Tag: CWM

YET ANOTHER STRUCTURED NOTE SCAM BY OLD MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL

ROLL UP! ROLL UP! ME HEARTY SCAMMERS! OMI’S LATEST STRUCTURED NOTE SCAM IS ONLY AVAILABLE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 28TH SO GET A JIGGLE ON WHILE STOCKS OF THIS TOXIC CRAP LAST! WE ARE PROUD TO OFFER OUR VALUED SCAMMERS YET ANOTHER INVESTMENT SCAM

BY OLD MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL.

This wonderful investment scamming opportunity with OMI, is open to all scammers – you need no qualifications and don’t have to be regulated. If you want a bit of training in how to sell this rubbish inappropriate structured product to as many victims as possible, we can give you a quick five-minute whisper behind the bike shed. But, trust me, it is easypeasylemonsqueezy – just lie. Tell the victims about the “guaranteed 10% return” bit, but don’t tell them about the “capital at risk” bit.

So, what are you waiting for? You’ll earn 8% by selling your victims a useless OMI “PORTFOLIO” bond (don’t mention this is illegal in Spain) and then a further 8% from selling this toxic, high-risk BNP Paribas structured note (rubbish inappropriate structured product) which will tie your victims in for six years.

This will give you plenty of time to explain away the losses as “only secondary market values” or “only paper losses”. And by the time your victims realise what you’ve done to them, you’ll be long gone. And most of them will commit suicide anyway, so they won’t be coming after you any time soon.

BNP Paribas has a good reputation as being an ethical, solid company so that will certainly help you with sell these inappropriate structured products. Just remember, tell the victims as little as possible about this product and hide the commissions you will earn – they will never find out and by the time their life savings have all gone up in smoke you will be sunning yourself on a Caribbean island, far away from the misery of those whose retirement income you will have destroyed.

If the victims are ever organised enough to band together and form a group action, I’ll just promise to pay redress for their losses, organise a meeting and then cancel it at the last minute. That ought to buy you enough time to make your getaway.

Happy scamming – smiley face. Love from Pete

p.s. BTW, don’t worry about the email below the Mad Woman of Spain has sent out – most of the new victims will never have heard of her and by the time they do, it will be too late. You’ve only got until 28th September to scam as many suckers as possible, so don’t just stand there – SCAM AWAY ME HEARTIES!

p.p.s. Don’t worry about my quote about inappropriate structured products – I was just lying (something I’m pretty good at). With the announcement of new regulations in Malta for QROPS, International Adviser has quoted managing director of OMI (soon to be Quilter) Peter Kenny: “Old Mutual International is encouraging all market participants to help rid the industry of inappropriate structured products”

———————————————————————————————————————————————————-

ATTENTION PAUL EVANS – Head of Region – Middle East & Africa
Old Mutual International (International Structured Scam Specialists)

intmarketing@engage.omwealth.com

1st September 2018

Paul, are you completely mad? OMI has been offering and buying inappropriate structured products for years and facilitating financial crime by scammers such as Continental Wealth Management. OMI bought £94 million worth of fraudulent notes by Leonteq – which paid the scammers an extra 2% in commission. So you must have been accepting business and investment instructions from other scammers besides CWM for at least six years between 2012 and 2016 – as well as for years prior to and subsequent to this period.

And now you are offering more structured notes so scammers can line their pockets and ruin more victims? Read your own marketing material Mate:

“An autocall product with a six-year term paying at least 10% a year in USD or at least 7% a year in GBP. This is a capital at risk product.”

You are a pathetic and revolting human being. Which bit of CAPITAL AT RISK don’t you understand?? OMI has already disgraced itself by offering, buying and selling these totally inappropriate structured products – scam products -, and caused millions of pounds’ worth of destruction to innocent victims’ life savings.

You, Peter Kenny, Steve Braudo and Paul Feeney are all as bad as each other – and none of you should be working in financial services. Your conduct is utterly sickening: you are now proposing to ruin more lives and you still haven’t paid compensation for the lives you have destroyed already.

How much commission are you paying the scammers on these toxic products? 6%? 8%? 10%?

Instead of behaving with decency and dignity and honouring Old Mutual International’s promise to pay redress for OMI’s past failures, you are now preparing to launch a whole new tranche of financial crime and inappropriate structured products.

You are all disgusting and this needs to be exposed and all of you outed for the evil scum you are.

Angie

From: Paul Evans – Old Mutual International <intmarketing@engage.omwealth.com>
Subject: Competitive, transparent, simple – new tranche of structured products

September 1, 2018
Structured notes – knowing the risks

In many pension scams, we see the use of totally unsuitable, high-risk, for-professional-investor-only structured notes. These notes often offer the introducer high commissions. However, they are risky, fixed-term investments that often end in the loss of some – or even all – of the fund invested. Therefore, these types of investments are totally unsuitable for a pension fund. Firstly, let me explain what a structured note is, and then we can go through structured notes – knowing the risks.

So what the hell are structured notes? And why should retail investors say NO to them?

A structured note is an IOU from an investment bank that uses derivatives to create exposure to one or more investments. For example, you can have a structured note betting on the S&P 500 Price Index, the Emerging Market Price Index, or both. The combinations are almost limitless.

A pension fund is referred to as a retail investment, so it should be placed in a low to medium risk investment. Generally, structured notes are labeled high-risk, for professional investors only and, therefore, no pension fund should ever be invested into them.

Structured notes are frequently peddled by less-scrupulous financial advisers – as well as outright scammers – as a “high-yield, low-risk”, supposedly backdoor way to own stocks. However, regulators have warned that investors can get burned – which they frequently do. If the investment banks can flog it, they will make just about any toxic cocktail you can dream up. In reality, a structured note is an unsecured debt issued by a bank or brokerage firm – and the amount of money the investor might (or might not) get back is pegged to the performance of stocks or broad market indexes.

Say NO to structured notes for pensions!

With structured notes, there is no capital protection; no flexibility; no portfolio enhancement; no increased returns and no limit to the risk of loss of capital.

In the case of CWM, 1,000 people with 100 million pounds, were invested in structured notes and many of them lost large chunks of their funds. The CWM scam, headed by Darren Kirby, used structured notes with Commerzbank, Nomura, RBC and Leonteq, and many of the notes crashed.

John Rodgers fell victim to the CWM scam after being cold called by a salesman called Dean Stogsdill . His £202,000 pension pot was invested into high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes referred to as “Blue Chip Notes”. Today John’s pension fund is worth just £60,000 (if he is lucky).

OMI help facilitate the unqualified, unlicensed and unregulated CWM scammers – victims of this scam were also tied into a useless, pointless insurance bond for ten years – courtesy of OMI. Whilst the value of these pension funds steadily plummeted, OMI stood idly by and watched it happen.

In the case of the Continental Wealth Management scam, the life offices – Old Mutual International, SEB and Generali, invested up to 1,000 victims’ life savings in structured notes. The majority of these toxic notes were from Commerzbank, Royal Bank of Canada, Nomura and Leonteq – some of which were, allegedly, fraudulent. Victims are facing huge losses – and a few have had their retirement savings wiped out entirely and a couple are now in negative territory due to the parasitic life offices continuing to take their quarterly fees (based on the original investment) as the investors are trapped into these spurious “bonds” for up to ten years.

We are now fighting to get the investors’ money back. But meanwhile, we must stress: do not use an advisory firm that uses structured notes. These toxic instruments are only for professional investors and should not EVER be used for ordinary, retail investors.

August 14, 2018
Generali, an utter disgrace, merging with Utmost Wealth

Utmost Wealth and Generali PanEurope are set to merge with the help of Life Company Consolidation Group (LCCG). The plan is to re-brand as Utmost PanEurope. I wonder if this merger will do its utmost to ensure they manage and mitigate their future victims´ – sorry clients´ – risks, and protect their investments – as they certainly didn´t do so for their victims who suffered at the hands of CWM.

GPE chief executive Paul Gillett added: “We are proud of our performance over the last 20 years and have grown into one of the largest international companies in Ireland, with assets under management of over €10bn.

What a disgrace that Gillett can announce that he is “proud” of their performance over the last 20 years – proud of the misery and stress caused to the victims of the CWM pension scam? Proud of the fact that Generali have refused to take ANY responsibility for their victims´ losses.

Gillett goes on to say:

“The sale of the business to LCCG marks a very important step in our future development. Together, we represent one of the leading European providers of cross border wealth and corporate risk solutions with the potential to grow further across both current and new markets.”

With the responsibility of Generali being passed over to LCCG, here at Pension Life, we wonder if LCCG will be taking responsibility for Generali´s past victims as well. Will LCCG apply their corporate risk solutions to those who have already been put at risk? Generali on their own certainly didn´t apply a high standard of risk solutions when they placed CWM victims´ funds into high-risk, toxic, professional-investor-only structured notes.

Lets hope Utmost Wealth will do their utmost to sort out this utter disgrace caused by Generali´s negligence.

August 6, 2018
OMI IPO Profit Warning
OMI IPO Profit Warning – urgent please read carefully.

Old Mutual International (OMI) have entered into an IPO – initial public offering. This means they have become a public company rather than a private one. Frequent readers of Pension Life blogs will know that OMI have featured heavily in our recent blogs with regards to issues with structured note provider Leonteq, the selling of fraudulent notes and their involvement in the CWM pension scam.

But now it is very important that the public, and future potential victims of OMI, should be very wary of investing in this company. I have serious concerns about the undisclosed current liabilities and future drops in profits.

I would like to disclose some information about OMI post IPO. Hopefully, this information will reach prospective buyers before they make any purchases of OMI shares. Also, I can see no evidence that OMI have disclosed this information publicly to warn potential investors.

ABOUT OLD MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL (OMI)
- OMI – a company that happily uses high-risk, toxic, illiquid, professional-investor-only notes for pension holders’ funds
- OMI – a company that refuses to take any responsibility for buying totally unsuitable products which end up destroying innocent victims’ hard-earned retirement savings
- OMI IPO – a strategic move forward to make more money from the unsuspecting public – whilst sweeping their past misdemeanours under the carpet
First, let me explain a little more about what an IPO is:

An IPO means that the company can sell stock to the public. Therefore, if a company seems viable to the public, investments into it will be made and these investments will make the company a lot of money.

An IPO can be seen as an exit strategy for the original founders of the company. The shares that are being sold to the public would originally have belonged to the founders and early investors of the company.

An IPO is a way for the original founders to claw back monies they may have invested into the company at the outset.

“Why go public, then? Going public raises a great deal of money for the company in order for it to grow and expand. Private companies have many options to raise capital – such as borrowing, finding additional private investors, or by being acquired by another company. But, by far, the IPO option raises the largest sums of money for the company and its early investors.”
Information from https://www.investopedia.com/university/ipo/ipo.asp

This does, however, mean that:
- The Company (in this case OMI) becomes required to disclose financial, accounting, tax, and other business information
So I wonder if the OMI IPO has disclosed the following information to warn the public of underlying liabilities which will inevitably affect future profits and net asset value:

Between 2012 and 2016, OMI purchased £94m worth of fraudulent structured notes from Leonteq; presumably, a further £94m of non-fraudulent (but still unsuitable) notes from Leonteq; probably a further £94m worth each of Commerzbank, Royal Bank of Canada and Nomura (many of which performed as badly as the Leonteq fraudulent ones incidentally). Therefore, we could be looking at £470 million worth of structured notes with losses of at least £100 million – probably substantially more. And up to half of this could lie with the victims of the CWM scam.

The term sheets of the Leonteq notes clearly stated:

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

and

“Products involve a high degree of risk, including the potential risk of expiring worthless. Potential Investors should be prepared in certain circumstances to sustain a total loss of the capital invested to purchase this Product.”

This information about OMI purchasing £94m worth of the fraudulent notes is not hearsay on my part – as is sometimes suggested in the comments on Pension Life’s blogs – any doubters can follow the link to the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man Civil Division dated 20 March 2018 and read these details.

OMI IPO Profit Warning

It would seem that the OMI IPO is a way for the company to make more money or just get out of losing money. With the High Court proceedings hanging over their heads, there is a chance that they will find themselves heavily in debt if they are instructed to pay back the crippling losses involved.

Going public and selling their shares – what better way is there to avoid taking a massive hit and losing money. Just let more innocent victims buying these shares take the hit on OMI´s past mistakes.

How long can OMI continue to turn a blind eye to the toxic crap they sold – the pension funds they helped destroy? With High Court proceedings underway, alongside their IPO, surely it is only a matter of time before OMI will be forced to air their dirty laundry!

My biggest concern about OMI‘s provisional accounts for the period up to June 2018, is that there is no evidence of any provision for the substantial losses likely to be suffered as a result of buying so many toxic structured notes – including the fraudulent Leonteq ones. There could easily be up to half a billion pounds’ worth of structured note losses due to OMI’s negligence and incompetence. However, on top of this, there could easily be millions – if not billions – worth of toxic, failed UCIS funds which were offered on OMI’s platform. These dreadful funds included LM, Axiom, Mansion and other worthless and/or Ponzi schemes.

If I were a potential investor in OMI, I would ask myself why they haven’t used the £8.365 billion worth of profits they’ve just declared to compensate their thousands of victims who are facing crippling losses to their retirement funds. I would also think seriously about highly-likely sharp drops in OMI’s profits in the very near future. And if I were an investment adviser to any individual considering buying shares in OMI, I would firstly give them a dire profit warning, and secondly ask whether it is right to invest in such an unethical firm.
July 24, 2018
SEB LIFE (OR DEATH) – WILL THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND BRING THEM TO JUSTICE?

One of the hundreds of Continental Wealth Management victims stuck in a useless and expensive SEB Life International bond, and ruined by crippling investment losses, has made a detailed complaint to SEB.

Some idiot from SEB called Orla Golden has replied – and the response is astonishing. Below are my answers to this ridiculous rebuttal. The complaint will now be referred to the Central Bank of Ireland – asking that SEB Life should be suspended. I will also copy this in to the Financial Services Ombudsman.

Let us see whether the regulator and ombudsman in Ireland will turn out to be as useless as the regulator in Gibraltar, or will actually have some teeth. If the authorities in Ireland are any good, hopefully they will hold Conor McCarthy and Peder Nateus fully responsible for facilitating this deplorable scam.

LETTER FROM ORLA GOLDEN TO THE CWM/SEB VICTIM IN RESPONSE TO HIS COMPLAINT (WITH MY COMMENTS IN BOLD):

We are writing to you in response to your recently submitted complaint in respect of your insurance policy with SEB Life International Assurance Company DAC that you placed through your appointed independent financial advisor, Inter-Alliance WorldNet Insurance Agents and Advisors Ltd.

The victims did not place any orders or instructions through Inter-Alliance. SEB is being not only disingenuous but dishonest here. The advisor in question was Continental Wealth Trust SL, trading as Continental Wealth Management SL (CWM) in Alicante Province, Spain. CWM was a firm full of unqualified so-called “advisers” with a track record of scamming, cold-calling and flogging dodgy products to unsuspecting victims. The victims appointed CWM as their advisers, and all the dealing instructions for the toxic structured notes came from CWM and not Inter-Alliance.

SEB Life is a designated activity company which is registered under company number 218391 with the Irish Companies Registration Office and is authorised as a life insurance undertaking by the Central Bank of Ireland under number C771.

So, let’s see just how good a regulator the Central Bank of Ireland really is. We must all hope it is not as hopeless, limp and corrupt as some of the other regulators.

SEB Life is permitted to distribute life insurance policies in Europe (EU) by way of a freedom of services passport issued by the Central Bank of Ireland under the Solvency II Directive 2009/138/EC as adopted into Irish law by the European Communities (Insurance and Reinsurance) Regulations 2015 (the “Solvency II Irish Regulations”). That may be true, but these weren’t true life insurance policies: they were bogus policies designed to act as “wrappers” for dodgy, rubbish investments and to facilitate financial crime in multiple European jurisdictions – most notably Spain where such insurance/investment products have been outlawed by the Spanish Supreme Court.

In January 2015, Inter-Alliance novated its business to Trafalgar International GmbH who became your financial advisor.

Not true. Trafalgar International did not become the financial adviser. Few, if any, of the victims had ever heard of Trafalgar until CWM collapsed in September 2017.

Trafalgar is an independent financial advisor located in Germany

No it isn’t – it is located in Cyprus. Orla Golden clearly has never done Geography.

and is authorised and entered into the register of insurance intermediaries maintained by the Chamber of Industry and Commerce (DIHK). Trafalgar is authorised to mediate insurance policies in various EU territories including UK, Spain, Malta and France. Yes, Trafalgar was. But CWM wasn’t.

SEB Life has terms of business with Trafalgar, and previously had terms of business with Inter-Alliance which was authorised by the Insurance Companies Control Service in Cyprus to mediate insurance policies in the EU; before it transferred to Trafalgar. Continental Wealth Management (CWM) was a sub agent of Inter-Alliance

Really? Sub agents are illegal in Spain

and then continued to be a sub-agent of Trafalgar.

No it did not. SEB is lying. CWM was never a sub agent of Trafalgar

CWM is the responsibility of Trafalgar and SEB Life does not have terms of business with them.

So why did SEB accept dealing instructions from CWM if they had no terms of business with the firm?

SEB Life regularly reviews the authorisation of independent financial advisors with whom they have terms of business,

SEB is failing to get its story straight. CWM was not authorised – ever, for anything. SEB may have had terms of business with both Inter-Alliance and Trafalgar, but CWM was never an authorised agent of either firm.

however, it is the independent advisor’s responsibility to comply with their own regulatory obligations for authorisation

And nothing to do with SEB? So, why did SEB accept dealing instructions from CWM?

and their regulatory authorities have oversight responsibilities.

Like the Central Bank of Ireland has oversight responsibilities over SEB? Let’s see how seriously it takes those responsibilities.

Trafalgar, as the appointed independent financial advisor is your agent.

No it isn’t, and wasn’t. Trafalgar was not an IFA firm, it was a network.

Any policy related intermediary commission was paid directly to Trafalgar (formerly Inter-Alliance), with whom SEB Life has terms of business.

So why was SEB paying intermediary commission at all to CWM which was not regulated at all for anything – not pet insurance, not bicycle insurance, nothing. It matters not to whom the commission was paid, the products were sold by an unregulated firm (CWM) and SEB should never have accepted the business – let alone ever paid commission (irrespective of to whom this commission was paid).

As your agent, Trafalgar must handle your complaint in accordance with their agent and regulatory responsibilities.

Trafalgar was never the victims’ agent.

In addition, the pre-sales advising process occurs between you as the policyholder and your appointed agent.

Trafalgar was never the appointed agent. Trafalgar did not provide the advice; Trafalgar did not place the dealing instructions; Trafalgar did not meet the clients.

This process identifies the customer’s needs, based on the information provided by the policyholder(s)

How would SEB know? Did they ever check the fact finds or make any attempt to ascertain the victims’ attitude to risk? No, of course they didn’t

and recommends the insurance product which best suits the customer’s objectives and needs.

This is a ludicrous comment to make. Not one single victim needed a bogus life assurance product – they were all, 100% mis-sold purely for the fat commissions paid by SEB.

SEB Life is not party to this pre-sales advising process and the discussions that occur between a policyholder and their appointed independent financial adviser as to their risk profile and the assets that will fulfill the investment needs and objectives.

Correct. But SEB ought to have noticed, over a period of several consecutive years, the inexorable losses from the toxic structured notes which repeatedly failed – and the dealing instructions for which (submitted by CWM and accepted by SEB) bore forged client signatures. SEB may not have been party to the pre-scamming advice con, but they should certainly have taken action when the results of this clear fraud started to become obvious.

SEB Life does not offer any investment advice, and this is clearly stated in the declaration section of the application form that we ensure is signed by the customer.

And damn good job too. Most victims would probably trust a convicted thief rather than SEB. The declaration section of the application form may make it clear that SEB does not offer investment advice, but the annual statements also make it clear that SEB can do maths. And that basic maths demonstrated that hundreds of policyholders’ funds were being routinely destroyed.

Our literature states that the amounts invested in the Units of the Fund in the contract are not guaranteed but are subject to fluctuations in value depending, in particular, on the performance of financial markets.

There is fluctuation, and then there is total destruction. Fluctuation goes up and down. Destruction just goes down. Did not a single half-wit at SEB notice the difference over a period of seven years?

The return on investment is not in SEB Life’s control and past performance is not an indicator of the future performance of any asset.

So, if Bloodstone Building in Dublin caught fire, would the blind, deaf and dumb idiots at SEB just sit there, shrug their shoulders and say “a fire in the building is not within our control – we aren’t firefighters. And we won’t even bother using the fire extinguishers or calling the fire brigade. We’ll just sit here and watch the building get destroyed and burn to death ourselves?”

SEB also request that a one-page “Statement of Understanding” is signed by a policyholder where an investment request is received in relation to a non-standard asset.

Really? Who told Orla Golden that? The Statement of Understanding Fairy? This simply is not true.

This is to confirm that the policyholder has read and understood the potential financial, market and liquidity risks associated with the asset before proceeding.

None of the victims understood the assets which SEB was permitting the scammers at CWM to churn; none of the victims realised or understood what structured notes; none of the victims knew that structured notes were for professional investors only and not for retail investors; none of the victims knew that they stood to lose part or all of their investment (as most did); none of the victims realised that SEB would just sit there and let the repeated losses keep happening as the unlicensed, unqualified scammers at CWM kept scamming away for seven years.

Policyholders are able to request that their policy be linked to assets that are within the company’s permissible asset list. The investments have been executed by SEB Life on the basis of written instructions submitted to SEB Life that were signed by you as the policyholder

No they weren’t – the signatures were forged

or your appointed investment advisor.

Meaning the unqualified, unlicensed scammers at CWM who did not have an investment license – let alone an insurance license.

SEB Life relief upon and implemented those instructions in good faith and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.

There was nothing good about SEB’s “faith”. This particular victim – whose complaint has not been upheld by SEB – suffered the following losses between 2009 and 2015:

12 toxic, professional-investor-only structured notes from Nomura, RBC, Commerzbank, Leonteq and BNP Paribas:

Lost a total of 271,539 EUR

Investment in the Quadris Teak UCIS fund:

Lost 100,000 GBP

TOTAL LOSS IN SIX YEARS: 371,539 EUR

Didn’t SEB notice? Didn’t SEB care? Didn’t SEB do anything for seven years?

The answer, of course, is a resounding no. The lazy, callous, greedy, negligent did nothing except sit there and watch this victim’s life savings be destroyed by the scammers.

With regard to your allegations of regulatory breaches and fraud committed on your policy, SEB Life is unable to comment on such allegations and these must be discussed with your appointed financial advisor Trafalgar directly.

I have no doubt that SEB’s lawyers will have advised them to keep their mouths shut on this one and to try to deflect the blame onto Trafalgar. This is one of the things I hate about lawyers – even when they know their dirty clients are guilty they will still defend them to the hilt. As long as they keep billing, the lawyers won’t care how many lives their negligent and culpable clients ruin.

In these circumstances, you may wish to seek independent financial advice

I wonder what sort of “adviser” SEB have in mind? Scammers like CWM?

and/or legal advice regarding your engagements with your appointed financial adviser.

And I wonder what sort of law firm SEB would recommend? A dodgy firm like SEB’s own lawyers who are happy to make money out of defending the indefensible?

July 12, 2018
CWM Pension scam – A victim’s reconstruction

John Rodges had a pension pot of £202,000. He was cold called by a salesman called Dean Stogsdill and persuaded to transfer his pension fund to a QROPS (Qualifying Recognised Overseas Pension Scheme) with Continental Wealth Management (CWM pension scam using high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes which Stogsdill referred to as “Blue Chip Notes”).

With false promises of greater flexibility, better growth and a 25% tax-free cash lump sum, the transfer seemed like a good opportunity. In reality, it was an offer too good to be true – it was a pension scam- in which the CWM salesmen, Dean Stogsdill and Anthony Downs would reap high commissions. The victims – like John Rogers – would be left with heavy losses.

67 year old John Rodgers, a former research and development chemist, had a collection of occupational and private pensions in the UK. As he had moved to Spain 11 years previously, he had the opportunity of consolidating his pension into a QROPS.

Stogsdill – Chief Executive of CWM, assured John Rodgers that he had been evaluated as a low-medium risk investor, and that the costs would be 1.75% a year over a period of five years – or 1.5% for ten years. This would be based on the original value of the investment, so the promised growth of 8% would not incur any further costs. He was also promised that life assurance would be ‘thrown in’. Unfortunately, John was to become the next victim of the CWM pension scam.

What actually happened was John Rodger’s pension fund was invested into a selection of high-risk structured notes from Royal Bank of Canada – “Blue Chip Notes”. John was told that these “Blue Chip Notes”, were capital protected inside a life bond which would give him life assurance. No real explanation of what a structured note actually was, was given to John.

Structured notes are generally high-risk, FOR PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS ONLY. Therefore, these “Blue Chip Notes” had no place in a pension fund. This investment strategy was part of the CWM pension scam – earning salesmen like Stogsdill big bucks while destroying innocent victims’ pension funds.

Stogsdill also failed to disclose the commissions they were going to earn from the life assurance bond and the “Blue Chip Notes” so even before John’s funds were placed in the toxic high-risk investements – they had incurred a significant loss.

It took just two years for John’s fund to plummet to half of its original value. However, CWM assured him that it was just a “paper loss”, and that the fund would go back up at maturity.

However, CWM went ‘bust’ before the fund could mature. togsdill and all the other salesmen did a runner!

Today John’s pension fund is worth just £60,000 (if he is lucky).

Pension Life has reconstructed John’s story and we would like to share it, in the hope that other people can spot the signs of a pension scam like CWM and avoid falling victim to the scammers – the only ones who profit from investments like these.

It is estimated that up to 1,000 people fell victim to the CWM pension scam and that around 40 million pounds was lost to these high-risk, toxic investments with providers such as

Royal Bank of Canada, Nomura Commerzbank and Leonteq.

The CWM pension scam was promoted by unqualified, unregulated salesmen posing as financial advisers. People who were not legally allowed to provide this kind of financial advice. The scam was promoted with outright lies and undisclosed fees and costs.

Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions

A financial adviser that can be linked to not just the CWM pension scam, but also many others including Ark, is a man called STEPHEN WARD (pictured). He IS fully qualified AND registered with the CII. However, he does not have a conscience when it comes to destroying hard-earned pension funds – check out another of Pension Life’s videos:

Pension Scams – Stephen Ward

If the name Stephen Ward appears on any pension transfer you are offered, make sure you say no and walk away – Pete and Val – another couple who were victims of the CWM pension scam – wish they had.

When considering transferring your pension fund, please make sure you check all the facts and fully understand all of the costs. Ensure your pension is going into a suitable retail investment – not a structured note.

Kim – a member of the Pension Life team is writing a series of blogs about pensions and we would love it if everyone would read and share these. Let’s stop pension scammers in their tracks worldwide by educating the masses on pension rules and regulations.

What is a pension scam?

June 21, 2018
SEB – NO TRUST – NO RESPECT – NO EXCUSE

SEB – NO TRUST – NO RESPECT – NO EXCUSE. SEB’s many victims have no trust or respect for this disgraceful firm which has failed them so dismally. There has been no excuse for SEB’s appalling behaviour – and now is the time for SEB to put the damage right.

This week, SEB had the gall to write to its many victims as below:

From: <no-reply@seb.ie>
Date: 22 de mayo de 2018, 17:03:52 CEST
To: <SEBvictim@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Important information regarding the General Data Protection Regulation

Dear client,

We respect the trust you place in us when you share your information with us. So we are letting you know about improvements to how we use, store and share the information we hold about you.

The European Union is introducing new legislation, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which comes into effect on 25^th May 2018. GDPR significantly changes data protection law in Europe.

Yours sincerely,

Orla Golden
Operations Manager SEB Life International

Phone: +353 1 487 0700

Trust? Respect? Is Orla Golden having an 18-carat laugh? Does he truly think that a single one of SEB’s victims gives a damn about their “information”? Doesn’t he think that, actually, all SEB’s victims would love to share the information that they have been ripped off, conned and scammed by SEB? And that while their life savings continue to dwindle away to nothing, SEB is continuing to charge extortionate quarterly fees?

The European Union should ban scammers like SEB (and Generali) from operating in Spain and the whole of Europe. SEB is a disgusting parasite and brings the whole of the financial services industry into disrepute. SEB took business from an unlicensed firm of known scammers (Continental Wealth Management) and then sat back and watched while toxic structured notes destroyed hundreds of victims’ life savings. And did NOTHING.

Who at SEB is responsible for the travesty of the destruction of hundreds of victims of the Continental Wealth Management scam? And the terrible stress these people are going through? This guy:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/conor-j-mccarthy-8419263/

Conor J. McCarthy. And his email address is conor.mccarthy@seb.ie

His Linkedin profile claims that he is European Sales Director with responsibility for Intermediary sales with SEB Life International. That means that he was responsible for accepting business from Continental Wealth Management and for the destruction of millions of pounds’ worth of life savings. He took millions of pounds worth of business from an unlicensed firm of known scammers and accepted investments in toxic, high-risk structured notes – including the fraudulent Leonteq ones – knowing full well that the victims were low/medium risk pension savers.

Mr. McCarthy also claims that: “As a qualified financial adviser (QFA) I have a keen understanding of financial planning and investment needs of international clients. As a marketing graduate, I try to communicate in such a way that it all makes sense to clients.” I really don’t think that any of SEB’s victims have any trouble understanding the communications that reported their losses.

As a marketing graduate, Mr. McCarthy should understand that the best way to “market” a company is to compensate the victims without them having to sue SEB.

The managing director of SEB is Peder Nateus and I assume his email address must be peder.nateus@seb.ie

So let us all share our information about SEB’s sickening behaviour and tell the European Union what we all think about SEB as publicly as possible.

May 25, 2018
Old Mutual International (OMI) facilitating financial crime

From 2010 up to the present day, Old Mutual International has been facilitating financial crime by allowing scammers to misuse and abuse OMI “life bonds” to scam victims out of their life savings.

The victims of the CWM scam are still wondering how the hell they lost an average of 60% of their life savings. Old Mutual International (Quilter) was the provider for the bulk of the life bonds used in the CWM debacle, taking huge amounts of business from unregulated scammers Continental Wealth Management. OMI also paid CWM huge amounts of commission – in the full knowledge that CWM was unregulated and a known, serial scammer.

Pension Life members of the CWM victim group have supplied their figures to us. The losses are huge and we believe that these figures need to be shared with the public so Old Mutual International (OMI) understand and take responsibility for the devastation they have facilitated to the lives of the victims.

Let us hope that Old Mutual International will step up to the plate. The people who work at OMI are human beings, with loved ones. Hopefully, they can imagine how they would feel if this tragedy had happened to one of their loved ones – while the people at OMI stood by and did nothing to stop the devastation. For more than eight years, OMI employees sat on their hands while the so-called investments inside their “insurance bonds” plummeted in value. And OMI did absolutely nothing. Just kept taking their quarterly fees.

OMI will, of course, try to say it was not their fault. That it was down to the advisers appointed by the victims. Or the trustees. Or both. Or the Boogeyman. OMI will claim that they had every right to sit there and watch millions of pounds worth of life savings being wiped off investors’ funds, while continuing to take out their huge quarterly fees.

I wonder how OMI/Quilter directors would feel if this happened to one of their loved ones. Or if someone they cared about had been drowning, and a crowd of people had stood by and watched them die. Because, make no mistake, there will be deaths as a result of this. And the people at OMI will have this on their conscience for the rest of their lives.

OMI’s victims have died. And more are dying. This industry is about people. Let us see if OMI cares about their fellow human beings. Because, so far, there is zero evidence that they give a toss.

May 23, 2018
Mastermind – Stephen Ward

Since 2010, £millions have been lost to pension scams, thousands of victims have lost their retirement savings, large-scale misery and poverty are the terrible results. One common factor connects many of these scams: one man – Stephen Ward.

Here at Pension Life we have made a video – based on the Mastermind quiz. Lessons must be learned from the dozens of scams, headed by Stephen Ward, which ruined thousands of lives and destroyed hundreds of millions of pounds’ worth of pensions.

Premier Pension Solutions, Stephen Ward’s company in Moraira on the Costa Blanca, was responsible for the Ark pension liberation scam. Ward had advised 160 victims to transfer £10m worth of secure pensions into this scheme on the promise of having 50% of their pensions paid to them in cash. 2011 saw the Pensions Regulator place the scheme in the hands of Dalriada Trustees. The High Court called the Ark scheme a “fraud on the power of investment”.

Ward then went on to his next scam: Evergreen New Zealand QROPS and the Marazion “loans”. The “sister company”, Continental Wealth Management, was running the cold-calling operation to lure victims in – and some of the CWM salesmen were hanging around outside supermarkets to try to trap people into this scam. When Evergreen was removed from the QROPS list, Ward continued to work with CWM. It is not known how many other Stephen Ward/Premier Pension Solutions scams CWM was involved in.

Mastermind – Stephen Ward

1. Who is the owner and director of the Spanish firm Premier Pension Solutions based in Moraira on the Costa Blanca in Spain?

Stephen Ward

2. In 2010, who was running road shows in the United Kingdom to promote the Ark pension liberation schemes and recruit introducers?

Stephen Ward

3. In the Ark pension scam, which operated in 2010/11, who was the biggest introducer with more than £10m worth of transfers?

Stephen Ward

4. Who is the author of the Tolley’s Pensions Taxation Manual described as an essential reference source for all tax practitioners?

Stephen Ward

5. Who administered the pension transfer administration in the Capita Oak scam which saw 300 victims lose £10m worth of pensions and is now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office?

Stephen Ward

6. Who handled the pension transfer administration of the Westminster pension scam which saw 79 victims lose over £3.3 million pounds to worthless investments: now also under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office?

Stephen Ward

7. Who was the trustee for the London Quantum pension scheme now in the hands of Dalriada Trustees and invested in high-risk, illiquid investments such as Dolphin Trust which paid investment introduction commissions of up to 30%?

Stephen Ward

8. Which Level 6 qualified former pensions examiner and IFA in 2014 was famously quoted as saying: “The schemes with which we are involved are completely above board. The Ark thing is history now.”

Stephen Ward

9. Who was promoting the Elysian Fuels SIPPS liberation scheme which he described as allowing members to “trouser” most of their pension fund in cash?

Stephen Ward

10. Who was the owner of the loan company Marazion which operated pension liberation loans in the Evergreen QROPS scam which saw around 300 people lose £10 million worth of pension funds?

Stephen Ward

What is a Pension Scam?

May 20, 2018
GENERALI WORLDWIDE – FINANCIAL CRIME FACILITATOR
Generali has responded to one of the complaints by CWM victims. I have transcribed it below and put my comments in bold.

First, let us look at what Generali says on its own website. It is utterly astonishing as it is a complete pack of lies and does nothing to prove it was not facilitating financial crime:

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Our Vision: Our purpose is to actively protect and enhance people’s lives
- Actively: We play a proactive and leading role in improving people’s lives through insurance. This is untrue. Generali has neither been proactive nor played a leading role in improving people’s lives. It has taken no action to stop the scammers at CWM from destroying victims’ lives.
- Protect: We are dedicated to the heart of insurance – managing and mitigating risks of individuals and institutions. Totally untrue. Generali has neither managed nor mitigated victims’ risks. It has totally ignored the risks and simply stood by and watched hundreds of victims lose millions of pounds of their retirement savings.
- Enhance: Generali is also committed to creating value. What value? The only thing Generali is committed to is destroying value – and making money out of it.
- People: We deeply care about our clients’ and our peoples’ lives. For years, Generali has sat back and watched victims’ life savings being lost because of clearly unsuitable and risky structured notes. This demonstrates that Generali cares nothing about the clients and this is yet another black lie.
- Lives: Ultimately, we have an impact on the quality of people’s lives: wealth, safety, advice and service are instrumental in improving people’s chosen way of life for the long term. This is true – Generali has had a huge impact on the quality of hundreds of victims’ lives, by destroying their life savings.
- We tie a long-term contract of mutual trust with our people, clients and stakeholders; all of our work is about improving the lives of our clients. Generali has destroyed rather than improved the lives of clients.
- We commit with discipline and integrity to bringing this promise to life and making an impact within a long lasting relationship. Another black lie. There has been no discipline and no integrity. The impact by Generali has been destructive, toxic and dishonest.
GENERALI RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT DATED 20TH APRIL 2018

Thank you for your email dated 23 February 2018 attaching your updated Letter of Complaint and further accompanying undated cover letter concerning the performance of your Trustees’ Portfolio.

And here we have the first and biggest part of the scam. Generali is trying to make out that the client is not the client – but the pension trustee is the client. The only reason a trustee is used is to comply with HMRC rules. In the UK, HMRC contributes tax relief to help individuals build up as much value as possible in their pensions. But if the fund is transferred offshore, it has to be sent to a QROPS (qualifying, recognised, overseas pension scheme) – otherwise HMRC will charge 55% tax on the transfer. A QROPS is just a wrapper used to hold the funds. The trustee is a custodian used to keep the funds on behalf of the beneficiary – i.e. the member.

It wasn’t the trustee who worked hard for years to build up this fund out of the money he or she earned. Just as it won’t be the trustee who will retire on the income generated by the fund.

Let us look at the risk profile issue. Whose risk profile is done using a fact find? Is it the trustee’s? Is the trustee asked about his assets, liabilities, age, retirement plans? No, of course not. Is the advice to transfer given to the trustee? Negative.

Your complaint is addressed primarily to Old Mutual International (“OMI”) but it asserts that “Generali has acted in exactly the same manner as OMI, so although the complaint below relates to OMI, it is also appropriate for Generali. The problems complained about remain the same in both cases. We therefore respond to all the issues raised in the letter as if they are addressed directly to Generali Worldwide Insurance Company Limited (“Generali Worldwide”), as your complaint clearly intends.

It is clearly evidenced that Generali behaved as badly and negligently as OMI and SEB – and betrayed the victims in exactly the same way.

You have expressed deep concern that the Professional Portfolio has lost a significant proportion of its value because of the actions of the Portfolio Manager, Continental Wealth Management (”CWM”).

And herein lies the second part of the scam. Generali did no due diligence on CWM. They have referred to them as “Portfolio Manager”. But they had no license to be a portfolio manager – and they had a track record of cold calling and being involved in financial crime. So – irrespective of whether Generali thought the client/investor was the trustee or the victim – Generali should never have accepted investment dealing instructions from such a firm.

You also consider that Generali worldwide is ´complicit´ given we allegedly took no steps to stop the actions CWM took at the relevant time. Correct.

We are of course very sorry that the Portfolio has incurred losses following the investment decisions made by CWM. When did this “sorry” state begin? On the 23^rd February 2018 when they received the letter of complaint? Or at some time during the past six years when they sat and watched hundreds of policy holders’ funds being systematically destroyed?

We address the specific issues raised in your letter below.

The Portfolio

In order to address the issues you have raised it is first necessary to consider the relationship between you, the trustee (that you instructed to purchase the Portfolio) and CWM. Don’t forget the life office – Generali – itself. It was an integral part of this scam.

The Portfolio was established by your nominated Pension Trustee Momentum Pensions Malta Limited (“Trustee”) on 30 January 2013. In total you remitted GBP 473,043.29 to the Trustee and they used these monies to purchase the Portfolio, which itself is held in a trust. So Generali admits that it was the member which remitted £473k in the first place.

You are the first life assured on the Portfolio. The Trustee is the legal owner of the Portfolio and, in the first instance, it is they that have suffered the investment losses. So, the member himself hasn’t lost half of his original £473k? Thank goodness! So, if he just redeems out of this useless, exorbitantly expensive insurance bond, he can have all of his £473k back?

The Trustees owe you fiduciary duties in respect of your money “Your money”? So, you are sure it is the victim’s money and not the trustee’s money? You can’t seem to make up your mind whose money it is. I think Generali is getting dementia as it can’t remember what lies it has just told. In one sentence it is the trustee’s money and in the next it is the victim’s.

(which was “settled” into the trust) as basis for remittance into the Portfolio.

As the legal owner of the portfolio, it is the trustee that appointed CWM as the Portfolio Manager pursuant to the Portfolio Management Agreement dated 7 November 2012 (“PMA”). But did you, Generali, not notice that CWM was an unlicensed scammer? And once you started seeing, and reporting on, the huge losses did you not consider you had some responsibility beyond just reporting on the repeated losses for years?

CWM therefore owed contractual duties to the Trustee in Respect of the management of the Portfolio. Yes. And you, Generali, also owed duties to the victim whose money was being frittered away by the scammers. You have admitted it was HIS money.

Issues Raised

The letter of Complaint raises various issues. We consider that these can be summarised as follows:
1. You allege that CWM purchased “high risk, professional-investors-only structures notes” which you consider were unsuitable for your investment risk profile.
2. You allege that CWM gave advice and instructed sales and purchase of investments despite the fact that they were “neither licensed for insurance nor for investment”.
3. You have raised an issue with what you consider were the high commissions paid to CWM.
4. You have alleged that you were not informed of the level of charges that would be taken pursuant to the portfolio´s terms and conditions.
5. You allege that your signatures were “repeatedly forged on the dealing instructions”.
6. Finally you agree CWM made misrepresentations to you about the losses you were incurring.
You have also stated that OMI, and therefore we assume Generali Worldwide, have “facilitated financial crime over a period of many years”. You have asked that Generali Worldwide “own up to the financial damage and crime it has facilitated over a period in excess of eight years” and compensate you for the losses the Portfolio has suffered.

Portfolio Management Agreement

The PMA (enclosed), authorised fees for the portfolio management services as rendered (being 1% per annum of the Investment Value). And, as we know, this is Generali’s way of clawing back the 8% commission paid to the scammers. There was no “portfolio management”. Had there been any kind of management, this would have included doing something about the inexorable losses rather than just sitting there watching this victim’s losses mounting over a period of years. Bearing in mind he was one of many in the same boat, this makes it doubly disgusting that Generali took no action. You must have been aware that this victim – along with all the hundreds of others – had their life savings used to purchase professional-investor-only and high-risk structured notes.

As such, all instructions in relation to your Trustees´ Portfolio were properly issued by CWM, which we acted properly on in accordance with the PMA. Not true. The members’ signatures were forged. That is fraud. And you, Generali, facilitated financial crime.

Please note that Generali Worldwide is not a party to (or aware of) any commission arrangements between CWM and any investment product issuers. Really? Did you think CWM was just selling these toxic products for fun? You didn’t consider that as the only reason for selling the insurance bond was for the 8% commission, there might be another 8% commission for selling the structured notes?

In appointing CWM as the portfolio manager under the PMA, the Trustee expressly warranted that it would be bound by the decisions of CWM and recognised that CWM were acting for them, not Generali Worldwide. Furthermore, in appointing CWM the Trustees agreed that Generali Worldwide “shall not be liable for any damages, losses, costs or expenses to the Plan assets arising from the appointment of, or the investment instructions given by the Portfolio Manager. There is an interesting parallel here. The CWM scammers all say the same thing: “it wasn’t my fault; I didn’t do anything wrong; it was the others”

This will include, without limitation, any action or failure to take actions on the part of the Portfolio Manager to produce a reasonable investment return, in relation to the plan. So, you are saying that it is reasonable for Generali to have just sat there and said/done nothing about the losses for years? You could see millions of pounds’ worth of life savings getting wiped out routinely and yet you did nothing to help the hundreds of victims. Your website claims that Generali “protects, manages and mitigates risks”. So that is obviously another lie.

The Trustee also agreed to “indemnify (Generali Worldwide) against any and all liability it may incur, as a consequence of, or arising from or in respect of the appointment, activities and performance of the Portfolio Manager…” But did the victim agree to indemnify Generali? You have already admitted that it was HIS money. On the Generali website it states: “Meeting your financial needs: Effective wealth management, investment and pension options that can successfully cater for the diverse needs of global investors”. So do the words “effective” and “successfully” include sitting back and doing nothing about the losses? Generali could have picked up the phone and spoken to the trustee and/or the victim (depending on which party you considered “owned” the money that day) and said something along the following lines:

“Look, mate, we’ve been having a bit of a look at this portfolio. We’ve spotted that over the past couple of years it has halved in value. We’ve also checked up on the adviser, CWM, and we’ve realised the firm is not licensed to give investment advice and is operating illegally in Spain. We’ve also found out that it has been scamming people for years. We’ve also noticed that 100% of the investments are toxic, high-risk structured notes which are FOR PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS ONLY. We’ve also realised that the combination of failed investments and our own huge charges are eventually going to wipe this (and many other) portfolios out altogether. Do you think we ought to do something? Or shall we just sit here and let it happen?”

Continental Wealth Management

CWM are an independent firm of brokers, No they were not. In Spain it is illegal to work as a broker – whether for insurance or investments – without a license. CWM had no license.

entirely distinct from Generali Worldwide. Under Guernsey law, Generali Worldwide is prohibited from appointing agents in the sale of its policies. Guernsey law is irrelevant. CWM was based in Spain. It is only Spanish law that counts. Generali should have checked up to see whether CWM was licensed and when it discovered it had no license, Generali should have refused to accept any further investment instructions from the firm.

CWM owed duties to you / the trustee alone in recommending the Portfolio and providing suitable financial advice prior to its purchase. I wish you would make up your mind. You can’t seem to decide whether it is the victim or the trustee who is the client/investor. And now you are trying to make out it is both.

It is CWM, not Generali Worldwide, that had a duty to advise you / the Trustee of the suitability of the portfolio and its terms, including the relevant fees. At the time of the trustee´s application, Generali Worldwide were not party to the discussions regarding your chosen risk profile. Whose risk profile? The victim’s or the trustee’s?

CWM are solely responsible for any advice provided to you / the Trustee. It is a common misunderstanding that Independent Financial Advisers and similar Intermediaries are “representatives” of the insurer even though as a matter of law that is not the case in circumstances such as these. CWM was indeed responsible for the scam which Generali facilitated. But CWM was not licensed to provide anybody, whether the victim or the trustee, with either insurance or investment advice. And yet Generali accepted hundreds – possibly thousands – of investment dealing instructions from them. And when the victims started losing millions of pounds, Generali never questioned whether this unlicensed advice was going terribly wrong.

If you believe that relevant information about your Portfolio was either misrepresented or not properly explained to you / the Trustee at the time of the application you should seek redress directly with CWM or your Trustee. Again, legally, if there is an issue with the portfolio itself, which is denied, the correct person to complain to Generali Worldwide is the Trustee. In turn, the trustee owes you fiduciary duties in respect of the money you provided to them on trust. Just like all the scammers at CWM: it is everybody else’s fault but not theirs. The issue with the portfolio itself was that it served no purpose except to pay commission to the scammers – and provided no protection or benefit to the victims whatsoever. Indeed, the Generali wrapper simply made matters considerably worse by constantly eroding what little was left of the ever-dwindling funds with the constant quarterly charges.

In respect of the allegations that CWM misrepresented the performance of the Portfolio, again this is a matter for CWM, and their successors in title, to address. Generali Worldwide are not party to the updates that were provided. However, we note that you had access to our Online Service Centre where it was possible to view the performance of the Portfolio at any time. But didn’t Generali view the performance of this portfolio – and hundreds of others – and question what the hell was going on with all the CWM victims?

Regarding the instructions from CWM and any “forged signatures”, we comment that all the instructions received by Generali Worldwide from CWM were properly executed by them as the portfolio manager. Does Generali seriously believe that an unlicensed firm, operating illegally in Spain, was executing millions of pounds’ worth of dealing instructions (most of which resulted in huge losses) “properly”? This is an unbelievable statement.

Given their status as portfolio manager, any instruction only needs to bear their signature (or alternatively the signature of the Trustees). Signatures of the life assured are not required, as there is no contractual relationship between Generali Worldwide and the lives assured (and consequently the lives assured do not have authority to issue dealing instructions). We are not able to comment on whether the other signatures that appear on the instruction were forged. However given the PMA, it is Generali Worldwide´s position that it was the signature of CWM (or the trustee) which validate the instructions. CWM had no status as portfolio manager. Neither the firm nor the individuals were licensed. No dealing instructions should have been accepted from them EVER, under any circumstances whatsoever. Why do you think Malta has just made changes to the regulations to stop this from happening again?

Notwithstanding this, we are concerned to note any potential allegations of fraudulent activity and would encourage you to escalate any issue in this regard to the competent authorities, as necessary. Generali has facilitated financial crime – irresponsibly and negligently. Generali is being reported to the competent authorities.

Contractual Terms and Conditions

The Portfolio is governed by and constructed in accordance with Guernsey law, with contract acceptance (and policy issuance) having taken place in Guernsey. Your Trustee´s application was accepted in good faith in Guernsey on an unsolicited basis in 2013. Based on completion of the application your Trustee thereby confirmed their acceptance, and understanding of the portfolio´s Terms and Conditions. But who is the client? The trustee or the victim. Generali seems to change its mind depending on what argument it is trying to make. The broker and the owner of the funds were based in Spain (and the trustee in Malta) so Guernsey law is irrelevant.

As noted in section 10 of the terms and conditions (enclosed), your Trustee and Portfolio Manager are responsible for investment decisions and any choice of Investment Instruments is entirely at your Trustee´s own risk and it is they that had oversight over the investment settings made. Generali Worldwide accepts no liability for the performance of investment instruments or for losses, damages or costs arising out of, or in connection with Generali Worldwide subscribing to, or otherwise acquiring an interest in an Investment Instrument for allocation to the Portfolio. You will also appreciate that Generali Worldwide was not party to the advice provided to you (or the Trustee), or the rationale for investment decisions made by CWM in respect of the Portfolio (which we note is described in your covering letter). Again, Generali can’t make up its mind whether the client is the victim or the trustee. Either way, this argument seems to make it clear that there was absolutely no point whatsoever in having an insurance bond at all. It provided no protection and only served to hasten the destruction of the funds.

In respect of the portfolio´s fees and charges, these are laid out in section 15 of the enclosed Terms and Conditions. In signing the application form dated 7 November 2012 your Trustee confirmed that they understood the Terms and Conditions. So, it was all the trustee’s fault? But what were these fees and charges for? For sitting there and doing nothing about the destruction of the funds and facilitating financial crime? Under the terms of the contract for this so-called life assurance policy, generali stands to earn £47,304.33 – but for doing what exactly? Bugger all as far as I can see.

It was CWM´s duty to advise the Trustee as well as yourself in respect of the Portfolio´s Terms and Conditions. But CWM was not licensed to give advice – so how could it?

We therefore consider the contractual terms associated with the fees and charges in relation to the Portfolio to be clear. I agree: it is 100% clear that the contract is for Generali to pay a huge commission to a known firm of unlicensed scammers, and to charge quarterly fees to provide no protection or management or mitigation of risks (as falsely claimed on the Generali website).

Discussions with the Trustee and Trafalgar

We have corresponded with both your Trustee and Trafalgar International GmbH (Trafalgar) following your complaint. Given that CWM have entered into liquidation, we understand that Trafalgar have now taken on any liability for the actions of CWM (and are in turn licensed in Germany). So, yet again it is everybody else’s fault and responsibility – except Generali’s.

From publicly available information we have seen that Trafalgar have engaged with your Trustee to try to provide a solution to the issues that they and their beneficiaries face as a result of CWM´s actions. We have also confirmed this directly with representatives of your Trustees and Trafalgar/GlobalNet. We also note from our files that CWM have previously recognised it was their actions that led to some of the losses on the Portfolios and made offers to compensate the beneficiaries. What relevance does this have? This is a complaint against Generali – not a complaint against CWM. The CWM scammers are long gone and the company is worthless.

We have written to Trafalgar regarding your complaint. But this is about a complaint against Generali. What is the point of Generali writing to Trafalgar? Trafalgar didn’t operate this insurance bond. Trafalgar wasn’t on the scene in 2013.

They have told us that they have been trying to provide redress to the former clients of CWM and will respond formally to us in this regard. As yet we have not received any further correspondence from them and we are following up further for any updates. Yet again, Generali is just trying to deflect attention from their own lies and failings. But at least there is a tacit acknowledgement that redress is not only required, but that Trafalgar is trying to provide it (with no help from Generali).

Conclusion

Again, we are very sorry to learn that your Trustee´s Portfolio has suffered the losses you described. We understand that this is a source of deep concern for you and the other former clients of CWM that have been adversely affected. However based on the above, regrettably Generali Worldwide is unable to provide the requested redress. Presumably, if the losses are to be borne by the trustees, then the victim can have all his money back? This constant banging on about the trustee “suffering the losses” is pointless. If it is really true, then as Generali has acknowledged that the victim owns the money, then give it back to him. In full.

CWM advised your Trustee in respect of the purchase of the Portfolio and its management pursuant to the PMA. But was not licensed to do so – and therefore did so illegally.

We repeat that CWM are not an agent of Generali Worldwide. Any fees, charges or commissions are in line with the Portfolio´s Terms and Conditions which we consider are clear. It was CWM´s responsibility to explain these to you / the Trustee at the time of their application. But it is also clear that CWM was not licensed, so this is irrelevant.

The Trustees are entirely responsible for any losses incurred on the Portfolio as a result of the actions undertaken by CWM. Generali Worldwide were not a party to any alleged misrepresentations regarding the Portfolio´s performance. All instructions received from CWM were valid and pursuant to the terms on the PMA. Does the PMA specifically state that instructions can be accepted “validly” from unlicensed, known scammers who are trading illegally? Perhaps when your pants catch fire, you’d like to go to an unqualified, unlicensed scammer posing as a doctor?

At no point did Generali Worldwide act improperly, and there is no contractual basis for deviating from the contract terms nor is there any justification for compensation from Generali Worldwide. So, you are acknowledging that there is absolutely no point whatsoever in having a Generali insurance bond? And admitting that the claims made on the Generali website are false?

Our purpose is to actively protect and enhance people’s lives

We play a proactive and leading role in improving people’s lives through insurance.
- We are dedicated to the heart of insurance – managing and mitigating risks of individuals and institutions.
- Generali is also committed to creating value
- We deeply care about our clients’ and our peoples’ lives
- We have an impact on the quality of people’s lives: wealth, safety, advice and service are instrumental in improving people’s chosen way of life for the long term.
For the avoidance of Doubt Generali Worldwide strenuously denies that we have committed or facilitated any financial crimes as alleged. But throughout this absurd denial, Generali has indeed admitted repeatedly that it has facilitated financial crime by placing so much emphasis and responsibility at the feet of an unlicensed firm of scammers operating illegally in Spain.

This complaint, and the ridiculous response by Generali, will now be referred to the Financial Crime Unit in Jersey as well as the:

Channel Islands Financial Ombudsman

PO Box 114

Jersey,

Channel Islands JE4 9QG

Email: enquiries@ci-fo.org

Website: www.ci-fo.org

Jersey phone: 01534 748610

Guernsey phone: 01481 722218

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

What is a Pension Scam?
May 11, 2018
SEB – DESTROYING LIFE SAVINGS
SEB – DESTROYING LIFE SAVINGS – accepting business and investment instructions from unlicensed scammers.

SEB Life International Assurance offers so-called life assurance policies to expats living in Spain. SEB claim that their policies are straightforward and help investors to construct investment portfolios specifically to individual needs. The truth is, life assurance policies with SEB destroy life savings.

In reality, SEB – along with many other life offices – merely serves to facilitate financial crime. In the case of victim Dave, SEB accepted investment instructions from a known firm of unlicensed scammers: Continental Wealth Management. SEB allowed them to invest 100% of Dave’s retirement portfolio in toxic structured notes which resulted in him losing nearly two thirds of his life savings.

SEB – DESTROYING LIFE SAVINGS: Dave, resident in Spain, transferred his pension fund to a QROPS in December of 2012. The scammers put him into an SEB “bond” which was supposedly “Spanish compliant”. Continental Wealth then invested £160,000 into one high-risk, professional-investor-only structured note and kept £7,000 in cash for SEB’s fees – basically a claw-back of the commission paid to the scammers.

In December 2015 Dave was sent his annual policy valuation by SEB. The opening policy value was just over £90,000 – £60,000 LESS than the original value three years earlier. A year later, the fund was worth just under £55,000. Two thirds of Dave’s pension pot had dribbled out from bad investments and high policy charges – thanks to SEB letting the scammers play fast and loose with the money.

Despite these crippling losses, SEB continued to charging their quarterly policy fees.

In 2013 and 2016 SEB wrote to Dave, informing him that he did not have a “nominated asset” to keep his cash balance positive – so that SEB could keep taking their own fees while they sat and watched Dave’s funds being destroyed by the scammers. This entailed Dave’s fund suffering a further loss as an early redemption of structured notes inevitably results in a loss.

The SEB website claims:
- “Commitment to outstanding client servicing” If sitting back like a lazy parasite and watching a client’s life savings lose 2/3 of its value is “outstanding” we hate to think what “bad” client servicing is.
- “Highly secure and reputable company with sound financial backing” We are glad to hear SEB has financial backing – it is going to need it to pay redress to Dave and all the other victims whose pensions were destroyed by scammers. This will be the real test of whether SEB is “highly secure and reputable”.
- “Competitive products” We would not consider high-risk structured notes to be “competitive” in any way – they are totally unsuitable for pensions. SEB should have known this and should not have allowed the victims’ life savings to be invested in such toxic products.
- “SEB Life International aims to provide superior long-term investment performance and a broad range of products to suit complex investment needs. So, whatever your investment needs, managing a sophisticated portfolio or simply saving for the future – you’ll find solutions here.” In Dave’s case, there was NO superior long-term investment performance. Just massive losses through investing his hard earned cash into toxic, high-risk structured notes which were clearly labeled “for professional investors only”.
Dave can certainly vouch for the fact that in his case, the only outstanding client service SEB delivered was the guarantee of taking their quarterly fees – and even causing him further losses to keep sufficient cash in the portfolio so they could help themselves to his money.

SEB’s website also claims that the only investments they will accept are:

• SEB Life International internal Unit-Linked Funds (including Internal and Select List Funds and Standard
Profiles)
• Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities (UCITS)
• Retail Authorised EU based Collective Investment Schemes1
• Cash and Fixed Deposits
The policyholder may only switch from among the different groups of assets detailed above.

Structured Notes will not be accepted.

So, in addition to facilitating financial crime and paying known scammers huge commissions to destroy victims’ life savings, SEB Life International are outright liars. Dave, along with hundreds of other victims, had their retirement funds invested in structured notes provided by Commerzbank, RBC, Nomura and the fraudsters at Leonteq.
May 8, 2018
OMI AND IOM DEFEATED BY SPANISH COURT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEGAL GROUNDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RULING:

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

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

April 24, 2018