do? If you have been tax resident outside the UK for five or more clear and consecutive tax years then all you need to do is provide us with updated proof of identity and address documentation together with official bank documentation evidencing a nominated bank account held in your name (see the Appendix to this letter for more details about this requirement). But that only applies to those over the age of 55 and without a Marazion loan presumably?

Once that documentation has been provided, you will receive your winding up proceeds into your nominated bank account as funds become available through the winding up process. You will also receive copies of the final audited financial statements in due course. Do you mean once you have figured out how to account for the Marazion loans funded by Penrich and Spectrum?

If you have not been tax resident outside the UK for five complete and consecutive UK years, we strongly encourage you to seek professional tax advice from an independent qualified UK tax adviser. You should then advise us whether you wish to receive your winding up proceeds in cash, or transfer your member account to another QROPS or registered UK pension scheme. So what are you going to do if no trustee will accept an in specie transfer and the members are under the age of 55?

If you still wish to receive your proceeds in cash, you will need to provide us with the documentation (including official bank documentation evidencing a nominated bank account held in your name) referred to in the previous paragraph. In either case, if you wish to transfer your member account to another QROPS or registered UK pension scheme, please advise us before 6 June 2018 and we will send you the relevant transfer forms. It is now clear, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you must immediately account for the Marazion loans and show how these are accounted for in the scheme accounts. You have avoided this question for several years and now is the time finally to come clean.

If the trustee of the other scheme agrees, a proportion of your transfer to that scheme might comprise a transfer of underlying investments of ERT, as well as cash. I doubt any receiving scheme will be thrilled at the thought of accepting any of ERT’s underlying investments in the full knowledge that approaching 50% of the original transfers were given out in fraudulent “loans”.

Please be aware that all payments made out of the scheme, including in the winding up process, are required to be reported to HM Revenue & Customs.

Who should I contact with questions? If you have any questions about the winding up process, you can contact our customer services team by email at transfers@evergreentrust.co.nz, by telephone on +64 3 974 1505 or by post to PO Box 36270, Merivale, Christchurch 8146. Please note that we do not provide financial advice or tax advice. Yours sincerely, The Directors Evergreen Capital Partners Limited So, will Evergreen finally answer the questions about the Marazion loans? Fully and transparently? I doubt it. And I would like to remind Evergreen that scammers are criminals.

April 11, 2018
BLACKMORE BOND – SHAKEN OR STIRRED – CARELESS OR STUPID?

In the wake of hundreds of victims fearing heavy pension losses in the Blackmore Global fund, we now have another disaster waiting to happen: Blackmore Bond.

This new threat to unwary investors has been analysed by Bond Review. Just to be clear, many people were duped into investing their pensions in the Blackmore Global UCIS fund – which has never published an independent audit. We now have a second threat offered by Phillip Nunn and Patrick McCreesh. Blackmore Bond PLC is promoting these unregulated, capital-at-risk bonds which purport to pay up to 8.5% per annum – but with potential for total loss. How many more people will this high-risk bond ruin financially?

BLACKMORE BOND – SHAKEN OR STIRRED – CARELESS OR STUPID?

Bond Review raises an intriguing question: how come Paul Careless and Surge Group have got involved with Nunn and McCreesh? Unless he has been careless (pun intended), Careless looks to have an unblemished past and Surge (in Brighton) looks to be a bona fide company.

In 2017, Careless’ company Surge Group offered £3,000 in sponsorship to the Kent Police rugby team. This was accepted, but then he tried to change the sponsor from Surge Group to Blackmore Bond. And Blackmore Global started claiming on their website to be “Proud supporters of Kent Police Rugby Team”. So why would Careless – himself an ex-police officer – try to con the police and also get into bed with Nunn and McCreesh?

Let us just remind ourselves that Messrs Nunn and McCreesh were the cold callers/lead generators in the Capita Oak and Henley Retirement Benefits scams which are now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. Nunn and McCreesh scammed/attempted to scam up to 300 victims a month for more than two years. Unsurprisingly, Kent Police declined the toxic offer to have any association between a law-enforcement agency and known scammers.

But here’s another puzzle: a geezer called Kenneth “Buzz” West also appears at first glance to be relatively harmless. He is a director of numerous companies – including European Wealth. The only stain on his reputation that I can find is that his former company, Ashcourt Rowan, was fined £412k by the FSA in 2012 for dodgy investments in his other company: Savoy Group. But Ashcourt Rowan held its hands up and paid the fine.

So why on earth would “Buzz” risk getting tangled up with Nunn and McCreesh? Buzz is now Chairman of two of their companies: Blackmore Group and Blackmore Bond. Unless his brains are shaken as well as stirred, he is committing professional suicide – knowingly and deliberately.

Or perhaps I am being too harsh. Maybe he has taken on the role of Chairman so that he can ensure that Blackmore Bond does not sell any toxic, high-risk products to low-risk victims; and also so that he can get the long-overdue Blackmore Global fund audit done. Maybe he also has plans to get the Blackmore Global victims compensated for their losses and distress suffered in the past couple of years.

We need to be very clear about Blackmore Global: it is a UCIS fund that was illegally promoted to retail investors in the UK and which unregulated David Vilka of Square Mile International was flogging to UK victims in the Hong Kong QROPS scam. This accounted for 64 victims with a combined transfer value of £1.6 million – all introduced by cold-calling firm Aspinall Chase – run by Nunn and McCreesh.

According to Companies House, Kenneth Buzz West is a Cypriot and resides in Cyprus.

It just so happens that I am going to Cyprus in a couple of weeks – so hopefully he will invite me for a wee drop of Zivania and Halloumi on toast. And once our whistles are whetted, we can discuss the Blackmore Global audit and compensation.

March 31, 2018
EVERGREEN – HARD-TO-SWALLOW, EVER-GRIM QROPS SCAM

EVERGREEN – HARD-TO-SWALLOW, EVER-GRIM QROPS

Why hard to swallow? Around 300 victims of this pension liberation scam are anxiously waiting to see whether they can ever get any of their fund out – and whether there is anything left of the original £10 million. A few victims have got out successfully over the past few years – but only those who did not have Stephen Ward’s 50% Marazion loans.

The 300 victims – most of whom were cold-called by Premier Pension Solutions’ “sister” company, Continental Wealth Management – have waited for an agonising five or six years to see whether they will ever see a penny out of their original retirement savings. For some (those who have reached the age of 55) the wait may soon be over.

A while back, the trust deed was changed – without the members’ agreement – so that nobody could access their rightful PCLS – tax-free 30% lump sum at age 55 (to which they are legally entitled) until the expiry of their “lock-in” period. These lock-ins were designed to prevent members from transferring out until their pension liberation loans had been settled – with the loan terms being five years.

The trust deed amendment included the five-year term being five complete tax years (as opposed to natural years) and the fact that after the initial 30% withdrawal, the remainder would be left in the Evergreen scheme to provide an “income for life”. This, of course, assumes there is anything left of the fund.

But, confusingly, Evergreen’s Simon Swallow is now saying that a member with a loan can indeed transfer out of the scheme altogether once the lock-in expiry date of 6th April 2018 has passed.

From: Simon Swallow <simon.swallow@chartersquare.co.nz>

Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 8:31:08 PM

To: Evergreen/Marazion Victim

Cc: Evergreen Trust – Transfers

Subject: Re: Evergreen Retirement Trust Annual Report

Dear Victim,

My apologies for the delay in responding to your email over the weekend. I have reviewed your email and my email sent previously. I apologise as I incorrectly stated that your lock-in would expire after 5 years in the scheme, however, the scheme documentation has the lock-in expiring at the end of 5 complete UK tax years (rather than 5 years membership in the scheme). Therefore, your lock-in will expire on 6 April 2018. The rules of the scheme will allow for you at that point to:

Withdraw 30% of the funds

Transfer the funds to another scheme

Or a combination of the above

I think that the prudent approach would therefore be for Evergreen to send you the necessary forms in February to effect a combination of the above options for you. This would include a withdrawal form (for the 30%) and a transfer out form for the remaining balance after the withdrawal. You will need to decide on another scheme to transfer the remaining balance to.

Kind regards

Simon

I have resisted the temptation to correct Swallow’s appalling English. Hopefully, my considerable restraint is appreciated. Best put our efforts into getting these victims out of this pile of Kiwi crap.

March 29, 2018
Alan Kentish of STM Groups delivers news of record profits for 2017
QROPS provider STM Group’s Alan Kentish, is delighted to deliver reports of record profits for 2017. I wonder how delighted the victims of his previous scam, the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund, are to hear this. I think we’d be more delighted to hear that Kentish planned to pay all the victims of this investment fraud (currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office) full compensation for their losses.

The company, STM Fidecs, which has recently moved its head office to the UK from Gibraltar, says its annual profits grew last year by 43% after the introduction of a new SIPPS.

Kentish went on to say,

“Moving into 2018, we have a solid recurring revenue platform on which to look to launch new products and to expand our distribution network as part of a strategy to make our business even more robust.”

In our opinion, there is nothing robust about Kentish and his various dodgy products. And the Gibraltar regulator shares our opinion as well as our concerns. In a letter dated 6.11.2017, the GFSC wrote to the directors of STM Fidecs about their concerns following a series of onsite visits:

“COMPLIANCE: effectiveness and oversight of the company’s internal compliance functions; high turnover of staff in compliance officer and money laundering regulatory officer roles; general suitability and experience of compliance staff.

PROFESSIONAL TRUSTEE SERVICES: level and nature of due diligence when accepting new QROPS business and whether legal and regulatory obligations were being met; nature of investments e.g. the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund linked to serious customer detriment and fraud”

The Gibraltar regulator appointed three partners of forensic investigators CVR Global LLP to inspect and investigate the affairs of STM Fidecs. The deadline for completion of this inspection is end of March 2018 and the GFSC has warned that:
- a person who wilfully makes a statement or furnishes information knowing it to be untrue;
- a person who refuses to supply information or cooperate with an inspector
is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment.

I wonder if any of STM’s fat profits will be used to help balance the heavy losses made by the company’s past “mistakes”. At the height of the success of the Trafalgar Multi Asset investment scam, STM Fidecs was accepting more than £1 million a month from UK residents (none of whom should have transferred into a QROPS at all) and allowing it all to be invested in XXXX XXXX’s illegal UCIS.

I find it very hard to swallow that Kentish can continue to offer his “products” to unsuspecting future victims – given his murky past record. Kentish has stated “I look forward to updating the market on our developments during the year.” But has he updated the Trafalgar victims about the development of their lost funds being recouped? No he has not. He has just scraped his past misdemeanors under the carpet and hoped they will be forgotten.

After his arrest in October 2017, Kentish was released without charge and was fully backed by the STM board. (They are obviously a load of crooked clowns who are no better than Kentish himself). He has, also, been given the green light to further his venture into offering legal SIPPS wrappers to clients, that have the potential to contain high-risk, toxic investments. The results of which may well leave even more unsuspecting victims’ pension funds in tatters.

******************************************

As always, Pension Life would like to remind you that if you are planning to transfer any pension funds, make sure that you are transferring into a legitimate scheme. To find out how to avoid being scammed, please see our blog:

What is a pension scam?

Follow Pension Life on twitter to keep up with all things pension related, good and bad.
March 29, 2018
Better Protection Against QROPS Pension Scams from PLIG

Here at Pension Life, we are well aware of QROPS and SIPPs providers being a favorite of the serial pension scammers and are very pleased to report that there is positive news of better protection against this, on the horizon.

Three years ago the Pension Liberation Industry Group (PLIG) launched a code of practice to protect retail investors from serial scammers. Whilst the code of practice managed to help towards the eradication of the big occupational scams, the serial scammers altered their gameplay and continued to score. Serial scammers are focusing on using SIPPS and QROPS providers as a way to lure unsuspecting victims into toxic, high risk investments. Legal “envelopes” with corrupt contents.

Fortunately, the PLIG has finally recognised this change of tactic and has now announced that it will be updating the code of practice to reflect the new tactics of scammers, with the hope of reducing the number of pension scam victims.

Despite this welcome positive news, I still can’t shake the idea that this updated code of practice by PLIG, is possibly too little too late. The situation with James Hay springs to mind. James Hay – the UK´s largest SIPP provider – has announced losses in 2017. James Hay was also involved in the pension liberation scam with Elysian, in which around 500 clients put £55m into Elysian Bio Fuels. The business failed in 2015.

The business failed in 2015 after SIPPS – including James Hay – had already been misused to lure in pension scam victims. This is just one of many such scams (off the top of my head). Believe me, there are many, many more similar to this – that have scammed unsuspecting victims out of millions of pounds’ worth of pension funds and into crippling tax charges.

Darren Cooke, a chartered financial planner at Derbyshire-based Red Circle Financial Planning, launched a petition to the government to ban cold calling in 2017, argued that it wasn’t new that Qrops had been “a favourite” of pension scammers.

He was quoted as saying: “The new Qrops legislation that was introduced in the budget [last year] has reduced scams a bit. So, to some extent, revisions are a little behind the curve. I actually think scammers are switching back to using SIPPS and [small self-administered schemes] SSAS again.”

We welcome this new code from the PLIG, however we can’t agree more with Darren Cooke who also stated, that the FCA needs to regulate the products and not just the advisers.

“As soon as the FCA [starts] regulating the product, it would stop regulated advisers recommending unregulated products. That would stop 99 per cent of scams.”

A small step in the right direction, where a huge leap needs to be made.

Dear FCA,

If you really want to stop pension scamming in its tracks:

BAN COLD CALLING

REGULATE THE PRODUCTS

PROSECUTE THE SERIAL SCAMMERS – ALL OF THEM!

Many thanks

Pension Life

**************************************************************

As always, Pension Life would like to remind you that if you are planning to transfer any pension funds, make sure that you are transferring into a legitimate scheme. To find out how to avoid being scammed, please see our blog:

What is a pension scam?

Follow Pension Life on twitter to keep up with all things pension related, good and bad.

March 27, 2018
DEMAND FOR LEONTEQ’S AWARDS TO BE WITHDRAWN BY SWISS DERIVATIVES AWARDS

DEMAND FOR LEONTEQ’S

SWISS DERIVATIVES

AWARDS TO BE WITHDRAWN

alex.geissbuehler@gwp.ch, reto.weber@gwp.ch, stephan.welti@gwp.ch, pia.aeberhard@gwp.ch, admira.besic@gwp.ch, regine.wolfensberger@gwp.ch, media@leonteq.com , info@payoff.ch

(Interesting use of the phrase “pay off” in the awards organisers’ email address above – I wonder who got paid off to make this disgusting award.)

DEMAND FOR LEONTEQ’S SWISS DERIVATIVES AWARDS TO BE WITHDRAWN

On behalf of hundreds of victims of the Continental Wealth Management pension and investment scam – many of whom have lost huge proportions of their retirement savings – I hereby demand that the awards given to Leonteq at the Swiss Derivative Awards 2018 should be withdrawn immediately.

It is a sickening afront to decency that this award was ever given in the first place. The judges must surely have known that Leonteq had facilitated a major, multi-million-pound scam with Continental Wealth Management between 2010 and 2016. Leonteq has had the audacity to brag that “the awards are proof that Leonteq has a dedicated, strong and highly service oriented team in place. We are very proud of the recognition of our work, and would like to sincerely thank our clients and partners for their trust”.

Leonteq is “proud” of the destruction it has wrought on hundreds of people’s pensions and investments?

Leonteq has paid not a penny in compensation to its many victims – many of whom will die from stress-related illnesses due to the losses suffered from Leonteq’s toxic, high-risk structured notes. Leonteq was paying unlicensed scammers Continental Wealth Management commissions of between 6% and 8% to peddle these risky notes – which amount to nothing more than gambling. None of these notes were suitable for low-risk pension savers as the documentation clearly stated that there was a danger that investors could lose part or all of their capital.

To reward Leonteq for such behaviour, for facilitating a £200 million investment scam, and ruining many hundreds of victims, is a disgrace. This abomination brings shame upon Switzerland as a jurisdiction which tolerates such disgusting practices, and also brings the reputation of financial services into disrepute.

Kindly pass this email on to all those responsible for the Swiss Derivative Awards and ensure that the judges are removed and replaced with competent judges who do proper due diligence before handing out awards to a firm which facilitates financial crime.

Angela Brooks

March 25, 2018
SALMON ENTERPRISES TAX TRIBUNAL VERDICT

SALMON ENTERPRISES TAX TRIBUNAL VERDICT:

The Salmon Enterprises victims will have to wait until after Easter for the verdict on the Salmon Enterprises Tax Tribunal appeal. This will be a very anxious time for the victims of James Lau – currently under criminal investigation – and the directors of Tudor Capital Management currently serving eight-year jail sentences for cheating the Public Revenue and money laundering offences.

The anxiety will inevitably be shared by the Ark victims – as HMRC now want to push ahead with the Tax Tribunal appeals as well (after seven years of dithering). The Salmon Enterprises determination may well have an impact on the Ark appeal so there will be hundreds of people desperate for news after Easter.

In the Salmon Enterprises appeal heard in London on Tuesday 20th March, HMRC was represented by Charles Bradley of Pump Court Tax Chambers. A distinguished and gentlemanly young barrister with a double first in history at Cambridge, it remains to be seen whether his arguments for HMRC’s case based on interpretation of legislation and authorities will outweigh our arguments for justice and morality. Perhaps history will surprise us all after Easter.

I would like to pay tribute to the dignity and courage of the appellants at the Salmon Enterprises hearing. Having traveled down from the north of England, and spent many days preparing themselves mentally and intellectually for the ordeal before them, my heart went out to them both. A teacher and an IT analyst, both victims had worked hard all their lives and led exemplary lives before falling victim to this scam at the hands of criminals.

These two appellants – like the Ark victims – have endured years of worry and damage to their health since they were scammed in 2011. I was immensely proud of them as they stood in the witness box and represented, effectively, all victims of the Salmon Enterprises and Ark cases.

As I listened to the case put forward by HMRC, and the testimony of their witness, the words of Margaret Snowdon (speaking at the Transparency Task Force Symposium in November 2017) kept ringing in my ears:

“It is morally wrong to impose tax penalties on victims of fraud”.

Margaret was appointed an OBE in 2010 and has, uniquely, for six years running been named as one of the Top 50 Influential People in Pensions and was awarded for her outstanding contribution to the pensions industry by the PMI in 2012.

**********************************************************************

As always, Pension Life would like to remind you that if you are planning to transfer any pension funds, make sure that you are transferring into a legitimate scheme. To find out how to avoid being scammed, please see our blog:

What is a pension scam?

FOLLOW PENSION LIFE ON TWITTER TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THINGS PENSION RELATED, GOOD AND BAD.

March 25, 2018
SWISS DERIVATIVES AWARD 2018 – LEONTEQ – SERIOUSLY?
I’ve decided on a radical career change. I’m going to study to become a psychiatrist. My first patient is going to be Prof. Dr. Marc Oliver Rieger who voted Leonteq as best peddler of toxic, high-risk, crappy structured notes at the Swiss Derivatives Awards. Even before I qualify, I already know what treatment this idiot needs: a smart slap on his shiny head and then therapy to help him acknowledge what a waste of time he is.

Professor Rieger was chairman of the Swiss Derivatives Awards jury. And he damn well should have known better than to shame his country, the financial services industry, and those who wasted their time and qualifications educating him in the first place. This guy has a PhD, so he must have had at least a couple of brain cells at some point. But something obviously fried them both because he should have known better than to allow Leonteq to be rewarded – as opposed to vilified and sanctioned – for the wholesale damage caused by their toxic products to hundreds of victims.

Professor Rieger will need months – if not years – of intensive psychiatric therapy to cure him of his inability to comprehend that rogue firms such as Leonteq should be banned from financial services altogether – not given awards for helping to scam innocent victims out of their life savings. Leonteq was selling their rubbish products to an unlicensed firm of “introducers” masquerading as financial advisers: Continental Wealth Management between 2010 and 2017. Further, Leonteq was paying this firm of scammers commissions of between 6% and 8%. Many of the victims whose pensions were invested in Leonteq’s derivatives products have lost most – or even all – of their retirement savings.

Professor Rieger is not the only one who has caused this award abomination. On the panel of judges was another academic who should have known better: Philippe Béguelin. He appears to have a decent pedigree and was editor at FuW for seven years. He is reported as having a background in financial markets, monetary policy, economics, investments, foreign currencies, commodities, and financial instruments such as structured products.

There are numerous obvious things lacking in Phillippe Beguelin’s education and career history – including basic decency and common sense. You just don’t give awards to rogue firms which facilitate financial crime.

In my new career as a psychiatrist, I am bound to have my hands full – not just with the various nutters in offshore financial services the world over, but also with other members of the Swiss Derivatives Awards judges panel which include:
- Dr. Heinz Kubli, CEO Fundabilis AG
- André Buck, Head Sales, SIX Swiss Exchange AG
- Stephan Welti, Managing Partner – Geissbühler Weber & Partner AG
- Prof. Dr. Martin Wallmeier, Lehrstuhl für Finanzmanagement und Rechnungswesen, Universität Fribourg (Research Award)
- Martin Raab, Executive Director, Derivative Partners AG
They are all, obviously, stark-raving bonkers. There may be no hope for most of them, but I might be able to help one or two of them to lead normal lives one day.

What these sad cases need to understand is that:
- Leonteq sold their toxic, crappy products through an unlicensed scammer: Continental Wealth Management
- Knowing full well that their rubbish products were only suitable for idiots with more money than sense, Leonteq sold their crap to an unlicensed firm of scammers and paid them between 6% and 8% in commission
- Leonteq put together an ultra-high-risk pile of crap which paid 8% to the scammers and which caused even higher losses to the victims.
One of the partners of this absurd awards ceremony was Geissbuhler Weber & Partner – who should also hang their heads in shame. This firm claims to advise providers on the fulfillment of financial market regulatory requirements and the optimisation of compliance and risk processes. Today, Geissbühler Weber & Partner is, allegedly, known in Switzerland as a “reliable partner for banks and asset managers”. As far as I am concerned, they are as bad as Leonteq and the scammers they helped make rich.

Perhaps the hundreds of Continental Wealth Management victims would like to email these morons and let them know what they think of them condoning giving “awards” to a firm which has facilitated and profited from financial crime:

alex.geissbuehler@gwp.ch

reto.weber@gwp.ch

stephan.welti@gwp.ch

pia.aeberhard@gwp.ch

admira.besic@gwp.ch

regine.wolfensberger@gwp.ch

www.gwpartner.ch
March 24, 2018
DEALING WITH STRESS WHEN SCAMMED OUT OF YOUR PENSION

DEALING WITH STRESS WHEN SCAMMED

OUT OF YOUR PENSION

Being scammed out of a big chunk of your pension once is bad enough. But TWICE is awful. Double pension scam victim Jessica M.J. talks about her experience and gives other victims advice about how to cope with the stress that results from being a pension scam victim.

Jessica was scammed by Continental Wealth Management – one of Pension Life’s top-ten worst scammers – into the Evergreen QROPS scheme. Continental Wealth Management was acting as the cold callers and lead generators to Stephen Ward’s firm Premier Pension Solutions. Evergreen was a New Zealand pension scheme which was being used for pension liberation fraud using Ward’s pension loan company, Marazion. Jessica did not get (and was not offered) a loan.

Jessica was brave and generous enough to share her own story – which, sadly, was so typical of hundreds of other cases. However, she was one of the few who were actually scammed twice by Continental Wealth Management. She spoke of her own feelings: “I was very angry. I felt betrayed, cheated.”

After losing a third of her pension, Jessica was then moved by Continental Wealth Management to a Malta QROPS and put into an Old Mutual International insurance bond (which she didn’t need and couldn’t afford – and only served to earn the scammers a hefty commission). By investing what was left of the fund in high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes, half of what was left of Jessica’s pension was then destroyed. So she ended up losing two thirds of her hard-earned retirement savings.

Continental Wealth Management collapsed at the end of September 2017, leaving hundreds of victims with their pension funds in ruins and facing poverty in retirement. Old Mutual International, Generali and SEB – the life offices who allowed this devastation to happen and stood idly by while the structured notes destroyed the victims’ funds – have done nothing to compensate the victims for their losses.

Jessica has advised the public:

“There’s a lot of scammers out there – check ’em out!”

Sadly, if Jessica had known the questions to ask, the warning signs were there from the start. Continental Wealth Management was not licensed for investment advice. Few of the so-called advisers had any qualifications relevant to financial advice. The investments were professional-investor-only structured notes provided by RBC, Commerzbank, Nomura and Leonteq – among others. Continental Wealth Management used life bonds provided by Old Mutual International, Generali and SEB. These bonds served absolutely no purpose except to pay the scammers huge commissions. Dealing instructions had forged client signatures and the advisers lied about the losses when they were first reported claiming they were “only paper losses, and would recover”.

March 18, 2018
CONTINENTAL WEALTH MANAGEMENT BY JODY KIRBY (OR SMART OR BELL)

CONTINENTAL WEALTH MANAGEMENT BY JODY KIRBY (OR SMART OR BELL) – Now that Continental Wealth Management/Trust boss, Darren Kirby, is coming back to Spain to help sort out the mess, it is time to engage with his former partner, Jody, to find out what she has been doing to resolve the losses suffered by hundreds of victims.

Darren will, naturally, want to set the record straight, and help CWM victims get their money back after CWM “advisers” put their entire retirement savings into professional-investor-only structured notes. Many of these notes failed – costing victims £millions.

I have no doubt that Jody Kirby (or Smart or Bell – or whatever name she is using nowadays) will be keen to get involved. What exactly she has been doing to help the victims since September 2017 remains a closely guarded secret. However, I am sure she will announce it pretty soon now she knows that Darren Kirby is coming back.

Jody and Darren will, obviously, have a lot to talk about – and I am sure she will appreciate the importance of being frank with him. She will probably tell her current chap, Frank Pearson, to hop it while she and Darren debate the best way forward. Hopefully Frank will have the grace to duck out of the way so as not to distract Jody and Darren from concentrating on their responsibilities. After all, three is a crowd and Pearson doesn’t want to get stuck in the way like an unwanted duck a l’orange!

44-year old Jody has her own fashion business and has openly admitted to having made millions out of financial services. Once Frank is out of the way, she and Darren can put their heads together to formulate a plan to put that money to good use – in the interests of the victims of CWM.

A really smart way to approach this would be to write out a detailed account of everything that happened and who was responsible for each bit. I believe Darren Kirby has already made a start on this with the help of Alan Gorringe. This account will be especially helpful to us in the court proceedings.

As part of the frank account of the CWM disaster, all the victims will be keen to know what constructive ideas they both have for helping to put things right. There has been way too much silence on this subject from all the CWM advisers to date.

The victims will, no doubt, be pleased to see Darren and Jody committing to the rescue effort together. Jody was – and still is – sole director of Continental Wealth Trust which traded as Continental Wealth Management. A few years ago she described her role in the company on a television programme about “colourful” characters on the Costa Blanca. She confirmed that she was in finance and that she had contributed to the success of CWM saying that it had “gone global”. She stated that while their main office was in Javea, they had also expanded into Portugal, Ibiza, Turkey and France.

Jody explained in the interview that her role in the company was not as a (qualified) financial adviser, but to expand the company and bring the best people on board to work for her and her colleagues.

She goes on to say that CWM offers the “whole package for expats”, advising on the investment of funds (although the firm was never licensed to do so). She then explained how CWM offered “pension release” and detailed a scheme the firm offered whereby pensions could be transferred from the UK. She called this “just amazing” and said they had been very successful at doing this. She said the clients were told “we are going to give you money and it is not going to cost you anything – let’s just find out what you have got in your pension – it will only cost you a little bit of time and we can change your life”.

What she was actually describing was pension liberation fraud through a scheme called the Evergreen Retirement Trust – a QROPS in New Zealand. CWM’s “sister company”, Premier Pension Solutions, run by Stephen Ward, was the brains behind this scam (and CWM did the cold-calling and lead generation). 300 victims lost £10 milion in this scheme, and it cost them 10% of their transfer value in fees, plus 50% of their “loans” in Ward’s Marazion scheme. So not exactly the “nothing” that Jody claimed it would cost the victims.

Jody stated that they had “helped so many families” by releasing their pensions, and said she liked to help people because it was “in my nature”. I am sure the CWM victims will be pleased to hear that – and then to see some evidence of her – and Darren – “helping” them.

In another television interview, at the penthouse suite in a swanky five-star hotel overlooking Hyde Park, Jody explained how she had put half a million pounds into her fashion business. Over champagne, she told the interviewer she had ambition, drive and a burning desire in her.

Let us hope this passion translates into action and a commitment to helping the CWM victims who have lost much, most or – in some cases – all of their retirement savings.

February 28, 2018
OMI complaint
COMPLAINT TO OMI, THE ISLE OF MAN FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN AND THE ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL LIFE OFFICES

ATTENTION:

Martin Middleton, CEO

Michael Hampson
Complaints Handler | Complaints Team | Old Mutual International

T: 44 (0) 1624 655451 | Int Ext: 75451
F: 44 (0) 1624 611715
E: omifmcomplaints@ominternational.com | W: www.oldmutualinternational.com

Isle of Man Financial Services Authority
PO Box 58
Finch Hill House
Douglas
Isle of Man
IM99 1DT

info@iomfsa.im

GeneralMailbox.ATG@gov.im

Central Bank of Ireland:

enquiries@centralbank.ie

Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman

Lincoln House, Lincoln Place, Dublin 2, D02 VH29. Tel: (01) 567 7000 Email: info@fspo.ie Website: www.fspo.ie

AILO – Association of International Life Offices

secretariat@ailo.org

COMPLAINT REGARDING OMI’S NEGLIGENCE, FAILED GOVERNANCE AND FACILITATION OF FINANCIAL CRIME – European Executive Investment Bond (EEIB)

OMI has facilitated financial crime over a period of many years; stood by while innocent victims’ retirement savings were destroyed; paid huge commissions to an unlicensed (and illegal in Spain) firm of scammers; continued charging crippling fees while victims’ funds dwindled away; extorted early exit penalties from victims unfairly and unreasonably; failed to take any action to stem the torrent of huge losses of millions of pounds’ worth of retirement savings for many years. And now it is failing to uphold the victims’ complaints.

OMI has been in receipt of a number of complaints (and will be in receipt of numerous further ones) regarding their negligence and facilitation of financial crime in offshore financial services. OMI has not upheld these complaints – and indeed has neglected to grasp the extent of their own multiple failings and errors.

The existing complaints do relate to serious regulatory breaches and fraud – as well as failing to adhere to OMI’s own terms and conditions. Much of the fraud was caused by the financial advisory firm: Continental Wealth Trust (which traded as Continental Wealth Management). However, the firm’s fraud was only successful because OMI facilitated it.

The complaints submitted to date include:
- That investments were made into high-risk professional-investor-only funds. Many of these failed and caused huge losses to victims’ funds.
- That OMI paid commissions/fees to CWM who not only held no investment licence – but also held no license of any kind.
- As a result of the huge, un-disclosed commission paid to CWM – an unlicensed firm – OMI imposes crippling early surrender charges on the victims.
OMI has responded that they are “very sympathetic to victims’ concerns” and has responded that it appreciates what a very worrying time this must be for those who have lost such huge amounts of their life savings.

OMI has also stated that the roles and responsibilities of all the parties involved with this fraud have got to be clarified. However, OMI claims – entirely disingenuously – it does not want victims to get the feeling it is trying to distance itself from the grievances.

In order to address what it refers to as “concerns”, OMI has attempted to “explain” matters. The use of the word “concerns” is obviously a really crass clanger on the part of OMI, since the victims are absolutely not just CONCERNED – they are furious, terrified and devastated at their dreadful losses. Some victims are suicidal, and many have had their health seriously compromised.

OMI has described the EEIB as being held by the trustee for the benefit of a member of their pension scheme, enabling policyholders to hold a “wide range of investments in one tax-efficient product wrapper”. OMI goes on to claim that policyholders and their investment advisers “have complete flexibility over the investments they place inside the EEIB”.

Some or all of the above may be true. However, that does not make it right that OMI has allowed unlicensed advisers to place clearly unsuitable investments inside their wrappers. Further, it does not make it right that OMI then stood by and watched the investments fail for many years AND DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EXCEPT KEEP ON TAKING FEES BASED ON THE ORIGINAL VALUE – AND NOT THE REDUCED VALUE OF THE FUND.

OMI claims that it reviews all investments to ensure they meet Irish regulatory requirements, and their own administration requirements.

If this is indeed true, it is a very serious indictment of the Irish regulator if their requirements are so appallingly lax. What OMI seems to be claiming is that both the Central Bank of Ireland and OMI have such low standards that they will allow low-risk pension savers to have their retirement funds invested purely in high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes. If this is true, then the regulator is as bad as OMI in condoning an investment strategy which has no regard for suitability, liquidity, diversity and risk tolerance.

In fact, the Central Bank of Ireland has stated that it carried out a review of suitability requirements in 2017 and found that: “governance structures for the identification and treatment of vulnerable clients were absent or ineffective”. The CWM victims were about as vulnerable as it was possible to get – as their retirement savings were systematically and inexorably destroyed. And OMI’s governance structure was about as absent and ineffective as it is possible to get while it stood by and didn’t even bother to raise a red flag on the whole disaster as it unfolded.

There was no jangling of alarm bells as OMI watched millions of pounds wiped out. There was no expression of concern that the same toxic structured notes which had failed in earlier years were bought again and again by the same unlicensed scammers. There was no governance to protect new vulnerable victims from having their funds destroyed from 2015 onwards in the same way hundreds of victims had suffered in previous years.

OMI has claimed that customers/their appointed advisers are responsible for the suitability assessment and selection of the investments held in the policy – and that “it is important that customers read the prospectus/offering documents of investments carefully, before making any investment decisions”. However, OMI watched wholesale destruction taking place inside its own wrappers and took no action. Had OMI asked a few simple questions they would have found the following:
1. The victims were being advised by a known firm of scammers which had been involved in cold calling in the Evergreen pension liberation scam in 2012
2. The victims were being advised by a firm which was not licensed at all – for anything
3. The victims had ALL insisted they wanted either low risk or no risk investments as they could not afford to lose any part of their retirement savings
4. The victims had no idea their retirement savings were being invested in high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes
5. The victims’ signatures were repeatedly forged on the dealing instructions
6. The victims were duped into a false sense of security when losses started to be reported on their statements by the scammers claiming these were not genuine losses but only “paper losses”
7. The victims had no idea how high the charges and commissions were as these were not disclosed either by the scammers or by OMI
8. The victims were not consulted as to whether they wanted or needed an entirely useless and exorbitantly expensive insurance bond
9. The victims were unaware that tied agents are illegal in Spain
10. The victims were unaware of the huge fees and commissions which were concealed by both the scammers and OMI
OMI claims that term 12 of the EEIB policy terms states that it is the policyholder who bears the risk of investment. But then OMI goes on to assert that the policyholder was the trustee who would be classed as a professional investor.

So OMI has got to make up its mind – it has already stated that: “customers/their appointed advisers are responsible for the suitability assessment and selection of the investments held in the policy”. So who is the customer? The victim or the trustee? And whom did the adviser advise – the customer or the trustee? Or OMI?

OMI goes on to refer to term 11.4 of the policy which confirms that it may allow investment into professional or experienced investor funds because it owns the investments held within the EEIB, rather than the policyholder.

So, who gave the advice and to whom? OMI can’t seem to make up its mind who the customer is: the victim; the trustee or OMI itself. If OMI is the customer, why is it charging the victim fees?

OMI goes on to quote policy term 11.4.1 – which apparently clearly highlights that professional-investor-only funds carry a high degree of risk. So who is taking the risk? The victim, the trustee or OMI?

Let us ask ourselves, where did the original funds come from? Not the trustee; not OMI; but the victim.

OMI then procedes to claim that it will “only accept applications via regulated financial advisers”. But Inter-Alliance was not licensed to provide investment advice – or indeed insurance advice. CWM was not licensed either. So why did OMI accept applications from unlicensed advisors (who were also known scammers)? Also, OMI failed to identify that tied (insurance) agents are illegal in Spain – so it shouldn’t have been dealing with them at all – let alone paying them huge commissions.

OMI states that CWM was a member of Inter-Alliance WorldNet, and obtained their authorization to act via that membership. But this is not true – Inter-Alliance was not licensed and therefore neither was CWM. The application form may, in some cases, have confirmed the appointment of CWM as investment adviser with full discretion – but why didn’t OMI check that CWM was licensed? In fact, most of the victims were under the impression that they would be consulted on the investments and that their risk tolerance would be respected – but this never happened in any of the cases.

OMI goes on to claim that CWM was able to submit investment instructions directly to OMI, without consulting the trustees. But that isn’t true either: dealing instructions were sent to the trustees first, and then the trustees sent on new instructions. How can OMI not even know how its own internal systems work?

OMI concludes that it is sorry the complaining investor is “disappointed with the performance of some of the investments selected by CWM” and then goes on to claim the investments “met the criteria for a permitted asset under the EEIB policy terms”.

So who at OMI was responsible for writing and updating EEIB policy terms? Did this person not notice the losses repeatedly decimating the funds? Did this person not see the same investment failures repeating in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017? Did this person not question whether the policy terms ought to be revised somewhat? The answer to these questions is, inevitably, a resounding and disgraceful “NO”.

OMI is now refusing to refund or waive early withdrawal charges on the basis that CWM was an appointed investment adviser. This is because OMI initially paid a big chunk of commission to CWM – an unlicensed adviser and known scammer. If a victim wants to get out of the toxic, pointless insurance wrapper, in order to put a stop to the exorbitant fees taken quarterly out of the fund – and based on the original value rather than the decimated value of the fund – he basically has to refund the commission OMI paid to the scammers.

The victims remain dissatisfied with OMI’s response, and the complaint is now being referred to the Irish Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. OMI has deliberately misunderstood and overlooked every aspect of the victims’ complaints and failed to address even the most basic issues surrounding OMI’s failures and negligence.

OMI has facilitated financial crime over a period of many years; stood by while innocent victims’ retirement savings were destroyed; paid huge commissions to an unlicensed (and illegal in Spain) firm of scammers; continued charging crippling fees while victims’ funds dwindled away; extorted early exit penalties from victims unfairly and unreasonably; failed to take any action to stem the torrent of huge losses of millions of pounds’ worth of retirement savings for many years. And now it is failing to uphold the victims’ complaints.
February 22, 2018