Tag: Ark

Life at Pension Life Fighting Scams – Behind the Scenes

My name is Nikki Mitchell. Lets peep behind the scenes at life at Pension Life, fighting pension scams. I’m the newest member of the team. I started in June 2016 – there was a lot to learn in six months. I am PA to Angie, but most importantly I handle a wide variety of tasks.

Angie has been defending people scammed out of their pensions since 2013. My colleague Sue Halfyard’s role is member administration. She completes all the essential documentation that we, HMRC, Dalriada Trustees and the solicitors need. Sue also liaises with HMRC on the unauthorised payment tax appeals and helps Angie prepare for the Tax Tribunals. Elizabeth is our website and blog-writer and is currently on maternity leave.

Our website is not only a place to inform people of the work we do, and how we can help people who have fallen foul of pension scammers, but it also serves as a platform to warn others about scammers, so that hopefully we can stop them losing their life savings.

We are currently dealing with over 30 different schemes:

Ark; Axiom UP; Barret and Dalton; Baxendale Walker; Capita Oak; Confiance; Continental Wealth Management; EEA/Concept Trustees; Elysian Fuels/SIPPS; Evergreen QROPS; Headforte; Henley; Holborn Assets/Gower Pensions; Holbrook Capital; KJK Investments; Ledger and Simmons; London Quantum; Malvern; Mendip; RL360; Hansard/Trafalgar; LM; Optimus Retirement Benefit Scheme No 1; Peak Performance; Pennines; Salmon Enterprises; Store First SIPPS; Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund/STM Fidecs; Tudor Capital Management; Westminster; Windsor Pensions.

Sadly, most months we hear about new ones.

Day to day work in the office consists of managing Angie’s crowded diary, keeping the accounts, liaising with members to keep them abreast of new developments, preparing scheme and member files for the legal teams, responding to the demands of HMRC and various trustees. I also work on campaigns to raise awareness of pension scams, or to campaign for changes in the law to protect pension investments.

My first few weeks passed in a whirl of new jargon and abbreviations – UTR, Q10, MPVA EIS, PCLS, etc. Some days I spend the day designing and completing databases with members’ information for the solicitors. Other days I’m number crunching the transfer and loan amounts for an individual scheme. Some days we all have to change direction as there has been an urgent development. A recent example of this was the Standstill Agreements sent out by Dalriada – the trustees of the Ark Pension schemes. Our first member received an agreement in August 2016. We have warned all the members that they will be receiving one, and worked with our solicitors to redraft the agreement to protect the members’ interests.

Being a small, busy team in a hectic office, there is never a dull moment. Aside from the daily nitty-gritty of the work, there are also the heart-breaking accounts of the members who have been scammed out of their pensions. Consequently, I have felt disbelief at the cruel contempt of the scammers. Reading members’ stories of how they were conned into investing their entire pensions or life savings into dodgy, illiquid schemes is utterly heart-breaking. Speaking to people who have lost everything – their homes, their marriages and their health – through the actions of these arrogant, greedy con-men fills me with horror.

The greatest shock to me since joining Pension Life has been how the scammers have continually got away with fraud and theft for years. Also, how ceding providers routinely transfer pensions with hardly even the most rudimentary checks. It has amazed me how so many different types of pension scams are allowed to be set up time and time again, with no thorough controls by HMRC or the regulators. Moreover, I can’t understand why it takes so long for the scams to be shut down – long after they have been identified.

We may be a small team here at Pension Life, but with the government’s recent realisation that cold calling needs to be outlawed and the consultation on pension scams:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/pension-scams

we are hopeful that there may finally be light at the end of the tunnel for existing victims and jail for the scammers.

January 2, 2017
Scorpion Campaign and Henry Tapper

The Scorpion Campaign was the Pensions Regulator’s attempt to warn the public and the industry against pension liberation scams. It wasn’t a bad try, but it failed. It was a bit like trying to stop a herd of stampeding elephants with a whoopee cushion.

Henry Tapper, pensions actuary and dedicated blogger on pensions, posted this:

https://henrytapper.com/2015/07/20/trust-me-im-a-scorpion/

The problem is that many pension trustees don’t take any notice. They didn’t back in 1999 when HMRC and tPR (then OPRA) first warned trustees about pension liberation fraud. They didn’t in 2003 when the first two liberation fraudsters – Steve Russell and William Ferguson – were jailed. They didn’t in 2010 and 2011 when the huge tide of Ark and Tudor Capital Management transfer requests into bogus occupational schemes were processed without so much the tiniest flicker of curiosity or interest. They didn’t in 2012 when 300 transfers into Capita Oak were made – even though the sponsoring employer didn’t exist. When the Scorpion Campaign was launched in February 2013, the trustees carried on making transfers into Capita Oak and the sister scam, Westminster (with the same non-existent sponsoring employer).

Now here’s the puzzling thing: didn’t the Pensions Regulator notice that their Scorpion Campaign was failing? Usually, when time, effort and money are invested in an important project, there is some sort of measuring process deployed to see how effective and successful the project is and to examine whether any improvements or reinforcements are needed. Clearly not in the case of tPR and Scorpion, because the same old same old scammers were allowed to keep registering pension schemes and becoming trustees and administrators of “occupational” scams obviously designed to defraud innocent victims.

Don’t take my word for it though. https://www.ftadviser.com/2016/07/05/pensions/pension-scheme-gets-dressing-down-from-regulator-bZo5EVFahYzEFkvNsF8jdK/article.html

In particular, the regulator issued a damning assessment of the scheme’s former trustee, Dorrixo Alliance, and its director Stephen Ward.

So, didn’t anybody at the Pensions Regulator (or HMRC for that matter) notice that Stephen Ward had become trustee of the doomed London Quantum “occupational” scheme (now in the hands of Dalriada Trustees)? Didn’t the memory of Ark, Evergreen, Capita Oak, Westminster and dozens of other liberation scams run by Ward and Dorrixo ring any bells? Didn’t London Quantum’s address: 31 Memorial Road, Worsley cause a sharp intake of breath?

The answer to all of the above is, of course, a resounding “no”. The Scorpion Campaign’s warnings were ignored 96 times in 2014 in the London Quantum case. Negligent, lazy and incompetent trustees handed over a total of £6.8 million to an obvious scam which had all the hallmarks of Ward’s handiwork – including the fact that it was registered to Ward’s UK address. But not a single one of the trustees heeded tPR’s Scorpion warning – including the trustees of the Police pension scheme.

My advice to the Pensions Regulator, is to put the whoopee cushion away. It doesn’t work. The stampeding elephants are too big and too determined. And don’t just knit a bigger whoopee cushion either – ban cold calling and put the scammers behind bars. Then spend some money on advertising (after all, the government found £10m to spend on the Remain campaign – which was arguably a complete waste of money).

And by the way, the Regulator’s “dressing down” was a complete waste of time. It might just as well have been a formal dressing gown for all the effect it had.

October 18, 2016
Justice Morgan’s Mad Mistake: Donna-Marie Hughes and Royal London Mutual Insurance Society
JUSTICE MORGAN’S MAD MISTAKE

(IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CHANCERY DIVISION)

The law is an ass – especially when it fails to protect pension scam victims

This judgement makes the law not just an ass, but a whole herd of donkeys.

Dear Justice Morgan

I refer to your judgment in the matter of Donna-Marie Hughes and Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Case Number CH/2015/0377 on 19th February 2016.

With absolutely no apology whatsoever, I must point out that your judgment – overturning the Pensions Ombudsman’s Determination in this matter – is so stark staring, raving mad that it verges on utterly bonkers.

In a number of complaints, the Ombudsman has found that although the legislation is missing a few key words, it is clear that a person should only transfer into an occupational scheme if they are genuinely employed by the sponsor of the scheme. The Ombudsman drew attention to the fact that the words “employed by the sponsor of the scheme” are, curiously, missing (obviously, whoever wrote that passage nipped out for a liquid lunch at the crucial moment). But he used his common sense and pointed out that it would be a “very strange result” if a person wanted to transfer into an occupational scheme without any employment relationship or arrangement with the sponsor.

It is my obligation to refer you to the fact that the industry, regulators, law enforcement agencies, courts, ombudsmen and victims (existing and future) desperately need the legislation to be tightened – not relaxed (or, as in this case, made completely impotent). This judgment has effectively given the green light for hundreds of scammers to scam innocent victims out of their hard-earned pensions.

History, since 2011, shows that various pension liberation scams including Ark (Lancaster, Portman, Cranbourne, Woodcroft, Tallton, Grosvenor) Capita Oak, Westminster, Evergreen, Salmon Enterprises, Eric’s Yard, Pennines, London Quantum, Headforte, Southlands etc., all share a collection of common traits:
1. They were set up, administered and promoted by unregulated firms
2. These firms obscure the identity of the team
3. The address of the firm is a virtual office
4. The assets of the scams being peddled include high risk, illiquid, speculative investments entirely unsuitable for pensions
5. Bogus “occupational” schemes are registered with HMRC and tPR (who do nothing to check that the sponsoring employers actually trade or employ anybody – or indeed even exist at all)
6. Pensions are liberated using a variety of “loan” structures which victims are assured are legitimate “loopholes”
7. Transfer and loan fees are extortionately high
8. Victims are promised unrealistic gains such as “guaranteed 8% return per annum”
9. Assets are entirely unsuitable for pension schemes and often include huge “kickbacks” for the introducers
The firms and individuals offering these schemes have included:
- Premier Pension Solutions in Spain (run by Tolleys Pensions Taxation author Stephen Ward – available on Amazon if you need a copy: http://www.amazon.com/Tolleys-Pensions-Taxation-2014-2015-Stephen/dp/0754549356)
- Gerard Associates http://www.gerardassociates.co.uk/
- Frost Financial
- Continental Wealth Management
- J. P. Sterling
- Viva Costa International
- Windsor Pensions
- Blu Debt Management
- Wealth Masters
- Paul Baxendale-Walker
- James Lau
Thousands of victims have lost £ billions and gained £ millions in tax liabilities. The assets of these schemes have included offshore property, store pods, car parking spaces, unregulated collective investments, eucalyptus forests, hedge funds, forex, Cape Verde etc.

Now, I am not saying that Bespoke Pension Services are scammers. http://bit.ly/1VGeSPn but on the back of their victory in the case of Ms. Hughes, there are a further 160 blocked pension transfers sitting with the Pensions Ombudsman. We have no way of knowing whether they will all be pension transfers invested in Cape Verde, but we do know the Hughes case must have been very important to Bespoke Pension Services’ business. After all, they must have invested a considerable amount in legal fees to take an £8,000 transfer attempt to the High Court.

Interestingly, Bespoke Pension Services are unregulated and their address is a virtual office. According to their latest published accounts the firm is insolvent. The two directors/shareholders – Mark Anthony Miserotti and Clive John Howells – have between them an impressive portfolio of investment, consultancy, property development, investment and financial planning companies – one of which is called “Fortaleza Investments” which suggests something Brazilian.

On the back of your judgment in respect of Royal London, there will be a serious problem for all the pension providers who performed so appallingly in Ark, Capita Oak, Westminster, Evergreen et al: the worst of which being Standard Life, Prudential, Scottish Widows, Aviva and Legal and General. Having handed over £ millions worth of pension funds since 2010 – in a lazy, negligent, box-ticking fashion – there is evidence that they are trying to mend their ways. Or there had been, until your judgment in the Hughes/Royal London/Bespoke Pension Services case.

I would draw your attention to Clause 53 in Justice Bean’s Ark ruling where he makes it clear that legislation wording must be interpreted intelligently – and not blindly.

He is obviously trying to make the point that it is essential to avoid an anomalous or unjust result from failing to look behind the intended meaning of wording. Indeed, the Pensions Ombudsman had already done that when looking at the wording when he said that he found that a transferee did need to be employed by the sponsor of an occupational scheme in order to avoid a “strange result”.

Your judgment has put at risk thousands of victims’ pensions. There have already been suicides, nervous breakdowns, life-threatening illnesses, broken marriages and families. There will be widespread poverty in retirement and many people will lose their homes. A strange result indeed – which does rather beg the question of how victims will get any protection or justice now?

This judgment makes the law not just an ass, but a whole herd of donkeys.

Regards, Angie Brooks
October 13, 2016
Dalriada Standstill Agreement for Ark Scheme Victims

The 487 Ark victims have gone through pure hell since the Pensions Regulator appointed Dalriada Trustees to the Ark schemes. First they discovered from Justice Bean in the High Court that the scheme was a “fraud on the power of investment” and then they discovered that HMRC were going to try to tax loans at both ends as well as at the scheme end. Then they discovered that Dalriada were taking steps to get the loans repaid. And lastly, that the 55% tax would still be payable even if the loans were repaid.

Dalriada are now applying to the court for permission and directions to use the members’ own pension funds to take action against the members to recover the loans.

But meanwhile, the six-year period since the Ark victims transferred their original pensions (often gold-plated final salary ones) into Ark and got their “MPVA” loans has almost elapsed. Once this period expires, Dalriada would be legally out of time to take legal action for recovery of the loans, so they are sending out “Standstill” agreements to the members. This would have the effect of “stopping the clock” so that the member, their transfer and their loan would be frozen in time at – say – five years, eleven months indefinitely.

If Ark victims refuse to sign the Standstill agreement, Dalriada will immediately take legal action against them and there may be significant legal costs awarded against the members. If the victims do sign the agreement, then Dalriada have an open-ended opportunity to take recovery action for as long as it takes. Dalriada have said that repaying the MPVA loan “may” help challenge HMRC against the unauthorised payment tax. HMRC disagree.

There remain many unanswered questions: why did tPR register the Ark schemes in the first place and why couldn’t they have de-registered them when they suspected pension liberation?; ditto HMRC?; why did all the ceding providers hand over so many millions of pounds worth of pension schemes so haphazardly without doing any checks? (The worst ceding provider was, without question Standard Life).

Perhaps the Tolleys Pension Taxation Manual (authored by Stephen Ward) might provide some answers? https://www.amazon.com/Tolleys-Pensions-Taxation-2014-2015-Stephen/dp/0754549356

September 16, 2016
Evergreen QROPS Pension Scam and Marazion Loans

EVERGREEN RETIREMENT TRUST QROPS PENSION SCAM AND MARAZION LOANS

THE WAY THE SCAM WORKED

When Ark got shut down in June 2011, Stephen Ward flew to New Zealand and set up the Evergreen NZ QROPS liberation scam with Simon Swallow of Charter Square. Ward also set up a “loan” company in Cyprus called Marazion. He also did a deal with two investment funds: Penrich and Spectrum. Expats would transfer their UK pensions to Evergreen and pay a 10% transfer fee. As soon as the transfer was complete, a loan – funded by either

Expat victims (mostly) would transfer their UK pensions to Evergreen and pay a 10% transfer fee. As soon as the transfer was complete, a loan – funded by either Penrich or Spectrum (to whom the loans were assigned) was arranged between Marazion and the member. The loan was for a fixed five-year term, and the member was made to sign a “lock in” agreement with Evergreen.

The loan interest was 8.5% compound (quarterly) and would mean that the original loan amount would increase by 50% by the end of the five years. Ergo, the maths worked like this at the outset: £100k transfer; £10k fees; £90k Evergreen fund; £50k loan. At the end of the five-year term, the Evergreen fund would either have increased, decreased or remained the same (in fact, it has decreased) and the loan would have increased to £75k. The member was offered the option to renew the loan for a further five-year term at a higher rate of interest.

For three years, Evergreen managed to avoid disclosing what the assets of the scheme actually were, but in 2015 they had no choice other than to disclose that 41% of the scheme’s assets consisted of Penrich and Spectrum. After a lengthy and detailed complaint to the NZ Ombudsman, the complaint against Evergreen was not upheld and the victims were originally left “locked in” until 2017. However, Evergreen has now moved the goal posts and the victims are locked in until they reach the age of 55. Evergreen was removed from the QROPS list by HMRC in November 2012.

THE IDENTITY OF THE MAIN PLAYERS

Stephen Ward of PPS/Marazion

Continental Wealth Management SL who acted as introducers

Simon Swallow of Charter Square

HOW THE MAIN PLAYERS WERE INVOLVED

Continental Wealth acted as introducers – and referred to the firm as the “sister” company to Ward’s company Premier Pension Solutions; PPS processed the transfers and loans; Swallow of Charter Square managed the scheme.

June 8, 2016
ARK Pension Scam: How it worked
ARK PENSION SCAM – THE WAY THE SCHEME WORKED:

Six “occupational” schemes were used: Lancaster; Portman; Cranborne Star; Woodcroft House; Tallton Place and Grosvenor Parade. Each scheme had to have less than 100 members to stay under tPR’s inspection radar. Member A would transfer their £100k pension to – say – Lancaster; Member B would transfer their £100k pension to – say – Tallton; after paying the 5% fee, both A and B would then have £95k in their respective schemes; the Lancaster scheme would then make a “loan” of £50k to member B and the Tallton scheme would make a “loan” of £50k to member A. These so-called loans were called MPVAs (Maximising Pension Value Arrangements) and formed part of a scheme called PRP (Pension Reciprocation Plan).

This MPVA arrangement was supposed to work along “peer to peer” lines with a named member “lending” 50% of their fund to another member of a different fund. Apparently, there was a spreadsheet showing the reciprocal arrangements between members, and some members were told they had been “paired” with another member with a similar sized transfer. However, it was actually impossible to determine whether any individual had “made” a loan since no segregated accounts were kept by Ark, and even when Dalriada Trustees took over they did make any attempt to produce segregated accounts. This point is very important because HMRC are issuing protected assessments on the basis of members receiving as well as making loans. In my defence against the assessments I am making it clear that nobody made a loan – and even if there was a spreadsheet stating that a member had made a loan, it is impossible to establish that they did because all the funds were pooled.

In the beginning, i.e. around Q3 2010, all the transfer administration was handled by Craig Tweedley and his team at Ark, but as the success of the scheme grew more and more quickly, Stephen Ward and his UK manager Anthony Salih (based at 31 Memorial Road, Worsley) were gradually taking over. By May 2011 when Dalriada were appointed, all the members’ records were held at 31 Memorial Road. Ward was on the point of effectively taking over completely and squeezing Craig Tweedley out altogether.

THE IDENTITY OF THE MAIN PLAYERS

Ark was set up by Andrew Isles of Isles and Storer Accountants and he called in Craig Tweedley of Ark Business Consulting and Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions SL and Premier Pension Transfers Ltd. Two pension trustee firms were set up: Athena and Minerva, and fourteen schemes were registered with HMRC and tPR (although only six were ever actually used as tPR appointed Dalriada in May 2011 before the other eight could be used).

http://www.islesandstorer.com/#!meet-the-team/c193z

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC353908/filing-history?page=2

http://www.ifalife.com/members/profile.asp?UserID=15937

https://www.bookdepository.com/Tolleys-Pensions-Taxation-2016-2017-Stephen-Ward/9780754552642

HOW THE MAIN PLAYERS WERE INVOLVED

This started as Craig Tweedley’s “baby” but Stephen Ward was rapidly taking over. Tweedley had brought in various “introducers” (see the PRP spreadsheet) including Andrew Isles himself, Cavendish & Provident, Geoff Mills, Jeremy Denning and Silk Financial Services etc., although by far the biggest single introducer was PPS who accounted for approximately a third of the total transfers.

Ward ran a series of “road shows” at various locations in the UK, including Silvermere Golf Club, to introduce this “amazing opportunity” to a variety of potential introducers and clients. Apparently these events were full to capacity – as Jeremy Cornford will attest. Throughout the promotion of Ark, Ward used his credentials as a CII Level 6 qualified IFA, former pensions examiner and government consultant, author of Tolleys Pensions Taxation, and tied agent of FSA, CNMV and DGS as evidence of his professionalism, authority and respectability. When questioned as to whether the loans were definitely not taxable he assured potential members that he was qualified to guarantee there would be no tax to pay. When asked whether he had obtained legal opinion on whether there was any risk at all that the loans would be subject to tax, he replied that he had not because that would be tantamount to admitting that he was not sure.

In February 2011, after HMRC held a meeting with Tweedley and Ward, Tweedley did obtain legal opinion from junior barrister Amanda Harding, and this confirmed her view that the loans were not taxable because of their reciprocal nature.

LOCATION OF MAIN PLAYERS’ PERSONAL ASSETS

Premier Pension Solutions S.L. CIF: B54414198 DUNS: B54414198
- Buzon 3077, Calle Haya 64, Moraira 03724 Alicante Email: sward@ppsespana.com
- Financial Information 2014 (EUR) – preparing to wind up the company:
Sales: 300,739.00 (down from 471,842.00 in 2013); Profit/Loss: -42,402 (down from +13,477 in 2013);

Total Assets: -46,493 (down from +6,888 in 2013); Owned and directed by Stephen Alexander Ward

Stephen Alexander Ward of Calle Madrono 24, Moraira, Alicante. Companies owned and directed:
- Premier Pension Solutions SL registered with the CNMV and DGS
- Premier Pension Transfers Ltd Co. No. 06657673, c/o Butterworth Jones, 7 Castle Street, Bridgewater TA6 3DT (previously 31 Memorial Road, Worsley, Manchester M28 3AG) (Net Worth £193,963)
- Dorrixo Alliance Ltd Co. No. 07808577, 7 Castle Street, Bridgewater TA6 3DT (previously 31 Memorial Road, Worsley, Manchester M28 3AG) (Net Worth £22,791)
- Marazion Ltd. Co. No. HE 299383, 225 Spyros Kyprianou Avenue, Strovolos, P.C. 2047, Nicosia, Cyprus
- Assets: properties in Teulada, Alicante – jointly with wife and son
- Seneca 108 LLC http://www.corporationwiki.com/p/1svk23/seneca-108-llc which owns at least six luxury villas in Florida and which generate income of approximately $10k per week http://www.homeaway.com/vacation-rental/p3538149
- International Pension Transfer Specialists, 8 Ctra Moraira-Teulada, 62 CC Barclays, 03724 Moraira, Alicante (PO Box at Letters R Us) – registered with the CNMV and DGS
- Accounts filed in Spain for PPS do not reflect income of 1m Eur from Ark in 2010/11 and 1m Eur from Evergreen in 2011/12. (Also earned $0.5m a year from Florida properties since 2012). PPS’ declared sales for 2010 were 193k; for 2011 were 438k; for 2012 were 461k. Possible tax evasion Spain and elsewhere.
June 2, 2016
Pension scam victim David King describes his misery

All pension scam victims experience profound misery, worry, stress and sleepless nights. Few have the strength to speak out and tell the world what it is like to be the victim of this despicable financial crime. I asked David King, one of the Ark victims, to write his story:

“Firstly without you and your team fighting our case I think the casualty list would be extremely high as I know personally the effect its had on me and my family, and I consider myself an average person in this world so it has to be that others suffer the same as me but just don’t shout aloud how much this has affected people.

DAVID KING

HMRC, well where do I start, well let me say this, since 2011 I have lived in fear of the postman and anything coming via the post from HMRC. Every time a letter comes I shudder in fear of a tax demand, even though it may be the gas bill my mind always worries and makes me ill with worry. I am sure other like minded people will have endured the delights of HMRC and their approach with zero empathy and zero concerns; they could not care less what the impact is to individuals of these multiple frauds.

HMRC allow big organisations such as Google and Starbucks to operate in the UK paying virtually nothing in taxation, and seem to resist engagement with them for fear of losing, or is it just too difficult as they have to do some work! however, individual people like us get the full weight of HMRC on our cases as they know we are soft targets, and no matter what we do to try to defend ourselves they just plough the pressure back on without even listening to a single word we throw their way in our defence. It’s a complete shambles that they totally disregard our position and individual cases.

The postman still comes and when I hear the van and then our post box I shudder; I have not had a proper nights sleep in years and I worry each and every day if this is the week I get hit hard and have to find monies I just don’t have. HMRC have turned my life into a misery as I am not knowing what is going to happen; we are all tax paying citizens and we all deserve a fair and equitable hearing and one that will provide closure in a positive way so we can piece back together our lives and get back to being families with lives to lead, in an enjoyable manner, something that HMRC have taken away.”

April 28, 2016
Pension Liberation Fraud Facts

Pension Liberation – ruining thousands of lives. HMRC pursues the victims of pension liberation fraud and not the pension liberation fraudsters. This has got to change.

April 22, 2016
HMRC Pension Loan Wolf
HMRC Pension LOAN WOLF

I am writing to explain the rather confusing “assessment” and “further assessment” appeal situation in relation to HMRC’s “pension loan wolf” situation. Although this is specifically aimed at the Ark case, it will also apply in most – if not all – other cases.

In a nutshell, the assessments are for the 55% unauthorised payment tax charges on the loans. The further assessments are for the “benefit” that the member has “enjoyed” through not having paid interest on the loans.

Here is HMRC’s explanation of their reasoning to try to tax the absence of interest on the “loans”:

“If the assessments are for small amounts these are to protect HMRC against the alternative argument that the loan is a benefit under S173 FA 2004. So for members who received loans in 2010/11, under the alternative argument a benefit in kind charge arises for 2011/12 (and every year thereafter until the loan is repaid/written off) based on the Benefit in Kind calculation ie 4% of the MPVA (loan) received each year. This is taxed at 40%.

Eg Loan of £10000 – Benefit charge £400 @ 40% = £160.”

Roughly translated into ordinary language, this means that HMRC do not know what the Tax Tribunals will let them get away with, so they are going to try to tax the loans everywhere – front, back, side, top, bottom. Ark is a bit more complicated because of the “reciprocal” situation, but HMRC will inevitably try to use the same approach with other schemes.

My defense and appeal argument against the Ark further assessments is as follows:
- Dalriada Trustees will be taking legal action to recover the loan which may result in profound financial loss for the member
- This member’s pension fund is severely depleted as a result of £11 million worth of unsecured personal loans which may or may not be recoverable, and in respect of which no interest has been received by the member’s scheme
- This member’s pension fund is further seriously prejudiced as a result of five years’ worth of trustees’ and legal fees – largely fueled by HMRC’s protracted prevarication over how, when and where to tax various aspects of the transfers/loans.
- There appears to be no end in sight to the overall financial loss this member will continue to face in the run up to the appeals being referred to the Tax Tribunals.
- Any “benefit in kind” which the member is arguably “enjoying” due to below market-rate interest payments, is more than eclipsed by the financial damage caused by the combination of HMRC’s and Dalriada’s actions over the last five years. The net result, therefore, far from being a benefit in kind is a significant “loss in kind”.
This argument is tailored and adapted for other schemes. But it is very important indeed to understand the relationship between the pension transfers and the loans, and encourage HMRC to act consistently – as well as asking the Tax Tribunals to use a consistent and fair approach. HMRC’s inconsistency has to date reflected their inability to make up their minds and has resulted in some schemes having the entire transfers taxed, while in others they are only taxing the loans.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRANSFERS AND THE LOANS

Firstly, let us be 100% clear about this: the transfers and the loans are absolutely inextricably linked – like Siamese twins that can’t be separated because they share the same vital organs. It may appear that I am weakening our arguments by taking this stance, but I don’t think separating the transfers from the loans is an argument that has legs, because it supports the claim by the scammers – i.e. that “there is no connection between the transfer and the loan”. I have struggled with some of the communications with HMRC because in some cases (most notably Michael Bridges in the Salmon Enterprises cases) HMRC has said that they do not accept there was ever a loan because there was no loan agreement. This is pure nonsense because in the Ark and other cases there were loan agreements sufficiently detailed and lengthy to have rivaled the entire works of Shakespeare, but HMRC still disregarded this and said “a loan by any other name would smell as rancid, and we will still tax it – loan agreement or no loan agreement”. The word “loan” is all part of the scam – whether accompanied by elaborate loan agreements and documentation or not. Calling the liberation of part (or all) of a pension a “loan” is like calling theft “setting free”; fraud “innovation”; scam “opportunity”; toxic investments “not traditionally available”.

In the Ark schemes, the relationship between the transfer and the loan was crystal clear (ish). A transferred his £100k pension to Lancaster; B transferred his £100k pension to Cranbourne. A lent B £50k; B lent A £50k. Therefore, neither borrowed money from their own fund but from the fund belonging to an (arguably) unconnected party. The Ark administrators claimed there was a “matching” process to pair up people with similar-sized transfers, and there was, apparently, a spreadsheet showing who lent money to whom, and who received money from whom.

This was the theory; but the reality was very different.

The Difference Between Theory And Practice Is Greater In Practice Than In Theory

No segregated (separated) accounts were kept for the Ark members, so it was in practice impossible to prove who made loans because all the funds were pooled in each of the six schemes. However, HMRC are trying to tax both ends of the loans i.e. those who received loans and those who made loans. This results in an anomalous situation because those who didn’t receive loans are still getting taxed. The further anomalous situation is that those who did receive loans will be pursued by the new trustees, Dalriada, for repayment of the loans (Dalriada will be taking legal action against the members to enforce repayment), but the unauthorised payment tax will still remain payable even if the loans are repaid. Add to this the fact that HMRC are also trying to tax the scheme itself for facilitating/allowing the reciprocal loan structure, and you have the potential for 55% at the receiving end; 55% at the making end; 40% at the scheme end; plus 40% of 4% a year in perpetuity (until the loans are repaid or written off). Let’s just hope the Tax Tribunal judge is not only sane but sober.

I have explained the Ark situation because it sets the scene for most – if not all – the other/subsequent ones. The difference was that far from making the loan mechanism transparent and obvious, the organisers of the rest have gone to elaborate lengths to try to create the illusion that there was no connection between the transfer and the loan. For example, Stephen Ward and his Evergreen liberation scam: members in Spain transferred their UK pensions to a New Zealand QROPS and received a 50% loan from a company in Cyprus. Then both Ward and Simon Swallow of Evergreen tried to claim there was no connection between the transfer and the loan. What they went to great lengths to conceal was that the funds for the loans were supplied by Penrich and Spectrum; and 41% of the assets of the Evergreen fund consisted of (yes, you guessed it!) Penrich and Spectrum.

Other schemes had multiple layers of obfuscation, smoke and mirrors: members’ funds were transferred into scheme A which made a loan to B which made a loan to C which made a loan to the members (e.g. Pennines – also in the hands of Dalriada Trustees). In fact, the only scheme that I know of which didn’t bother at all with any of this (somewhat tedious) subterfuge was Windsor Pensions, run by Steve Pimlott (who, coincidentally, is based in Florida not far from where Stephen Ward is hiding out currently). Pimlott didn’t bother with any of this “loans” nonsense: he just set up fraudulent bank accounts in the names of obscure QROPS, and then duped the ceding providers into transferring members’ funds into those bank accounts. Pimlott then retained his extortionate fees and sent the rest of the pension fund to the member by cheque. He claims to have done over 5,000 of these and is still at it to this day (he offered me one a couple of months ago when I was doing some “secret shopping”).

I have gone into to this in some depth because I want to make it clear that nobody – least of all HMRC – is ever going to believe for a second that the pension transfers are totally unconnected to the loans. I don’t want to waste a second of my or your time, effort or intelligence even considering that argument. The argument which is relevant to both types of assessment i.e. the original one for 55% and the subsequent “further” assessment for 40% on the alleged “benefit in kind” on the loan interest is as follows:
1. Protected Assessment of 55% on the “loan”: to my knowledge, across all the pension liberation schemes included in the Class Action – Ark, Evergreen, Capita Oak, Westminster, Salmon Enterprises, Pennines, Mendip, Headforte, Southlands, Windsor Pensions, etc., not one single member consciously took the decision to liberate part of their pension before the age of 55 knowing – or even suspecting – they were exposing themselves to an unauthorised payment charge. (Actually, that is not entirely true as I do know of two people and I have refused to represent them). Every single Class Action member was a victim of a scam and was defrauded into believing that the “loan” structure was a legitimate, lawful, bona fide mechanism which exploited a tax law “loophole” and that there would never be any tax to pay. Victims were sold/advised/introduced by a variety of parties – including IFA’s, solicitors, accountants, introducers, brokers, debt counsellors, and assorted regulated and unregulated professionals.
2. Further Protected Assessment of 40% on the “benefit in kind” on the “loan”: to my knowledge, not a single member has escaped without either partial or total loss to their pension fund – and potential total financial ruin/poverty in retirement. The majority of the assets of the various schemes were invested in toxic, illiquid, high risk assets – much of which paid handsome introduction commissions to the scammers as the prices were hugely inflated to start with. In cases where Dalriada Trustees have been appointed, there are huge losses to the value of the schemes because of trustees’ and legal fees over a period of up to five years. Reverting to my point that the transfers and the loans are inextricably linked, our position is that any small benefit that a member may have “enjoyed” as a result of not paying market-rate interest, is eclipsed to an enormous extent by the losses suffered on the funds. In fact, if we were to add in the cost of loss of earnings, legal fees and medical treatment due to the extensive stress, mental/physical suffering and marriage breakdowns caused by these scams, the piffling “benefit” which HMRC is trying to tax in the further assessments would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.
My final point is that HMRC is responsible for these scams. HMRC registered the schemes without due diligence, then failed to de-register them when it became obvious they were operating pension liberation “loans”. HMRC has been negligent, slow, inconsistent, intractable and has failed to observe its own charter:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/your-charter/your-charter

“We want to give you a service that is fair, accurate and based on mutual trust and respect”. I don’t think a single victim has the least degree of trust or respect for HMRC as they registered these scams – often to the same scammers over and over again.

“We also want to make it as easy as we can for you to get things right”. Registering pension schemes without due diligence to known, repeat scammers hardly makes anything easy for the victims. Failing to de-register schemes as soon as it was discovered they were scams contributed to the ease with which the scammers succeeded in continually defrauding thousands of victims.

“You can expect us to respect you and treat you as honest” All of the people sucked into these various liberation scams were victims of fraud and were entirely innocent and honest. They are now being treated and penalized as though they have done something wrong – despite having been advised by solicitors, accountants and financial advisers that the schemes were lawful and tax compliant in the first place.

“Provide a helpful, efficient and effective service” HMRC has known since 2006 that HMRC registration no longer meant HMRC “approved”. It has been clear that the scammers have used the term “HMRC approved” falsely as part of the defrauding process to lull victims into a false sense of security. But still HMRC has done nothing since 2010 to avoid registering schemes to scammers. This has not been helpful, efficient or effective, since as well as registering schemes to known repeat offenders, HMRC has not checked that sponsoring employers had ever traded or employed anybody (or were ever likely to) or – as in the case of Capita Oak and Westminster – that it even existed at all.

“Be professional and act with integrity” As above.

“Tackle those who bend or break the rules” Apart from the scammers behind Tudor Capital Management’s 25 different scams – including Salmon Enterprises – (now enjoying Her Majesty’s pleasure), the rest are still at large. Many of the known, repeat scammers have also committed large-scale tax evasion themselves, but remain free to this very day to continue their pension liberation operations in the UK and offshore. In fact, even when evidence against one of the leading scammers was handed to HMRC by me in June 2014 (including information on Stephen Ward’s Dorrixo Alliance), HMRC did absolutely nothing. Two months later a serving Police officer lost his Police pension to Dorrixo Alliance’s London Quantum scam, which is now in the hands of Dalriada Trustees. The officer is now too ill to continue his duties as a result of the stress and sleepless nights caused by this tragedy.

As HMRC’s “Dame Disaster” Lin Homer is about to be replaced by Edward Troup, and the DWP’s light-fingered, mendacious Iain Duncan-Smith has just been replaced by Stephen Crabb, perhaps we will at last be able to negotiate a tax amnesty for victims of pension liberation fraud. Despite the many disasters presided over by his predecessors, Crabb might just turn out to be the very hero within government we have so long sought. If he does turn out to be any good, let’s just hope he doesn’t get stabbed in the back by Altmann like Duncan-Smith was. Because that indeed would be tragic.

Top 10 Deadliest Pension Scammers
March 23, 2016
Justice Morgan Disaster
The Justice Morgan Disaster was a real setback for justice for victims of pension scams and emasculated the pensions ombudsman. Shame on the High Court.

Judgement in the matter of Donna-Marie Hughes and Royal London Mutual Insurance Society

Case Number CH/2015/0377 on 19^th February 2016

In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division

Letters to:
1. Justice Morgan
2. Steve Webb, Royal London (former pensions minister)
3. Pensions Ombudsman
4. Ms. Hughes
5. Bespoke Pension Solutions
6. HMRC
Background: This is the introduction to letters to parties responsible for, involved in and affected by this matter.

THE EFFECTS OF PENSION SCAMS

Pension scams since at least 2010 have caused serious loss and damage to thousands of victims. There have been suicides, nervous breakdowns, life-threatening illnesses and broken marriages as a result of the stress, despair and horror of pension frauds. The Royal London vs Hughes judgement has put at risk thousands of existing victims and has now potentially opened the flood gates to thousands more. The vast majority of the existing victims fear above all losing their homes and facing poverty in retirement – despite having worked hard all their lives to save diligently for their retirement. Providers and advisers are utterly horrified and disgusted at this judgement because it further compromises confidence in the pensions industry and the principal of saving for retirement.

I would draw attention to Clause 53 in Justice Bean’s Ark ruling where he makes it clear that legislation wording must be interpreted intelligently – and not blindly. Judges can (and should) use their common sense and make ‘purposive’ judgements where necessary. In other words they can decide, where the wording of a clause is poor, weak or ambiguous, on the basis of the obvious purpose or intention of the legislation. Clearly, Justice Morgan failed to do this and relied on the exact wording in the legislation and ignored the obvious intention of the wording.

A substantial number of victims have been appalled by this ruling. The saying “the law is an ass” has been used repeatedly – and with some considerable disgust. I have always found this to be an anomalous saying since a donkey is a dependable, reliable, strong, faithful and obedient creature. And these are all the attributes the law is supposed to have. Legislation is supposed to protect the rights of citizens, but in this matter Justice Morgan’s ruling has had the opposite effect.

OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEME/LIBERATION SCAMS

Let us look at the facts regarding occupational pension schemes/liberation scams to date which have cost victims somewhere between £1 billion and £55 billion (depending upon which quoted authority’s figures are used):
- All the known pension liberation scams have to date used occupational schemes
- Not a single one of the sponsors of these “occupational” schemes had ever traded
- It was never intended that any of the sponsors of these “occupational” schemes would ever trade
- Not a single one of the sponsors of these “occupational” schemes had ever employed anybody
- It was never intended that any of the sponsors of these “occupational” schemes would ever employ anybody
- Some of the sponsors of the “occupational” schemes didn’t even exist
- The companies (whether they existed or not) were set up purely for the purpose of running a pension scam
The legislation does in fact state that a member of an occupational pension scheme should have some sort of earnings/employment – but falls short of saying that the earnings/employment should be with the sponsor of the occupational scheme (to which a member is intending or attempting to transfer). The Pensions Ombudsman spotted this omission and made it clear that a person should indeed have earnings/employment with the sponsor of the scheme otherwise it would be a “very strange result”. In other words, he interpreted the wording of the legislation intelligently – he looked behind the weakness in the wording of the legislation and applied the clear intention of the condition.

The Pensions Regulator’s Scorpion campaign specifically warns against the dangers of the way “occupational” schemes are set up for fraudulent purposes in the case of pension scams:
1. A recently set up small self-administered scheme – SSAS, where the member is a trustee sponsored by a newly registered employer
2. A scheme sponsored by a dormant employer
3. A scheme sponsored by an employer that is geographically distant from the member
4. A scheme sponsored by an employer that doesn’t employ the member
5. A scheme connected to an unregulated investment company
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE HUGHES CASE?

Ms. Hughes’ proposed transfer from the Royal London scheme ticked these warning boxes. But now Justice Morgan’s ruling has disarmed and emasculated the Pensions Regulator, the Pensions Ombudsman and the ceding pension trustee.

The simple fact is that, leaving all legal jargon aside, trustees could now be under a legal duty to effect a transfer to a scheme, even when there is reasonable (or even compelling) suspicion that the transfer is to a bogus scheme. It may now be the case that when all the warning signs clearly outlined by the Pensions Regulator should be ignored even when, as in Ms. Hughes’ case, every single warning bell is sounding loudly and clearly.

It is my obligation to refer you to the fact that the industry, regulators, law enforcement agencies, courts, ombudsmen and victims (existing and future) desperately need the legislation to be tightened – not relaxed (or, as in this case, made completely impotent). This judgement has effectively given the green light for hundreds of scammers to scam thousands of innocent victims out of their hard-earned pensions.

HISTORY OF HOW PENSION SCAMS ARE SET UP

History, since 2011, shows that various pension liberation scams including Ark, Capita Oak, Westminster, Evergreen, Salmon Enterprises, Eric’s Yard, Pennines, London Quantum, Headforte, Southlands etc., all shared a collection of common traits:
1. They were set up, administered and promoted by an unregulated firm
2. The firm obscured the identity of the team
3. The address of the firm was a virtual office
4. The assets of the scams being peddled included high risk, illiquid, speculative investments entirely unsuitable for pensions
5. Bogus “occupational” schemes were registered with HMRC and tPR (who did nothing to check that the sponsoring employers actually traded or employed anybody – or indeed even existed at all)
6. Pensions were liberated using a variety of “loan” structures which victims were assured were legitimate “loopholes”
7. Transfer and loan fees were extortionately high
8. Victims were promised unrealistic gains such as “guaranteed 8% return per annum”
9. The schemes’ assets often included huge “kickbacks” for the introducers (up to 60%)
The firms and individuals offering, promoting, and running these schemes included:
- Gary Collin of Asset Harbour https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000bOu6zAAC
- Premier Pension Solutions in Spain (run by Tolleys Pensions Taxation author Stephen Ward – available on Amazon if you need a copy)
- Premier Pension Transfers Ltd (31 Memorial Road, Worsley)
- Fraser Collins, Villa Financial
- Julian Hanson
- Gerard Associates http://www.gerardassociates.co.uk/
- Frost Financial
- Continental Wealth Management, Spain
- P. Sterling
- Viva Costa International
- Windsor Pensions
- Blu Debt Management
- Wealth Masters
- Paul Baxendale Walker
- James Lau
- Silk Financial Solutions, Alexander Johnson – now James Alexander Enterprises
- Hudson Clarke
- Jackson Francis
- Jeremy Denning
- Tony Jimenez (Newcastle United and Charlton Athletic FC)
- Wightman, Fletcher McCabe
- Spain Wealth Management
- Mark Ainsworth
- Ralph Noel and Sons
Thousands of victims have lost £ billions worth of hard-earned pension funds and gained £ millions in tax liabilities in the past six years. The assets of these schemes have included offshore property, store pods, car parking spaces, unregulated collective investments, eucalyptus forests, hedge funds, forex, Cape Verde property etc.

THE EFFECT OF THIS RULING

I am not saying that Bespoke Pension Services are scammers but on the back of their victory in the case of Ms. Hughes, there are a further 160 blocked pension transfers sitting with the Pensions Ombudsman. We have no way of knowing whether they will all be pension transfers invested in Cape Verde assets, but we do know the Hughes case must have been very important to Bespoke Pension Services’ business.

Interestingly, Bespoke Pension Services are unregulated and their address is a virtual office. According to their latest published accounts the firm was insolvent in 2014. The two directors/shareholders – Mark Anthony Miserotti and Clive John Howells – have between them an impressive portfolio of investment, consultancy, property development, investment and financial planning companies – one of which is called “Fortaleza Investments” which suggests something Brazilian.

On the back of Justice Morgan’s judgement in respect of Royal London, there will be a serious problem for all the pension providers who performed so appallingly in Ark, Capita Oak, Westminster, Evergreen et al: the worst of which being Standard Life, Prudential, Scottish Widows, Aviva and Legal and General. Having handed over £ millions worth of pension funds since 2010 – in a lazy, negligent, box-ticking fashion – there is evidence that they are trying to mend their ways. Or at least there had been, until the judgement in the Hughes/Royal London/Bespoke Pension Services case.

It is essential to read Clause 53 in Justice Bean’s 2011 Ark ruling where he makes it clear that legislation wording must be interpreted intelligently – and not blindly. He is obviously trying to make the point that it is essential to avoid an anomalous or unjust result from failing to look behind the intended meaning of wording in legislation. Indeed, the Pensions Ombudsman had already done that when looking at the wording when he said that he found that a transferee did indeed need to be employed by the sponsor of an occupational scheme in order to avoid a “strange result”. Justice Morgan’s judgement has now put at risk thousands of victims’ pensions. There have already been suicides, nervous breakdowns, life-threatening illnesses, broken marriages and families. There will be widespread poverty in retirement and many people will lose their homes. A strange result indeed – which does rather beg the question of how victims will get any protection or justice now?

PENSION LIFE WOULD LIKE ANSWERS URGENTLY

Hopefully, the recipients of the following letters will provide some answers:

Dear Justice Morgan

Hopefully, you can clear up a few questions which are puzzling me and many other disgusted parties: why did you ignore the Pensions Regulator’s clear warnings re pension scams?; why did you ignore the Pensions Ombudsman’s intelligent interpretation of the poorly-worded legislation?; why did you ignore Justice Bean’s warnings re avoiding anomalous or unjust results in the Ark case?; how many victims will now lose their pensions as a result of your judgement?; how many of these victims will lose their homes and even their lives?; what research did you do into how pension scams have worked this past six years before making your judgement?; what steps are you now taking to highlight the urgency of reforming and re-writing pension legislation to correct the weakness in the wording relating to genuine employment by a sponsor of an occupational pension scheme?; what remorse do you now feel for the fact that you have put £ billions worth of pensions at risk?

Dear Steve Webb, Royal London

Hopefully, as former Pensions Minister, you can give some clarity to how Royal London feels this appalling judgement can be appealed, or its effects mitigated. It is obviously completely unacceptable that pension trustees may now be forced to allow transfers even when it is strongly suspected that the receiving scheme is a scam. However, an even more serious concern is that this may now compromise claims against negligent ceding providers. Dozens of negligent firms handed over £ millions worth of personal and occupational pensions to scammers from 2010 onwards. These firms asked no questions either before tPR’s Scorpion campaign or after and simply used a lazy, negligent, box-ticking approach. Obviously, these firms need to compensate their victims and restore faith and confidence in the industry. According to my own records, the worst offender overall by a generous margin was Standard Life. Other firms that performed especially badly included Prudential, Scottish Widows, Legal and General, Aviva, Phoenix Life and Aegon. My evidence suggests that Royal London was not among those who negligence was as extensive as Standard Life et al, but I do have one case that it would be useful for you to address. Your firm’s victim – whose pension was handed over to one of the Ark schemes: Portman – is currently fighting ISIS in the Middle East and is playing a significant role in defending our country from terrorism. I am sure you will be particularly keen to ensure he is compensated for the loss of his pension and the exposure to crippling tax penalties. What will definitely help to rescue the public’s and the industry’s disgust at the widespread negligence of firms such as Standard Life will be if Royal London sets a shining example and pays out the required compensation voluntarily rather than waiting for the victims to have to drag these matters through the courts.

Dear Pensions Ombudsman

Hopefully, you will have some valuable thoughts and suggestions on the effects of Justice Morgan’s ruling in the Royal London case. As I am sure you can imagine, the scammers will be absolutely delighted and will now be setting out to ruin even more victims’ lives on an even greater scale. It is obvious that pension scams are very lucrative for the scammers and their success can be measured by the impressive houses and cars they own. Perhaps you could let me have your thoughts as to what pension trustees should now be doing to protect their members? You must also be aware that targeted victims are often carefully “coached” by the scammers as to how to overcome resistance to transfer requests. In the case of the London Quantum scam (the trustee of which was Stephen Ward of Dorrixo Alliance at 31 Memorial Road, Worsley), for example, one adviser reported that he had several clients desperately trying to get out of the scheme and several more trying equally desperately to get into the scheme. Now that London Quantum is in the hands of tPR-appointed Dalriada Trustees, the assets have been disclosed as being the usual toxic, illiquid, high-risk investments such as car parking spaces, forex trading, derelict German buildings and Cape Verde properties.

Dear Ms. Hughes

Hopefully, you yourself can shed some light on why you were so desperate to transfer your Royal London £8,000 fund into a SSAS. You are registered as the sole director and shareholder of Babbacombe Road 1973 Ltd. However, there is no evidence that this company has ever traded or employed anybody since 2014. Also, it would be interesting to know what your connection to Bespoke Pension Solutions is and how this firm initially made contact with you. Your High Court proceedings must have involved some considerable time, effort and expense; did you pay your legal costs yourself? Were you aware that this firm had a further 160 pension transfer attempts hingeing on the outcome of your case? I am also curious as to why you have three different director IDs at different addresses? 905529548 at 49 Wakedean Gardens, Yatton, Bristol BS49 4BN; 918824265 at First Floor Flat, 269 Babbacombe Road, Torquay TQ1 3SZ, 912378590 at Brynteg Llangenny, Crickhowell, Powys NP8 1HE. Finally, why are you using a firm with no evidence of a premises, regulation, qualifications or team members?

Dear Bespoke Pension Solutions

Hopefully, you could explain a couple of issues that I am struggling to understand. Why do you use a virtual office rather than a physical address? Officefront Why are the members of your team not disclosed on your website? What qualifications do your team have for pensions and investment advice? Why was your firm still trading while, according to Companies House records, the company was insolvent in 2014? Did your firm pay off the £101k owed to creditors in 2014? What regulation does your firm have for pensions and investments in the UK? Which lead generation service do you use? Which cold-calling sales service do you use? What investment introduction commission relationships do you currently have? (e.g. Store First, Quantum, Cape Verde, Dubai Car Parks, Dolphin etc). Do you have professional indemnity insurance? Did you pay Ms. Hughes’ legal fees? What connection does your firm have to First Review Pensions? http://whocallsme.com/Phone-Number.aspx/01332426342/2

Dear HMRC

Hopefully, you can now – finally – provide answers to crucial questions relating to your role in pension scams. Since 2010, HMRC have been registering schemes without checking the credentials of the trustees, the sponsoring employer or the purpose behind the scheme (i.e. to provide income in retirement, to operate pension liberation or to earn huge commissions on investment introductions). Of even greater concern is the burning question as to why HMRC did not de-register schemes as soon as there were concerns in order to prevent victims from losing their pensions and gaining crippling tax liabilities. If you remember, HMRC had a meeting with Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions to discuss the Ark schemes in February 2011. At this time, there was about £7m in Ark, but HMRC did not suspend the registration and nothing was done to close the scheme down until three months later by which time there was £30 million in Ark. Hence, HMRC was directly responsible for hundreds of victims’ financial ruin and is currently pursuing these people for tax which was entirely preventable had HMRC suspended the schemes. Subsequently, having known that Stephen Ward was heavily involved in pension liberation, HMRC then went on to accept numerous pension scheme registrations from him and his company Dorrixo Alliance at 31 Memorial Road, Worsley. These included Southlands, Headforte and London Quantum – among many others. HMRC was handed evidence of these various schemes in May 2014, and yet took no action to suspend any of the schemes. Then in August 2014 a serving police officer lost his police pension to London Quantum. In 2010/2011, HMRC, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Pensions Regulator were all investigating the fraud being perpetrated by pension trustees Tudor Capital Management. But although there were a total of 25 different schemes involved – one of which was Salmon Enterprises (yet another bogus “occupational” scheme) – HMRC did nothing to suspend the schemes and prevent victims from losing their pensions and being exposed to tax liabilities. HMRC is currently pursuing thousands pension scam victims for tax on transactions which could – and should – have been prevented had HMRC acted diligently. Therefore, kindly confirm what proposals is HMRC currently working on for compensating these victims for the damage and loss caused by HMRC’s negligence?

From Angela Brooks, ACA Pension Life

www.pension-life.com
March 4, 2016
Pension Life talks to SUR about Hefty Taxes for Pension Liberation Victims

February 26, 2016
3 Watchwords used by Pension Scammers

3 Watchwords used by Pension Scammers

VISIT PENSION-LIFE.COM

Pension Scammers

ACA Pension Life Chairman Angie Brooks was recently quoted as revealing the top words used by pension scammers:

January 14, 2016