Tag: Ark

  • Pension Life Wish List

    Pension Life Wish List:

    make a wish; make a list: make a pension wish list!

    Pension Life is still dealing with so many victims of scams and scammers.  None of the Pension Life wishes published in December 2015 have come true.  In the intervening two years, thousands more people have lost part or all of their pensions – and the scammers are all still out there, scamming away merrily.

    Maybe the next two years will see some real change?  We at Pension Life certainly hope so.  Because things cannot continue like this – too many lives are being ruined.  The wish list is as valid and urgent now as it was in 2015.

    No.1 HMRC to do some basic due diligence before registering pension schemes.

    HMRC due diligence

    This has to be at the top of our pension wish list – whether for Christmas, Easter, or on May Day!  Since pension simplification in 2006, HMRC has done zero checking on a scheme before registering it. They rely on the principle of “self certification” which means that if the person who registers the scheme doesn’t actually admit that it is being set up fraudulently, then HMRC assumes that the scheme is not being set up fraudulently. In fact, HMRC says that even if they had asked the question “are you setting this scheme up fraudulently” the answer would always be “no” irrespective. Interestingly, the same principle does not appear to apply to either the victims or the ceding (original) pension providers as they are supposed to do their own due diligence to establish whether HMRC has “inadvertently” registered a fraudulent scheme.

    The 6th of April 2006, or A day as it is often called, was the date on which the then government simplified pension setup in relation to the tax relievable contributions and the assets in which pension funds could be invested. The intention was to simplify pensions going forward and de-clutter the complicated pension legislation set up by previous administrations. However, evidence suggests the opposite happened, leaving people open to losing their pension entirely or in part. This is especially the case for QROPS, which were introduced as a result of A Day. QROPS allowed unqualified offshore advisers to advise on very complex UK pensions with tragic results. Although simplification started in 2006, a detailed understanding of all the different pension rules that existed before that year is essential. People who joined pension schemes before 1987 or 1989 or 2006 may well have important protections that could be lost through the negligence of an incompetent adviser.

    So, in the course of simplifying the pension process the government has left a lot of pension holders vulnerable to pension advisers who are not regulated, or qualified correctly. HMRC now need to implement new criteria for registration of pension schemes.

    HMRC regulation and qualification of pensions

    Currently, there is no list of HMRC registered schemes available to the public. This is something that is desperately needed and it needs to report the regulatory status of each scheme.

    To suggest that an ordinary citizen without a background in finance and pensions should do ‘their own due diligence’ is downright ridiculous. Most ordinary people wouldn’t have a clue what to do or what questions to ask. And even if they did, they wouldn’t understand the answers. The best thing to do is to ensure a properly regulated and qualified financial adviser is used before making any changes to pension arrangements. However, in the UK, this advice would not be free and a charge would be made for it. The fraudsters would be offering “free” or “low cost” advice which would be deducted from the transfer – and this is why so many victims are conned.

    If an ordinary citizen were to attempt their own Due Diligence they would first need to check if the adviser is regulated. Adviser regulations depend on what they are advising on – be it pensions, investments or insurance. So while an adviser could claim to be regulated, they may not be regulated for the service, product or scheme they are advising on.

    The experience and qualification of the adviser is also a very important aspect of due diligence. Unfortunately, glowing testimonials are not sufficient. There is no one-stop resource in which you can be fully confident about the information you get on the adviser.

    One simple example of an obvious scam is the company “occupational” pension scheme. If an occupational pension is offered, a transferee needs to be an employee. Bear in mind the reason so many scammers set up schemes as “occupational” is that an occupational scheme with less than 100 members comes under the radar of regulatory scrutiny. In other words, the organisers and promoters of such schemes can get away with setting up fraudulent schemes. So many scams involved occupational schemes since 2010 – from Ark to London Quantum (both placed in the hands of independent trustees Dalriada by the Pensions Regulator). Sometimes, the sponsors of these schemes actually existed; sometimes they didn’t. Rarely had they ever traded or employed anybody. And of course, neither HMRC nor tPR checked this. Anyone being offered a transfer to an “occupational” scheme when they are not genuinely employed by the employing sponsor of the scheme should be extremely wary.

    No.2 The Pensions Regulator (tPR) to do some basic due diligence before registering occupational pension schemes.

    The Pension Regulator to Regulate

    Also near the top of our pension wish list, is the fact that we want a good, strong and effective pensions regulator – not a chocolate teapot.  The Pensions Regulator(tPR) seem to be reactive rather than proactive. The general public are not able to contact anyone at tPR. tPR doesn’t declare what due diligence they do before registering occupational schemes (in fact it is pretty hard to speak to them at all and they don’t answer emails). Parliament gave tPR independence and it appears they are answerable to nobody. They do intervene in some cases and place suspicious schemes in the hands of independent trustees, but there is no evidence that they do anything to prevent scams from getting off the ground in the first place and only take action once hundreds of victims have lost their pensions.

    No.3 Known pension scammers to be prosecuted and given maximum prison sentences to send out an urgent message of “zero tolerance” of pension scams.

    EXPOSE PENSION SCAMMERS

    As far as we at Pension Life know, there are very few instances of scammers being jailed. Known pension scammers are still out there on the streets, having scammed hundreds/thousands of victims out of their pensions and are in the process of scamming hundreds more every week. The same old same old worthless “investments” are still being peddled and nothing is being done to clean up this toxic trade which obliterates so many pensions collected over years of work in the hope of a secure retirement.

    2018 has seen many scammers ‘accepting’ bans from acting as pension trustees, however, this is not enough the SFO needs to push forward with their investigation’s and hand out long prison sentences to serial pension scammers AND make them pay the victims back.

    No.4 Toxic UCIS’ to be investigated and “toxic” warnings to be issued

    Tosic Investments IN Pension

    The FCA will not allow regulated advisers to sell Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes (UCIS) to anyone other than professional investors. The selling of them by unregulated advisers is actionable by the FCA. The FCA does issue warnings about schemes such as these but their followers are only people working within the financial investment industry and it is only after the investments are made that many of the public become aware of these toxic investments. The general public would not be familiar with the FCA and what it does as only the industry looks at their website, generally.

    Pension Life would suggest that the FCA reaches out to the public and ensure that toxic investments are publicly named and shamed through mainstream media. The problem is that neither the regulators nor the police authorities do anything to stop known high-risk “dodgy” UCIS’ – let alone blatant investment scams.  This is especially true of funds such as Blackmore Global and Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund.

    No.5 Sanctions for ceding providers who handed over thousands of pensions in a negligent/box-ticking fashion.

     

    Pension Ceding PRoviderPension Ceding ProviderCeding pension provider Ceding Provider

    Sadly, the very institutions in whose hands the retirement interests of the British public are placed are the worst at admitting liability for handing over £billions haphazardly to obvious scams without any due diligence. All the big names – from Aviva and Prudential to Standard Life and Scottish Widows – were hopelessly inept from 2010 to 2013 and did no due diligence to prevent victims’ pensions from getting handed over to the scammers.

    It is now time the government stepped in and reminded these firms of their fiduciary obligations. That is to say that the government and these ceding providers have a duty of acting in good faith with regard to the interests of the ordinary pension holder.

    No.6 Government to take an interest in Pension Scams

    The government needs to take action on Pension Fraud Wake Up Altmann

    To all intents and purposes, the government is doing absolutely nothing to prevent pension scams, toxic pension investments, unregulated advisers and non-compliant schemes. As to why the loss of billions of pounds of pension scheme funds should not merit the interest of the government, remains a complete mystery.

     The government claims to be “aware” of pension scams and pledges to treat the observation and “monitoring” of this massive-scale fraud as if it were a spectator sport. Iain Duncan-Smith promised to set up meetings with Ark Class Action members and senior government ministers in 2014, but then reneged on his promise. Ros Altmann simply refused to meet the Ark Class Action at all and instructed the DWP security guard to order them off the premises.

    No.7 DEDICATED TASK FORCE 

    As a matter of the utmost urgency – no more messing around and pretending/lying/hiding – the government needs to set up a specialist task force to pull together regulation, policing, public information/warnings and a tax amnesty for victims of pension liberation fraud. It is now irrefutable that the Scorpion Campaign has failed; HMRC’s Project Bloom has failed; the FCA has failed; tPR has failed; the government has failed; ceding providers such as Standard Life, Aviva etc., have failed; Action Fraud has failed; the National Crime Agency has failed. Failure is no longer an option and the specialist task force needs to take over and get this disgraceful mess sorted once and for all.

    Pension Liberation transfers scams for under 55 and over 55. Pension liberation is a scam

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Pension Liberation Costs

    Pension liberation fraud costs victims £millions every year.  It ruins lives and causes desperate poverty in retirement.  But the situation is made far worse because the State has badly miscalculated how much it will cost to support these victims for the rest of their lives.  The amount of tax actually collected will be far outstripped by the cost of support and healthcare.

  • PRUDENTIAL’S TRANSFERS TO PENSION SCAMS

    Paul Manduca – Chairman of Prudential

    LETTER TO PRUDENTIAL’S CHAIRMAN RE TRANSFERS TO PENSION SCAMS

    Dear Mr. Manduca

    As you are the Chairman of Prudential, and in light of the recent POS determination in respect of a Capita Oak victim’s transfer out of Prudential and in to a scheme which was clearly a pension liberation scam, I feel it is important to bring to your attention the significance of the Ombudsman’s decision for Prudential, dozens of other ceding providers, and for the thousands of victims of pension liberation fraud.

    The Pensions Ombudsman feels there should be a distinction between the culpability/negligence of transfers made by ceding providers pre-tPR Scorpion campaign and post. I disagree very strongly and believe that if you allow this precedent to impact on the defrauded members of Prudential, this will also allow other ceding providers (your competitors) to escape responsibility for failing the thousands of members who have fallen victim to scams such as Capita Oak. This will impact severely on the credibility of not just Prudential but the whole industry and Britain’s ethos of saving for a pension.

    The Pensions Regulator was issuing warnings about pension liberation fraud back in 2009. But in 2010/11, Prudential allowed dozens (at least) of transfers into Ark. Following tPR’s action (placing the six Ark schemes into the hands of Dalriada in May 2011), and a high-profile High Court ruling by Justice Bean which declared Ark to be a “fraud on the power of investment”, Prudential do not appear to have improved their due diligence at all.

    HMRC state that “members and pension providers would have been aware of warnings/tax consequences in early 2012 (to pension liberation scams) as there were sufficient warnings and publicity available within the public domain from regulator websites, such as HMRC’s, the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority and a number of pension provider websites.”

    And yet, in 2012/13, Prudential transferred at least 28 members’ pensions totalling more than £829k to the Capita Oak pension liberation scam. Around half of these were post Scorpion. (Scottish Widows, by comparison, transferred more than £750k into Capita Oak and half of this was post Scorpion.)

    Also in 2012/13, Prudential transferred at least £383k to another pension liberation scam: Westminster. Most of this was post Scorpion. Prudential was beaten only by Scottish Widows who transferred more than £485k to Westminster – all of it post Scorpion.

    In none of the transfers did Prudential seek confirmation that the members were genuinely employed by the sponsors of Capita Oak and Westminster. Had they done so, they would have found that both schemes had the same spurious “employer” (a non-existent company in Cyprus) and the same administrator: Imperial Trustee Services Ltd.

    Prudential also failed to spot that both these schemes’ transfer administration was handled by Stephen Ward’s company Premier Pension Transfers Ltd at 31 Memorial Road, Worsley (with Ward’s Spanish firm Premier Pension Solutions SL being a tied agent of AES Financial Services Ltd, an FCA-regulated firm). A little more gentle digging with a very small spade would have found that Ward was the principal promoter and administrator for Ark.

    In researching the Ark, Capita Oak and Westminster members’ files, I can find no evidence that Prudential did any due diligence at all in respect of any of the transfers. Prudential asked no questions of the members or of the administrators of the schemes. Prudential asked for no copies of the trust deed or the scheme accounts or evidence of the sponsoring employer. There is no evidence in my possession that Prudential’s transfer due diligence improved at all post Scorpion.

    In response to one of my complaints to Prudential in respect of a transfer to Ark, Prudential’s Customer Relations Specialist Yvonne Kewell wrote on 7.3.15: “I can assure you that all appropriate checks were done before we transferred the fund. We followed the correct process as required at that time”.

    If Prudential’s “appropriate checks” and “correct process” between 2010 and 2013 were to fail to heed tPR’s warnings as far back as 2009 and beyond; ignore advice widely available in the public domain in early 2012 (according to HMRC); neglect to adhere to the Scorpion checklist in 2013, then what possible faith can the public have in Prudential or indeed the rest of the industry?

    To my knowledge, Prudential have transferred well over £2m in members’ funds to pension liberation scams (and that’s just the ones I know about). Operated by the same scammers. In the same manner. To the same effect for the victims: poverty in retirement and crippling tax liabilities which may result in homelessness.

    Prudential’s Ms Kewell’s concluding statement reads: “I hope my letter explains our position”. If Prudential’s position is that it is acceptable to fail its members and ignore warnings/advice widely available in the public domain over a four-year period, then perhaps that redefines the term “customer relations”?

    Prudential has a once-only opportunity here to emerge from this series of debacles as a shining example of how a leading pension provider should respond to valid complaints of negligence. If Prudential sets a conscientious example and compensates the victims voluntarily (notwithstanding the POS determination above) then all the other providers will have no option other than to follow suit.

    I have thrown down the gauntlet. I look forward to your early response. You and Prudential can either emerge as a hero or a villain since I can assure you there is a determined and highly-organised campaign to bring ALL negligent ceding providers to justice in respect of negligent transfers to pension liberation scams. With a compliance and legal team the size of Huddersfield, I sincerely hope that Prudential will now elect to become a hero amongst the depressing tide of ceding providers who have sought pathetically to justify their failings in thousands of negligent transfers to obvious scams.

    Regards, Angela Brooks – Chairman, Ark Class Action and Pension Life
    www.pension-life.com

  • BBC News England – Meet the pension liberation fraud victims.

    BBC Inside Out investigates a new cold-calling practice involving pension liberation fraud which is taking place across England.

    Liberating your pension

    Click here to watch video

    Pension liberation fraud has been reported widely in the press, on t.v. and on radio for several years.  The Inside Out documentary showed how easily victims are scammed by the teams of scammers.  The Ark Class Action, led by Angela Brooks, filmed part of this programme at the BBC studios along with a financial adviser and solicitor.

    Interestingly, Andrew Isles, the accountant who helped design and set up the Ark schemes, took part enthusiastically in the filming.  The BBC team did some secret shopping of their own, and uncovered another pension liberation scheme run by George Frost – former Chairman of Canvey Island Football Club.  Frost’s scheme invested victims’ pensions in “truffle trees”.

  • ARK PENSION DISASTER – THE TIMES ARTICLE

    The Times – good quality journalism reporting poor quality financial advice

    Ark Pension Disaster – The Times Article – Mark Atherton Uncovers Pension Liberation Scam

    Money

    Pension scam leaves victims in debt

    Angie Brooks is leading a campaign to secure justice for victims of a pensions “liberation” scam                                                  Pic: Richard Pohle

    Mark Atherton

    Last updated at 12:01 AM, September 13 2014

    Thousands of people have lost more than £500 million of their savings after being duped into taking part in unauthorised “pension liberation” scams. Experts say that the true figure runs into billions because many cases go unreported.

    They also warn that next year’s relaxation of the rules governing how you can take your pension cash will provide a fertile breeding ground for fresh scams as fraudsters queue up to exploit the uncertainty around the new pensions regime.

    Some of today’s victims fear they have lost their entire pension savings, while others say they have been driven to the brink of suicide.

    The lure of pensions “liberation”

    Savers were originally lured into transferring their pension pots by the promise of getting their hands on their retirement cash before the age of 55. However, many succeeded in “unlocking” only half of their pension pot, with the rest going partly into uncertain property investments, partly into cash and partly to the scheme’s promoters through hefty fees.

    Savers were told that these schemes were legitimate but that was not true. Now many of the victims are facing financial ruin as they are being told to hand back the money they “liberated”, while Revenue & Customs is poised to slap on a tax penalty of 55 percent of the “unlocked” cash. In many cases, they simply do not have the money to pay.

    The Ark schemes

    Among the biggest “liberation” schemes were those created by Ark, a pensions consultant. These were marketed by financial advisers and so-called “introducers” in the UK and Spain. One of the main players was Stephen Ward, of Premier Pension Solutions (PPS), a Spanish-based company.

    Angie Brooks, below, a former tax barrister, who is leading the class action on behalf of the Ark victims, says: “Mr Ward assured Ark applicants that it was lawful and tax-free and was approved by the Revenue and the pensions regulator. The Revenue registered the six Ark occupational pension schemes without checking for compliance. So did the pensions regulator. This understandably gave the Ark members the reasonable illusion that the schemes were lawful and approved by the UK government.”

    The registration procedures have now been changed. She says that between September 2010 and May 2011, £25 million was transferred from personal and occupational pension plans into Ark schemes, for fees of up to 10 percent of the value of the transferred pot. More was transferred after this, bringing the total to £27 million.

    PPS teamed up with AES International, a firm regulated in the UK, which gave PPS a tied agent agreement to operate in Spain under its regulation (though this did not authorise PPS to carry out pension transfers). PPS carried out at least 160 Ark pension transfers, totalling £10.7 million, with Ark taking a 5 percent cut of each transfer, PPS pocketing a further 3 per cent, as well as a slice of the Ark money, and AES receiving a 12.5 percent slice of PPS’s cut.

    The schemes “unlocked” money by arranging for members to make reciprocal loans, worth about half the value of their pension pot, to each other. Many believed they would not have to repay these loans, known as Maximising Pension Value Arrangements (MPVA). The remaining half of their pension pots, after deduction of hefty charges, was partly held in cash and partly used to buy plots of land or timeshares.

    Alarm bells started to ring in December 2010 when the Revenue expressed “concerns” over the lawfulness of the schemes, though it was not until May that they were suspended and a trustee — Dalriada — appointed. It embarked on litigation that resulted in the Ark schemes being declared invalid and the reciprocal loans judged to be “unauthorised payments” in the High Court in December 2011.

    The cost to Ark victims

    The judge’s ruling delivered a twofold blow to Ark members. First, Dalriada was enabled to demand back the money they had received as loans under the schemes. Second, since the loans were “unauthorised payments” the Revenue was entitled to levy a penalty charge of 55 per cent on these sums. The Revenue has not decided whether to tax the donors or recipients.

    Dalriada has managed to recover more than £6 million of the £7 million which Ark spent on property investments. Sean Browes, of Dalriada, adds that it also has £9 million of Ark money in a bank account and is seeking to unscramble the £10 million of reciprocal loans. However, this has come at the cost of £800,000 in Dalriada’s fees and £1.9 million in legal costs.

    According to Ms Brooks, Mr Ward has, since the suspension of Ark, been linked to pension liberation schemes which have attracted hundreds of fresh customers — something he denies.

    He says: “PPS provided information regarding the Ark schemes in good faith based on the information and opinions provided by Ark and our own independent research. We included statements that independent financial advice should be sought and a number of people who did take advice found the experts they consulted agreed with our understanding of the position. We believe the damage has been caused primarily by the Revenue’s failure to take action when it first became aware of the schemes and by Dalriada’s fees.”

    Sam Instone, the head of AES International, says: “We had nothing to do with the Ark scheme and we earned a negligible amount from our tied agency with PPS. We have no legal responsibility for what has occurred here.”

    Craig Tweedley, who created the Ark schemes, says: “We took extensive advice about the validity of these schemes before launch. We were concerned when we learned that some introducers were claiming that the MPVA loans did not have to be repaid when a key part of our scheme was that they should.”

    Dalriada says: “The Ark schemes were very unusual and have taken some time and, unfortunately, money to unravel. The members of these schemes have been scammed.”

    Anyone with information about these pensions “liberation” schemes is invited to contact mark.atherton@ thetimes.co.uk

    Be on your guard against scams

    • Ahead of next year’s changes to the rules, one aspect of which means those aged 55 or over can take money from their pension, the scammers are gearing up to part you from your cash. Be on your guard
    • If someone promises to help you take money from your pension pot before the age of 55 it is almost certainly a scam: you could lose the lot
    • Even if you are over 55, do not deal with anyone targeting you by phone, text message or approaching you in person. Beware the words: ‘free pension review’
    • Do not deal with anyone who is not registered with the Financial Conduct Authority for pension transfers
  • Ark, Evergreen Retirement Trust QROPS and Marazion Timeline

    Note similarity between the Marazion and Perpetual logos!

    ARK DISASTER – MARAZION/EVERGREEN PENSION LOAN SCHEMES:

    TIME-LINE

    ARK CLASS ACTION

    An Ark victim has suggested it would be a good idea to do a full update so everybody knows the entire story so far.  I agree that’s a good idea so here is a brief outline of where we are and how we got here.  If anyone has any questions or wants further information the Ark Class Action can be contacted on arkmarazion@gmail.com.

    2010: a group of investors got together and purchased a plot of land in Larnaca, Cyprus for 1 million pounds.  With the intention to try to turn it into a golf course.  Only they needed more land and more money.  So they consulted a group of “experts” who came up with the idea of attracting investment by starting a pension scheme.  Now, pensions are supposed to be LOW RISK. And diverse. Speculative land development projects are NOT a good idea for a pension (due to being high risk).  Financial advisers are supposed to know this and are not supposed to advise their clients to put their hard-earned pensions into a scheme based on a potentially worthless piece of land.

    OFFICIAL TIME-LINE 2010: Ark was formed by a group of “experts” and the worthless piece of land originally bought for 1 million was sold to Ark for 4 million.

    August 2010: Ark’s “Master Pension Schemes” (MPS’s) were aggressively promoted and sold by a clutch of financial advisers in Spain and the UK using pension liberation (also known as pension cracking or unlocking) in a scheme described by the promoters as “not traditionally available” (in other words unlawful). This “unique” process was called Maximising Pension Value Arrangements (MPVA) and facilitated a loan to the participant of up to 50% of the value of the transferred pension (after deduction of fees which ranged from between 5% and 15%).

    2010 to 2011: The Ark schemes began advertising and were sold through newspaper ads, websites, calls from financial advisers, seminars and advertisements posted on toilet doors.

    May 2011: The Pensions Regulator were actively shutting down pension liberation scams such as Ark and placed the six Ark schemes in the hands of Dalriada Trustees and the whole lot was suspended. The Regulator was actively promoting its “Scorpion” campaign to warn people about the dangers of pension liberation fraud. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/pensionschemes/investments-tax.htm. HMRC also set up “Project Bloom” to help stop these scams due to the fact that the victims stood to lose their pensions AND get 55% plus tax bills on their pension loans. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/pensionschemes/liberationud.pdf

    December 15th 2011: Justice Bean ruled in the High Court that the Ark schemes (MPS’s and MPVA’s i.e. pension transfers and reciprocal loans) were a “fraud on the power of investment” and that the loans constituted “unauthorised payments” (i.e. taxable at 55%). The ruling can be read here – note Clause 57: http://www.professionalpensions.com/digital_assets/3826/4568_001.pdf

    December 1st 2011: Evergreen Pension Scheme was established in New Zealand

    December 20th 2011: Marazion was incorporated in Nicosia, Cyprus.

    June 2012 Evergreen Pension Scheme commenced trading – making a loss in the first year and attracting 426 members

    August 2012 Marazion started selling five-year term loans and corresponding five-year “lock ins” to Evergreen pension transfers

    19th November 2012 HMRC suspended Evergreen from their QROPS list http://www.evergreentrust.co.nz/uk-pension-transfers/

    December 2012 Dalriada published the first year’s audited accounts (for the period May 2011 to May 2012) for the six MPS’s: Cranbourne Star, Tallton Place, Grosvenor, Lancaster, Portman and Woodcroft Dalriada’s audited accounts for the six Ark schemes for the first two years can be found here: http://dalriadatrustees.co.uk/ark/

    September 2013: The Ark Class Action was set up to help inform the Ark victims and negotiate and appeal their tax liabilities so that these (together with their pension losses) can be reclaimed from the negligent financial advisers who sold the Ark schemes to the victims .

    March 2014: HMRC finally agreed to confirm their full intentions regarding taxing the Ark loans.

    April 2014: HMRC finally confirmed their intention to try to tax the loans at both ends i.e. 55% at the receiving end AND 55% at the making end.  They also confirmed that Ark members who did not receive a loan would still be taxed at 55% for making a loan or intending to make a loan, and/or intending to receive a loan.

    Between 2012 and 2014 (to date), some Ark members have received demands by HMRC to complete Self Assessment returns declaring the Ark unauthorized payments for tax purposes; some members have received demands for the tax; some have received nothing at all, but HMRC have confirmed that the letters and demands are now on their way.  However, there really has been no consistency in their approach to the whole Ark matter, but they do now appear to be getting their act together.

    June 2014: Evidence regarding the Marazion/Evergreen pension liberation fraud was handed to the British authorities in London.

    June 2014: HMRC has issued a deadline of 30th of June for return of the 10 point questionnaire required in respect of the Ark loans.

    Any questions, just ask.  Angela Brooks

    [contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]

  • Ark Disaster – Dalriada Accountable for Strategy

    Ark Disaster – Dalriada Accountable for Strategy

    Dalriada – accountable for strategy

    Need a bigger ark for the Ark Pension Disaster…

    Mark Atherton of The Times wrote:

    We have tried to establish who should take responsibility for the financial disaster which befell investors in the Ark pensions “liberation” schemes. They were suspended in May 2011, leaving hundreds of investors facing ruin after being hit with a punitive 55 per cent tax penalty on the so-called “reciprocal loan” payouts they were given.

    Yet when you talk to the people and organisations involved about who should carry the can for the Ark debacle the response of everyone, from those who originally marketed the schemes to the regulators and the watchdog, is a firm: “Not me, guv.”

    None of this is much help to Ark victims such as Neale Morgan, who invested his money in good faith after checking that the schemes were properly registered and yet now finds himself being punished by the taxman for participating in a scheme which the revenue itself had previously registered.

    The revenue and the pensions regulator have, since October 2013, tightened up the registration process for pension schemes — a tacit admission that the system in place at the time of the Ark fiasco was inadequate.

    It seems unfair that the revenue is now hitting those people who invested in the Ark schemes with severe penalties, while not going after the people who profited from the scam. As Mr Morgan says: “The authorities seem to be punishing the victims, while letting the perpetrators go scot-free.”

    The revenue and pensions regulator should start turning the spotlight on the perpetrators, while the Financial Conduct Authority should launch a full-scale investigation into the Ark collapse and name, shame and punish those found guilty of wrongdoing.

    What is a Pension Scam?

    At the same time, the revenue should consider tempering justice with mercy in the case of the Ark victims. Many of these people were given false assurances that the schemes were viable.

    In most cases they have spent the lump sums that were “unlocked” from their pensions, often on settling debts, and they simply have no money left to pay the revenue’s penalty fees.

    Sadly, the Ark disaster is not an isolated event. Every month brings news of fresh pensions “liberation” cases and the scammers are likely to be gearing up to take advantage of the confusion surrounding next year’s relaxation of the rules governing how you can take your pension cash.

    The message to ordinary investors is a simple one — be alert to anyone promising you easy money if you transfer your pension to an unknown scheme.

    Your default position when confronted by any smooth-tongued salesman should be: “Why is this person lying to me?”

    Ark was an appalling disaster.  It has cost several people not just their life savings but also their lives.  It really is time to make sure that the Pensions Regulator doesn’t just mouth the words “scammers are criminals” but also make sure they are prosecuted.

    What is a Pension Scam?

  • FIGHTING BACK! – THE ARK PENSION VICTIMS WHO WON’T TAKE IT LYING DOWN

    FIGHTING BACK! – THE ARK PENSION VICTIMS WHO WON’T TAKE IT LYING DOWN

    Battered, bewildered and furious, the Ark Pensions victims are gradually coming to terms with the fact that this will be a long and determined battle.

    In 2011, when financial advisers (plausible, credible and slick) assured the victims their pensions would be transferred to a legitimate HMRC-“approved” scheme which would allow a tax-free lump sum of 50% – structured as an unsecured, low-interest loan, it was not surprising that so many people took up the offer.  The offer didn’t come cheap, as there were fees of between 8% and 13% (sometimes more).

    Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions had been running seminars around the UK to promote the Ark scheme to introducers and victims alike and was responsible for a third of all the transfers into Ark – totalling over £10 million.  He used his status as a CII Level 6 qualified former pensions examiner and author of the Tolleys Pensions Taxation Manual to lull the victims into a false sense of security.

    Within a matter of months, weeks or even days, the Ark victims learned that the scheme had been suspended and placed in the hands of Dalriada Trustees.  In the High Court in 2011, Justice Bean, declared the pension withdrawals/loans (called MPVAs – Maximising Pension Value Arrangement) as unauthorised payments and the whole scheme a fraud on the power of investment.

    The Ark pension victims – 486 in total – now face repayment of the “tax-free” lump sums which are classed as loans. They also potentially face 150% tax on the loans, even if they are paid back.  HMRC is trying to get the tax at 55% on the receiving end and the making end of the loans, plus 40% on the scheme itself.  HMRC is also trying to tax those victims who did not receive a loan at all.

    The tax is being vigorously defended – both by Pension Life and Dalriada Trustees.  The Ark Class Action is asking parliamentary candidates to back a motion for a tax concession for victims of fraud.  The victims want to ensure those responsible for this appalling situation are called to account and made to put the members back into the position they should have been in before their pensions were transferred to the Ark schemes and the loans taken out.

    It is not going to be a quick or easy battle, but all the Ark victims are determined not to take this lying down – especially those who did not receive a loan but are being threatened with a tax liability just because “they intended getting a loan”.

    During week commencing 19th June 2017, the victims will be challenging Dalriada Trustees in the High Court Beddoe proceedings.  Dalriada will be asking the court for permission to use the Ark members’ funds to take legal action against them to recover the MPVA loans – around £11 million in total.  If we fail to challenge the application successfully, it will be a race between Dalriada and HMRC to see who can bankrupt the victims first and make them homeless.  HMRC claim the tax will remain payable even if the loans are repaid.