Tag: Leonteq

Pension Scams Explained
Every offshore pension scam starts with a “financial advisor”. Or, at least, a slick salesman posing as a financial adviser. This person can also call himself a “wealth consultant” or “senior associate”.

After the scammer pretending to be an adviser, the next player is the life office. More accurately described as a “death” office, this type of insurance company pollutes and corrupts financial services by ensuring three things:

Few so-called “financial advisers” offshore are truly independent. They are tied to – and dependent on – the life offices for fat, abusive and undeserved commissions.
There is virtually no such thing offshore as providing proper qualified advice – only selling products for commission. Products recommended to the victim are chosen because they pay the most commissions – rather than because they are in the investor’s interests.
The victim will be placed into a “death bond” – also known as a life bond, offshore bond, portfolio bond, insurance bond or wrapper. This toxic, high-risk, expensive and unnecessary product serves only one purpose: to pay a hidden commission to the so-called adviser.

Death bond providers (also known as “life” offices) have facilitated vast amounts of fraud for well over a decade. This has resulted in the destruction of hundreds of millions of pounds’ worth of pensions and life savings across Europe, the Middle East, South East Asia and beyond.

With the recent merging of RL360 and FPI, as well as Utmost and Quilter, this trend is set to increase.

The only way to protect consumers from being defrauded in the next decade is to educate them. The next raft of potential victims needs to be warned, informed, educated and prepared – so they too don’t fall victim to the death offices and their associates.

Here we recreate a typical exchange between a potential victim and a salesman posing as an adviser. Watch and learn; read and weep. This is what has already happened to thousands of expats. Don’t be the next victim conned by a fraudster and a death office.

Introducing Darren Blacklee-Smith of High Assets Wealth and John Carson – a builder who moved to sunny Spain to retire early.

Darren: Nice to meet you John. So, you want to move your frozen pension out of the UK as you now live in Spain?

John: Yes, I’ve been in Spain a few years now, with Brexit and everything, I’m not sure I should leave my pension where it is.

Darren: Very wise to look at your options. Your pension would probably be better off in a QROPS because it would be looked after better, would be cheaper to manage, you’d pay less tax, and you wouldn’t risk losing half of it when you die. Best of all, you’d get to choose your own pension investments!

DING! This is the first warning sign. The old “you’d pay less tax” trick… normally it’s the hook, line and sinker for this type of scam. Who doesn’t want to pay less tax after a lifetime of it? However, the so-called “lower tax charges” are nothing compared to the hidden commissions on the death bond and the toxic investments.

John: That all sounds like it would be better for me in the long run – and cheaper. So where would I move my pension to?

Darren: We’d recommend a QROPS in Malta as this is one of the best countries to move your pension to. It is a safe place for your pension to be looked after properly.

DING DING!! Malta was a prolific harbour for pension scams for a decade. It was a grey area, making it easy for scammers to make as much money as possible. The Malta regulator has tried to tighten up the regulations to prevent further scams, but the scammers always find a new loophole.

John: So how much would all this cost me?

Darren: My firm would charge you a small fee for setting up the transfer and then looking after your pension investments moving forwards.

DING DING DING!!! Oh how he makes it sound so simple! The fees that these advisors take are hefty. And they are not the only charges that will contribute to the destruction of the pension – because of the hidden commissions.

John: Sorry to ask this question, but how is your firm qualified or licensed, or whatever, to look after my pension investments?

Darren: Very important question to ask John – and I am more than happy to give you all the information you need to be comfortable that we are fully licensed.

DING DING DING DING!!!!You can look up any company or person’s license to verify if they’re actually registered or not. But most consumers don’t know how to do this.

John: Oh, I’m glad about that – I didn’t want to offend you, but you do hear stories don’t you…..

Darren: Absolutely. Now, we’re fully regulated and I’m fully qualified. It’s all on our website and here’s my business card and you can see all my qualifications.

John: I’m glad about that. I worked for thirty years to build up that pension and I don’t want anything to happen to it. The wife and I moved to Spain to have a comfortable retirement, and I need to make sure I’m making the right decision.

Darren: Absolutely. Definitely. So, let’s look at all the ways you can improve your pension and make sure its protected. The first question to ask is whether you want tax efficiency? You don’t want to pay too much tax do you?

John: I’ve paid tax all my life, so I feel I’ve paid my dues. I definitely don’t want to pay too much once I’m retired because every penny is going to count.

Darren: Well, that’s why we often recommend our clients should use a tax-efficient insurance bond, like Quilter. This is one of the World’s biggest insurance companies and this will not only protect your pension, but will also make sure you don’t pay too much tax.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!! And this is the most dangerous part. Quilter will almost certainly be the death of your pension. A bond is not suitable for a pension. It is way too expensive and inflexible. And provides no tax advantages within a pension for someone living offshore.

John: That sounds great. So how do we go about this? How do we get the ball rolling, and what do you need me to do?

Darren: Right, I’ve got some forms for you to sign……we’ll need to get your pension transferred over to Malta, and then open up the insurance bond. And then we can start investing your pension and making it grow – so you’ll be able to have a happy and healthy retirement.

Darren: So, this is the transfer application, sign here…..

John: Ooh, not sure if I’ve got a pen…..

Darren: Don’t worry, I’ve got plenty!

This will complete the first stage in the pension scam process. It is a condensed version, as it can take weeks or months of email/phone exchanges. But the result is usually the same: Loss and destruction of the pension.

The scammer posing as an adviser hasn’t explained or revealed the charges and commissions. And he hasn’t told the victim how inflexible the bond is or how it provides no protection or tax savings in reality. And now the scammer has a signed, blank dealing instruction so he can proceed to invest the victim’s pension in high-risk, high-commission investments provided by the death office.
Share to help prevent pension scams!

Facebook

WhatsApp

Twitter

Email

LinkedIn
March 30, 2022
Utmost Fraud approved by EU Commission

Utmost (formerly Generali) is proposing buying Quilter (formerly Old Mutual). The deal is due to be completed by December 2021. The agreed price is nearly half a billion pounds. It is reported that Margrethe Vestager, Vice President of the European Commission, has “approved” this acquisition.

Margrethe Vestager – EU Commissioner Executive Vice President

The “approval” by the European Commission of this deal is an insult to thousands of victims of pension and investment fraud. Widespread financial crime has been facilitated, encouraged and rewarded by Utmost and Quilter over the past decade. The appalling result has been the destruction of millions of pounds’ worth of life savings and pensions.

Margrethe Vestager, EU Commissioner Executive Vice President, has proved that the Commission hasn’t got a clue about Utmost’s and Quilter’s role in offshore financial services fraud. And this deal between these two death offices will create a monopoly over fraud against expats in Europe.

For death offices – such as Utmost and Quilter – fraud against expats is clearly a lucrative business with a huge market. The horrific damage – including distress, poverty and suicide – gives neither Utmost’s CEO Paul Thompson nor Quilter’s CEO Paul Feeney any cause for concern. Thompson has described the proposed acquisition as:

“highly attractive and in line with our growth strategy”.

But growing an industry based on fraud should neither be countenanced by the European Commission – nor the European Markets and Securities Authority.

Paul Feeney CEO of Quilter

Paul Thompson CEO of Utmost

Utmost Fraud approved by EU Commission

Utmost announced the planned takeover in April 2021. CEO Paul Thompson has bragged this would add £22 billion and 90,000 policies to its existing portfolio. This would give the Utmost/Quilter combo a total of £58 billion of funds. And much of this will have been acquired through fraud. It will also give them 600,000 “customers”. And many of these will have been victims of fraud – some of them currently on the verge of suicide.

The toxic assets and suicidal victims result from Utmost’s and Quilter’s long-standing practice of giving terms of business to unlicensed scammers. These death offices have paid huge, undeserved and undisclosed commissions to these scammers for more than a decade. And there is no sign that there is any intention to pay redress to the thousands of victims who have lost their life savings and pensions in death bonds.

The Commission’s approval of this iniquitous acquisition is a grave insult to Utmost’s and Quilter’s existing victims. It also puts thousands of British expats across Europe at risk of becoming future victims of the fraudsters to whom the death offices give terms of business.

There are three clear strands to the fraud with which both Utmost and Quilter are undeniably complicit:

1. The insurance bond – also known as a life, portfolio, or offshore bond. This is the core “product” routinely used and abused by the unethical sector of the offshore financial services market. This toxic sector – which includes many known scammers – sells products and not advice. Bonds can – under certain, limited circumstances – play a valid tax-mitigation role in the UK. But offshore, they serve zero purpose – other than to pay commissions to many unauthorised introducers and fraudsters posing as advisers. Insurance bonds should never be used with offshore pensions (QROPS) since the pension is already a tax “wrapper” in its own right.

2. The terms of the insurance bonds are clearly abusive to consumers as retail, inexperienced investors. The high charges are mostly for the purpose of clawing back the concealed commissions paid to the introducers (many of whom are unauthorised). Utmost and Quilter had known for years that large numbers of these introducers had no license to provide insurance mediation or investment advice. They had also known that these same introducers had long-established track records of mis-selling and fraud. And yet Utmost and Quilter continued to give them terms of business. They allowed them to invest thousands of victims’ pensions and life savings recklessly – and disastrously.

3. The toxic, illiquid, high-risk “investments” offered by the death offices. These products were offered on the death offices’ platforms for the scammers to sell to their victims. Investment products have included dozens of failed funds such as LM, Axiom, Premier New Earth, Quadris Forestry and Kijani. Worse still are the professional-investor-only structured notes supplied by Leonteq, Commerzbank, Royal Bank of Canada and Nomura.

This toxic “triptych” has resulted in horrific losses for thousands of victims over the past ten years. And if this iniquitous acquisition goes ahead, there will be just as many – if not more – casualties in the next ten years. The EU Commission – along with ESMA – will be complicit.

Of course, I might be entirely wrong: Utmost’s half a billion might have been subject to a sequestration deal enforced by the Commission. Perhaps this money is going to be used to repay all the victims the hard-earned money they have lost? And any surplus used to prosecute the dozens of fraudsters to whom the death offices had given terms of business? (Sadly, I am not often wrong).

Death offices Utmost and Quilter (as well as FPI and RL360) have routinely given terms of business to known scammers and unlicensed salesmen posing as advisers since 2010. They have created a toxic industry of selling dodgy products – not professional financial advice. The result has been predictably awful. Victims have paid the price with poverty and misery in retirement. Utmost’s acquisition of Quilter is likely to result in a huge increase in this widespread crime.

The facts behind this perilous situation are irrefutable. Quilter itself is suing Leonteq for £200 million for just one series of high-risk structured notes. This was for an extra 2% hidden commission on top of the 6% hidden commission allowed by Quilter. Chief Executives Peter Kenny and Paul Feeney know that these toxic products should never have been promoted to retail, naive investors. Kenny and Feeney are fully aware that their unlicensed introducers will sell any toxic and high-commission crap to their victims.

John Ferguson (left) & David Vilka (right) of Square Mile International

In 2016, Quilter provided hundreds of these toxic Leonteq structured notes (with total concealed commissions of up to 14.57%) to distributors such as Satori, Mayfields and Morgan Capital. Quilter also sold these notes to known, serial scammers Square Mile International. In the same year, Utmost sold the same Leonteq notes with hidden commissions of over 12%.

Utmost Fraud approved by EU Commission

The EU Commission needs to understand why Utmost’s proposed acquisition should not go ahead. In their Introducer Terms of Business Agreement, Utmost opens with a false statement:

“Following completion of due diligence we are pleased to confirm your terms of business have been authorised on the following commission basis”.

But there is no due diligence. There are no checks on how the firms are licensed, or whether any of the staff or sub agents are qualified to provide insurance or investment advice. And certainly no acknowledgement that the commissions must be openly disclosed to the victims.

The starting point for the hidden commissions is that 140% of the victims’ portfolio will form the basis for the payment. A fact which is never disclosed to the victims.

The Utmost Introducer Agreement requests details of the applicant’s experience and qualifications, in addition to membership of professional bodies or trade associations. The application form also asks for confirmation of regulatory status in the markets where the firm operates. They also ask for details and proof of professional indemnity insurance. Therefore, Utmost acknowledges that these are essential factors for a legitimate introducer. They willingly enter into terms of business with many unlicensed, unqualified scammers. These scammers have no experience, qualifications, membership of professional bodies or trade associations, and no essential regulatory status. They also have no professional indemnity insurance.

In 2014, Utmost accepted one bond application from a victim resident in Spain. Her “adviser” (introducer) had no license to provide either insurance mediation or investment advice anywhere in Europe. And yet Utmost gave this firm complete freedom to invest the victim’s funds – accepting 19 separate investment dealing instructions (mostly with forged client signatures) totalling 529,251.80 Euros. All of the investments were professional-investor-only, high-risk structured notes provided by Leonteq, Commerzbank, Royal Bank of Canada and Nomura. Between 2014 and 2018, Utmost and the scammer between them destroyed over 75% of the victim’s fund. The destruction was caused by repeated structured note failures and the inexorable high charges by Utmost. When the victim finally took out what little was left, Utmost charged her a hefty early-exit penalty. There was no recognition of the horrific destruction Utmost had facilitated.

Criminal proceedings against this, and other associated firms, are now in progress in Spain. However, the main lead complainant – also an Utmost victim who lost most of his portfolio – has recently died. Much of his life savings and pension – which started out at three quarters of a million pounds – were destroyed by Utmost and the scammer. The causes of the losses were not only the toxic structured notes but also some unregulated, professional-investor-only funds such as the Quadris Brazilian Teak Forestry Fund. The deceased victim’s disabled widow is now facing poverty on top of bereavement.

Of course, Quilter has performed just as atrociously as Utmost over the past decade. Thousands of Quilter’s victims are facing similar poverty and suffering at the hands of the same scammers. This fraud is facilitated and rewarded by hidden commissions and the freedom to invest portfolios without the victims’ knowledge, using forged client signatures. With similar callousness, Quilter has allowed the flotsam and jetsam of the offshore cowboys to commit the exact same type of fraud as Utmost has.

One such scammer – with Quilter terms of business – boasts that his qualification to work in financial services is working as a bar manager and managing a successful sales company:

https://pennickblackwell.com/pennick-blackwell-team/

Kristoffer Taft of Pennick Blackwell

(formerly an agent of AES International and now an agent of Abbey Wealth)

If I am wrong, and the Commission has already made arrangements to freeze Utmost’s half a billion pounds, then I apologise unreservedly for doubting you. But if I am right, then the European Commission is just as bad as the death offices and the scammers.

August 17, 2021
Fighting pension scams: Regulation
Fighting pension scams: Regulation

If it was easy to stop pension scams, everyone would be doing it. Clearing up the mess left behind a pension scam is a huge challenge. This is why clear international standards need to be recognised and adopted. The scammers are like flocks of vultures. If people only used regulated firms, they could avoid a lot of scams.

Here is our list of standards
1. Firm must be fully regulated – with licenses for insurance and investment advice
2. Advisers must be qualified to the right standard
3. Firm must have Professional Indemnity Insurance
4. Clients must have comprehensive fact finds and risk profiles
5. Firm must operate adequate compliance procedures
6. Advisers must not abuse insurance bonds
7. Clients must understand the investment policy
8. All fees, charges and commissions must be disclosed
9. Investors must know how their investments are performing
10. Firm must keep a log of all customer complaints
Why is regulation so important?:
- If a firm sells insurance, it must have an insurance license.
- If a firm gives investment advice, it must have an investment license.
Many advisers will claim that if they only have an insurance license, they can advise on investments if an insurance bond is used. This practice must be outlawed, because this is how so many scams happen.

Most countries have an insurance and an investment regulator. They provide licenses to firms. Some regulators are better than others. Most regulators do some research and only give licenses to decent firms.

History tells us that most pension scams start with unlicensed firms. Here are some examples:

LCF Bond, Blackmore Bond, Blackmore Global Fund, LM, Axiom and Premier New Earth – all high risk failures. The investors have lost some or all of their money in these bonds and funds. They were mostly sold by advisers without an investment license. Investors lost well over £1 billion. Advisers (introducers) earned £millions in commissions.

Continental Wealth Management invested 1,000 clients’ funds in high-risk structured notes. Investors started with £100 million. Most have lost at least half. Some have lost everything. Continental Wealth Management had no license from any regulator in any country.

Serial scammers such as Peter Moat, Stephen Ward, Phillip Nunn, and XXXX XXXX all ran unlicensed firms. Peter Moat operated the Fast Pensions scam which cost victims over £21 million. Stephen Ward operated the Ark, Evergreen, Capita Oak, Westminster and London Quantum pension scams which cost victims over £50 million. XXXX XXXX operated the Trafalgar pension scam which cost victims over £21 million.

Phillip Nunn operates the Blackmore Global Fund which has cost victims over £40 million. Serial scammer David Vilka has been promoting this fund. Over 1,000 people may have lost their pensions.

Firms that give unlicensed advice are breaking the law. Unlicensed advisers often use insurance bonds. These bonds pay high commissions. The funds these advisers use also pay high commissions. The advisers get rich. The clients get fleeced. The funds get destroyed. Insurance bonds such as OMI, FPI, SEB and Generali are full of worthless unregulated funds, bonds and structured notes.

Unlicensed firms hide charges from their clients. Most victims say they would never have invested had they known how expensive it was going to be.

Hidden charges can destroy a fund – even without investment losses. Licensed advisers normally disclose all fees and commissions up front. This way, the client knows exactly how much the advice is going to cost.

People can avoid being victims of pension scammers. Using properly regulated firms is one way. An advisory firm should have both an insurance license and an investment license. Don’t fall for the line: “we don’t need an investment license if we use an insurance bond”. Bond providers such as OMI, FPI, SEB and Generali still offer high-risk investments. The insurance bond provides zero protection. And the bond charges will make investment losses much worse.

YOU WOULDN’T USE AN UNLICENSED DOCTOR.

SO DON’T USE AN UNLICENSED FINANCIAL ADVISER.
April 27, 2019
Death of the Life Bond (Life of the Death Bond?)
Attention financial advisers in Spain/who provide financial advice to Spanish residents.

18^th February 2019

DEATH OF THE LIFE BOND:

The Spanish insurance and pensions regulator, the DGS, made a judgment against Costa Blanca-based Continental Wealth Management (CWM) on 10.1.2019. The order (translated and summarised below) confirmed that there are strict regulations in Spain for the sale of insurance products. The DGS also made it clear that even if a firm is not regulated in Spain by the DGS, it must conform to the Spanish regulations.

The deadline for compliance with the order was Monday 11^th February. Unsurprisingly, CWM failed to comply. CWM had collapsed in September 2017 and all the scammers who worked for the firm headed for the hills (or Australia). We are now enforcing this order by criminal action against all those responsible. This also opens the way for similar action against any other firms who have mis-sold insurance products without complying with the Spanish regulations.

In certain, limited circumstances, insurance bonds can be beneficial. But in the vast majority of cases they are entirely mis-sold, and the underlying commissions concealed. These hidden commissions prevent the funds from growing and have an ever-increasing detrimental effect on the value of the fund. I have seen evidence of an entire fund being destroyed by irresponsible, risky, commission-laden investments. The life offices (such as OMI, SEB, FPI, RL360 and Generali) continue to apply their quarterly charges while the funds are being destroyed – sometimes even pushing the funds into negative territory.

Why should the use of life bonds be strictly controlled?

I have transcribed the DGS’ judgment below. It is an abbreviated, translated version of the original. I also set out below the reasons why life bonds should now be strictly controlled and only sold/advised by qualified, regulated firms. Once an international standards agreement has been established, it should be possible to ensure that only those firms who understand how to use these products properly will use them in future.

I hope that all advisers providing insurance advice in Spain – and beyond – will now ensure that losses caused by the mis-selling of life bonds are put right. I also hope that this policy will be adopted throughout Europe and in all other jurisdictions so that the worldwide mis-selling scandal can finally be ended.

There will be criminal proceedings – and these will extend to the life offices themselves for profiting from financial crime. The many victims whose life savings have been destroyed by the life offices and their toxic practices will welcome this news. The victims themselves know intimately the numerous faults of the life offices:
- accepting business from (and paying undisclosed commissions to) known scammers and unregulated advisory firms
- offering high-risk, unregulated funds such as Axiom, LM, Premier New Earth and other no-hoper funds
- offering professional-investor-only structured notes from providers such as Leonteq, Commerzbank and Nomura
- reporting the inexorable losses but taking no remedial action
- locking victims into the expensive, pointless bonds long after the majority of the funds had been destroyed
This latest development with the DGS judgment will help the victims take action against negligent life offices such as Old Mutual International and Friends Provident International. This will be a powerful weapon in the recovery process against these parasitic, negligent and greedy insurance companies.

I set out below, in red, reasons why insurance bonds should now be strictly controlled internationally. This is not just my opinion – but an order by the Spanish government. In my view, this is a very sensible and useful order which is in the interests of all consumers throughout Europe and the wider world.

Decent, ethical, regulated firms will comply with the DGS’ judgment. The scammers will not.

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

Madrid, 10 January 2019 – Complaints service file number 268/2016

Chief Inspector of Unit – Ministry of Economy and Enterprise

Secretary of State for the Economy and Business Support

General Directorate of Insurance and Pension Funds (DGS)

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

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

The scammers do not, of course, comply with this regulation. In fact, scammers rarely tell their clients that they are going to be put into an insurance bond. Unscrupulous advisers often conceal how the bond will work or for how many years they will be locked in for. Normally, scammers wave an agreement for an OMI, SEB, Generali, FPI or RL360 bond under the nose of the clients – and ask them to sign the agreement with no explanation. Rarely do the scammers allow the client to read the document properly, or disclose the commission they will receive from selling the often pointless bond.

Victims will be locked into the bond long after they have worked out that the adviser has mis-sold the product purely for the 8% commission – and that the charges will prevent the fund from ever growing. In fact, even if the underlying asset were to perform reasonably well, it would struggle to keep up with the combination of the bond and adviser costs.

It is rarely explained that the bond is a bogus life assurance policy (or series of policies); that any life cover is only actually 101% of the original value of the funds the victim has unwittingly placed into the bond. If all the clients had wanted was life cover in the first place, this product would represent terrible value for money. The Spanish Supreme Court has already ruled that life assurance policies are void for the purpose of holding investments – because the life office takes no risk.

Therefore, the life bond fails on three counts:
1. it is a useless life assurance policy
2. it is a useless investment platform
3. it does not comply with Spanish regulations.
I could go on: the life bond is expensive; fails to disclose adviser commissions; offers high-risk, unregulated funds; accepts business from known scammers and unregulated firms; allows professional-investor-only structured notes for retail investors. The list is endless.

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

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

If the client had stipulated that he needed a life assurance policy (which he usually didn’t), the adviser should have explained fully how and why any product offered fitted the client’s needs. This virtually never happens. The adviser has already decided (long before he has even met the client – let alone carried out a fact find) – that he is going to flog him a bond from whichever life company is paying the highest commission. And this is how so many victims end up with useless insurance products from OMI, SEB, Generali, RL360, Friends Provident International, Hansard, Investors Trust etc.

Even if the client had specifically asked for – say – £100,000 worth of life cover, these “life” policies could never guarantee to provide that cover. In a proper, bona fide life assurance contract (where the client pays a monthly premium for the life of the policy) the pay-out is guaranteed. In these bogus life assurance policies, the value of the pay-out inevitably decreases as the charges eat into the fund. This is normally the case when disproportionately risky investments are made by the life offices.

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

“Before an insurance contract is concluded, the insurance intermediary must, as a minimum, provide the customer with the following information:
1. a) The broker’s identity and address.
2. b) The Register in which the broker is registered, as well as the means of verifying such registration.”
This rarely happens in practice – unless the broker is one of the very few professional and ethical firms in the expat world. An adviser might claim to be based in one jurisdiction, but could – in fact – be based in an entirely different one. “Passporting” is often misused as advisers “fly in under the radar” and provide advice in jurisdictions where they have no legal right to operate.

Insurance agents must inform the customer of the names of the insurance companies with which they can carry out the mediation activity in the insurance product offered.

Agents often have terms of business with more than one life office – but will rarely disclose the fact that some or all of them have a long history of facilitating financial crime internationally.

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

I have never seen an instance of this happening – which is not to say it doesn’t happen. Just that I haven’t seen it. But then people don’t come to me when things are going swimmingly – they only come when they have lost some, most or all of their fund.

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

And herein lies the problem: the advice is rarely provided for the purpose of taking out an insurance policy – the advice is usually given because the client wants his pension or life savings invested safely, prudently and profitably. Few – if any – clients come to the adviser to ask for a life assurance policy. But they get one, whether they need it – or can afford it – or not.

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

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

I have never seen an example of an adviser offering a client a selection of possible insurance contracts. The adviser has normally decided which life product he is going to flog long before the client even walks through the door. In a normal insurance contract relationship, it is the insurer which takes the risk. But in life bond contracts, it is the insured who takes the risk – i.e. that his life cover will be substantially lower than that originally contracted and that, indeed, his fund will be severely impaired by the costs of the contract.

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

I have never seen this happen – which is not to say that it doesn’t happen. But the adviser could only explain to the customer that the sole purpose of the life bond is to pay him 8% commission. And that would inevitably spook the customer – so the adviser doesn’t bother. There will surely be all sorts of flim-flam about the life bond allegedly providing tax efficiency. However, any real tax savings will be resoundingly eclipsed by the high charges.

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

I have never seen a single instance of an intermediary complying with the DGS rules in Spain or anywhere else. But that is because I only ever hear about cases where the clients suffer losses. The people who are well looked after by competent, professional, ethical brokers never bother contacting me – because they don’t need to! However, I would love to hear from advisers who do abide by the rules.

Every insurance intermediary is obliged, before the conclusion of the insurance contract, to provide full disclosure.

Never happens in my experience. The commission is normally concealed, and the inflexibility of the lock-in period is rarely explained. The victims usually only find this out after they have realised they have been scammed.

In the event that a mediator was an Insurance Broker or independent mediator, he is also obliged to give advice in accordance with the obligation to carry out an objective analysis.

Never happens in my experience. The adviser/mediator doesn’t use the life assurance product for life assurance, but as a bogus “wrapper” for holding investments. Therefore, the likely outcome of any objective analysis is very unlikely ever to be fulfilled.

This must be provided on the basis of the analysis of a sufficient number of insurance contracts offered on the market for the risks to be covered. The mediator can then formulate a recommendation, using professional criteria, in respect of the insurance contract that would be appropriate to the needs of the client.

I have never seen an instance of a mediator offering a selection of possible contracts – and there are no risks to be covered, as the insurer takes no risks. This is why these products have been deemed by the Spanish Supreme Court to be invalid. However, if a mediator were to offer a “selection” of life bonds, they would all be identical as they are all just as bad as each other.

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

As it has in just about every instance I have ever seen in Spain – and beyond. In fact, one firm in Spain – Blevins Franks – only offers one insurance product and that is Lombard. This is completely illegal.

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

I have never seen an instance of any firm complying with the obligations imposed by law in Spain. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen – and I would love to hear from firms who do comply with this law so that my knowledge can be broadened. However, if this does happen, it is only likely to be in the case of ethical firms, and they are unlikely to use these bogus life assurance policies anyway.

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

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

The entity – Continental Wealth Management – did not, indeed, comply with the DGS’ requirement. This now gives the green light for this firm and the directors and shadow directors associated with it – as well as the life office which was complicit in this scam – to be subject to criminal proceedings. The life offices, in this case, were complicit as they were effectively profiting from financial crime.

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

THE DEATH OF THE LIFE BOND

I think it would be no understatement to say that this heralds the end of the mis-use and abuse of life bonds (also known as portfolio bonds or insurance bonds). Not just in Spain, but throughout Europe and beyond. This will be warmly welcomed by the thousands of victims who have lost their life savings to rogue insurance companies such as OMI, SEB, FPI and Generali, and unregulated scammers such as Continental Wealth Management.

The ethical sector of the financial advice industry will, of course, be delighted – and there will be a mad scramble by the rogues to find a way round this ruling. And they will fail.
February 18, 2019
No more bogus life assurance policies in Spain
The Spanish Insurance Regulator – the DGS (Dirección General de Seguros y Fondos de Pensiones) – has made a most welcome judgment. This outlaws the mis-selling of bogus life assurance policies as investment “platforms” – aka “life bonds”. Read the translated summary below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madrid, 10 January 2019

General Directorate of Insurance and Pension Funds (DGS)

Complaints service file number 268/2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chief Inspector of Unit

Ministry of Economy and Enterprise

Secretary of State for the Economy and Business Support
February 17, 2019
Vueling v Old Mutual International

Intro written by Kim: ‘This week Angie travelled for work (yet again): she had to fly from Granada to Barcelona. Disaster struck – her baggage sadly did not make the full journey -it’s sitting in the triangle of lost luggage no doubt. The airline – Vueling – whilst only providing the flight, was still happy to take responsibility for the loss of her bag and its contents, and compensate her. That got her thinking: if an airline can take full responsibility for a loss, why are life offices like OMI turning a blind eye to the massive losses they have caused to thousands of pension scam victims’ funds?

Over to Angie:

The financial services industry (especially offshore) has a lot to learn from the airline industry. Aviation stakeholders internationally provide the highest possible levels of safety for air travellers. This due diligence is constantly reviewed, updated and improved. The same standard of responsibility routinely happens in all jurisdictions. Regulators, as well as air crash investigators, work together when things go right. As well as when they don’t.

The work of the air industry regulators, investigators and safety trainers never ceases with all parties constantly striving to maintain the highest possible standards of performance and safety. And when something goes wrong, everybody swings into action like the A-team, International Rescue and Tom Cruise combined.

I know all this because one of my members is a Captain with a well-known airline (probably quite easy to guess which one!). He also trains pilots from a variety of other airlines in simulators – and this includes Vueling pilots. I will call him Captain BJ.

BJ is a thoroughly decent bloke and has a rather endearing fondness for chickens. He has devoted his professional life to the business of safety in travel. And behind him is a comprehensive and robust system of regulation – internationally. Financial services regulators, on the other hand, stand by and watch (with their hands firmly in their pockets – and their fingers compulsively searching for something with which to fiddle) as the equivalent of hundreds of passenger planes crash every month. The regulators stare blankly at the charred remains of the passengers’ life savings and shrug carelessly at the huge scale of human misery caused so routinely. With such flaccid regulatory regimes in so many jurisdictions, these chocolate-teapot regulators de facto facilitate and encourage losses caused by negligence and scams.

I know all this because Captain BJ is also a pension scam victim – courtesy of Stephen Ward’s Ark £27 million pension scam. Despite the extreme stress of losing his pension, he has to keep a stiff upper lip and continue with his daily routine of flying thousands of passengers safely around the skies of Europe.

My recent experience on a Vueling flight provides an interesting parallel with the “financial services” provided by Old Mutual International. Vueling sells flights. They provide the aircraft; the pilots and the cabin crew. They offer a selection of routes, food and drink, duty free goods, toilets and the expertise to get many thousands of passengers from one destination to another safely and on time; day after day after day.

What Vueling doesn’t do is operate a baggage handling service – this is provided by the airport you travel through. However, no matter how enjoyable a flight has been (if such a thing is possible!) and how punctual the take-off and landing are, the whole experience can be badly marred by the loss of a passenger’s luggage. While Vueling is responsible for the safety of the passengers, it is NOT responsible for the safety of the passengers’ luggage when it is not in the bowels of the aircraft. However, Vueling goes to extraordinary lengths to help people whose luggage has been delayed or lost. Vueling take full responsibility for a loss of luggage, luckily for me.

Earlier this week, it was the baggage handlers at either Granada airport or Barcelona airport who were responsible for my medium-sized, black, tatty suitcase. And they lost it. The case had been full of clothing typically worn by a slightly fat, grey-haired woman on the wrong side of something ending in a nought. So no desirable or valuable designer totty wear, expensive perfume or sparkly jewellery.

But Vueling provide people like me (who end up wearing the same orange jumper and purple socks two days in a row) with an easy to use, online complaints and redress facility. It wasn’t Vueling’s fault that my luggage got lost, but they take responsibility for it anyway because it is part of the whole flight “package”.

Contrast this with Old Mutual International (OMI) and the IoM regulator. And thank your lucky stars that they don’t try to run an airline (because if they did, it is unlikely any passengers or luggage would ever survive). OMI provides “insurance bonds” or bogus life assurance policies. These products serve no purpose except to pay fat commissions to rogue IFAs. And they feature a selection of risky investment products for the IFAs to earn even more commission. What OMI does not provide is financial advice – that is the job of someone else (i.e. the IFAs). But when the IFAs do the equivalent of losing the baggage, OMI takes no interest or responsibility other than to record the loss.

In the air industry, there are two things that can go wrong that can cause customers financial damage: flight delays and loss of luggage. A comprehensive complaints and redress system is routinely provided by all leading airlines. In the financial services industry, there are two things that can go wrong that can cause customers financial damage: investment failures and disproportionately high charges. No complaints and redress system is provided by life offices such as OMI and no one takes full responsibility for a loss.

If an airline experiences a crash, a huge machine swings into action to investigate the cause and take immediate remedial action to prevent the same or similar event from ever causing another accident. If a life office such as OMI experiences a crash, it pretends nothing has happened. Pension scam victims? No pension scam victims here! OMI denies all responsibility. And blames the IFA. Or the weather. Or Brexit. And keeps charging the victims the same disproportionately high fees based on the huge commissions they originally paid to the IFA that caused the crash.

Here are some examples of OMI’s crashes in the past six years:

* Axiom Litigation Fund – this was a PROFESSIONAL-INVESTOR-ONLY fund which was routinely used by rogue IFAs for ordinary, retail investors (and from which the IFAs earned fat commissions). OMI offered the Axiom fund on the bogus “life assurance” platform. And when the fund went into administration in December 2012, OMI shrugged its shoulders and said “not our problem“. And kept charging the victims the same fees as if the £120 million loss hadn’t happened.

OMI knew that many of the IFAs had been neither regulated nor qualified and that the investors were unsophisticated, low-risk, retail customers.

* LM Australian Property Fund – this was a PROFESSIONAL-INVESTOR-ONLY fund which was routinely used by rogue IFAs for ordinary, retail investors (and from which the IFAs earned fat commissions). OMI offered the LM fund on the bogus “life assurance” platform. And when the fund went into administration in March 2013, OMI shrugged its shoulders and said “not our problem“. And kept charging the victims the same fees as if the £240 million loss hadn’t happened.

OMI knew that many of the IFAs had been neither regulated nor qualified and that the investors were unsophisticated, low-risk, retail customers.

* Premier New Earth Recycling Fund – this was a PROFESSIONAL-INVESTOR-ONLY fund which was routinely used by rogue IFAs for ordinary, retail investors (and from which the IFAs earned fat commissions). OMI offered the PNER fund on the bogus “life assurance” platform. And when the fund went into administration in June 2016, OMI shrugged its shoulders and said “not our problem“. And kept charging the victims the same fees as if the £800 million loss hadn’t happened.

OMI knew that many of the IFAs had been neither regulated nor qualified and that the investors were unsophisticated, low-risk, retail customers. That is £1.16 billion worth of fund losses in just over six years, but they take no responsibility for loss of funds and the pension scam victim gets no redress.

(Note – if you read the above three examples, you will see that although the funds, dates and amounts were different, the circumstances were EXACTLY the same!)

Add to this the £ billions lost through toxic, risky structured notes, and that adds up to quite a cricket score that OMI “wasn’t responsible for“.

The causes were all the same:

UNREGULATED ADVISORY FIRMS

UNQUALIFIED ADVISERS

FUNDS OFFERING HUGE COMMISSIONS

FUNDS SUITABLE FOR HIGH-RISK, PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS SOLD TO LOW-RISK, RETAIL INVESTORS

NO DUE DILIGENCE BY OMI

We know that OMI bought:

£200 million worth of failed Leonteq structured notes

between 2012 and 2016 as OMI is claiming to be suing Leonteq. But this does little to distract attention from OMI’s multiple, long-term failures for allowing such toxic investments in the first place and causing many people to become pension scam victims.

If I give my car keys to someone who is so drunk they can barely stand up – and certainly can’t spell either OMI or IOM – and there is a serious accident, whose fault is it? The drunk’s or mine?

OMI’s CEO is a bloke called Peter Kenny who used to work for the IoM regulator. So he should know better. But he doesn’t. So we must assume he would be happy to hand his car keys over to a drunk or let an unqualified pilot fly a plane with a broken wing. And he would still claim it wasn’t his fault, despite the number of pension scam victims.

The moral of this blog is: never wear orange and purple on a flight; never use an OMI life bond; always use a qualified, regulated and insured IFA. Don’t become the next pension scam victim.

My next dilemma is what to buy with my Vueling compensation. I feel a trip to Marks and Sparks coming on. (I needed a bigger size anyway!).

(Huge thanks to Captain BJ – to whom I owe my sanity).

PS – since we wrote and published this blog, my luggage has been found. Apparently, it never left Granada airport. I suspect somebody pinched it – then found the clothes inside were so dull that they didn’t think it was worth taking it after all.

CWM Pension scam – A victim’s reconstruction

January 17, 2019
Nitwit or Dragonfly? Gambling or Investing?

Nitwit or Dragonfly? Gambling or Investing? Are investment losses as a result of a bad adviser or a bad investment? Or both? The real question is: how does the consumer tell the difference? A favourite episode of Fawlty Towers involved Basil’s ill-fated bet on a racehorse called Dragonfly. Confusion sets in – fuelled by the easily-confused Manuel – and “Dragonfly” gets muddled up with “Nitwit”. And that is how clients get confused just as easily: by advisers who spout the usual rubbish: capital protected; guaranteed returns; blue-chip investments; solid providers etc. They just leave out the three most important things: the fat commissions paid to the adviser; the high-risk nature of the “investment” and the fact that structured notes are FOR PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS ONLY (and not for retail investors).

Equally befuddled – but much less funny – this past few days, has been a bunch of nitwits posing as financial experts on Linkedin. Almost as barmy as Basil and Manuel, these comedians don’t know the difference between investing and gambling. Graham Bentley of a firm called gbi2 has been suggesting that structured notes should be revisited as viable “investments” for valued clients.

Bentley has suggested that structured products are an option that advisers could consider including in their portfolio of investment solutions. If he is talking about outright scammers, then – of course – he is right. Structured products pay juicy commissions of up to 8%, so naturally they are a favoured product for these criminals to sell. Plus, if the clients themselves have so much money they are desperate to get rid of as much of it as possible, as quickly as possible, then structured products are ideal.

But Bentley is missing the point entirely. Structured products have, for years, been sold enthusiastically and aggressively by the usual suspects: Leonteq, Nomura, Commerzbank, Royal Bank of Canada and BNP Paribas; bought by scammers such as Continental Wealth Management for the juicy commissions; harboured by crooked life offices such as Old Mutual International. And the result has been huge losses for hundreds of victims. In some cases, total destruction of a victim’s life savings.

Most advisers who sell these toxic products are too thick to understand how they work – and indeed anything beyond the amount of commission they earn out of flogging them is way too tricky to get their simple minds around. And why should they even bother? They just sell them, collect their 8% and then move on to the next victim. What’s to understand? They know that life offices love them – and indeed Old Mutual International bought £94 million worth of the fraudulent Leonteq ones alone. It is a delightful circle for all concerned: the scammers get rich, the bent life offices get fat and the structured product providers do very nicely thank you. And not a single one of them gives a second thought for the victims.

One cheerful idiot on the Linkedin thread has enthusiastically supported Bentley’s idiotic view:

Mark Coomber, Chartered MCSI Independent Financial Planner at Plutus Wealth Management

“Continue to use structured products (as part of portfolios) both personally and for clients with great success. Most of the negative comments I read about them are born out of ignorance and sheer laziness of some advisers who cannot be bothered to either learn the topic matter or undertake the relevant due diligence.”

And this guy is chartered! As a member of the CISI he should know better than to spout such rubbish – and I feel deeply sorry for any clients of Plutus Wealth Management as they are clearly in danger of being sold these toxic products. In fact, I would go further and suggest the public should be warned about the dangers of using this firm, as Coomber clearly has every intention of flogging his victims these high-risk products. If he is stupid enough to use them for his own gambling fun, good luck to him. But he has no right to inflict them on retail clients.

One of the fraudulent structured notes sold by Leonteq (for 8% commissions to the scammers) was:

Capital Protection on WTI Crude Oil with a Reference Bond (PDVSA)
100.00% Contingent Capital Protection | Credit Risk of Reference Bond Issuer | 5.00% p.a. Guaranteed
Coupon | 6.00% p.a. Conditional Coupon
ISIN CH0234862669 | Swiss Security Number 23486266
Final Fixing Date 20/03/2019

The term sheet did, to be fair, give a clear warning:

“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.”

Sadly, we have to wait until March 2019 to find out how many victims have lost their shirts on this particular lame horse.

And this is the problem: most advisers don’t understand structured products themselves – all they understand (and care about) is the fat commission. They certainly don’t care that the products are fraudulent. But, more importantly, none of these rogue advisers’ clients are experienced investors. If they were, they wouldn’t be paying a greedy and irresponsible financial adviser to risk their hard-earned life savings for them.

STRUCTURED NOTES ARE GAMBLING – NOT INVESTING!

So my message to Coomber and Bentley is this: read Leonteq’s term sheet:

“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.” And then try to decide which horse is going to win: Dragonfly or Nitwit.

October 3, 2018
Cartoon blog – Don’t be the next pension scam victim

Written by Kim

All pension and investment scams have one thing in common: if the pension scam victims had asked the offshore advisers some or all of these 10 essential questions, they might not have lost their life savings to the scammers.

Here at Pension Life, we are working hard to help educate the masses and stop pension scammers in their tracks worldwide. By arming and informing the public, and teaching them how to spot the scammers and avoid being scammed, we can help put a stop to these crimes.

With the scammers outsmarted, there will hopefully be fewer pension scam victims!

We have put together this cartoon which provides you, the investor, with 10 essential questions to ask your offshore adviser before you sign your precious pension fund over. Knowing what questions to ask could mean you do not become the next pension scam victim.

1. Pension Life has covered what qualifications your adviser needs to give pension advice. The adviser should also be able to show you their certificates and be registered with the governing body that awarded them – typically CII or CISI qualifications. We have created a series of blogs “firm name – qualified and registered?” which cover many offshore advisory firms and their team members. They show the firms that list employees who claim qualifications but are not registered and have failed to supplied proof and which firms are transparent. Some firms are happy to work with us and be 100% transparent and demonstrate that their team of advisers are fully qualified and registered.

2. Many offshore companies are regulated with an insurance licence ONLY and this is not sufficient to give pension and investment advice. They must have a licence to give advice on pensions and investments.

3. We have seen many companies with flash websites posing as financial advisory firms. Their spiel gives the impression they are a large company, but when you dig deeper you find they are a one-man band like the Imperius Group, and often unqualified AND unregulated like Callaghan QROPS.

4. Insurance bonds are an expensive and unnecessary double wrapper on your pension. If it has already been invested in a SIPPS or a QROPS, insurance bonds are not needed. Insurance bonds are another way for the scammers to skim more commissions from your fund, putting a dent in your start and end value. Life offices such as Old Mutual International, Generali and RL360 are among the firms (known as life offices) to be avoided.

5. Structured note providers such as Leonteq, Nomura, Royal Bank of Canada and Commerzbank should be avoided. These companies are linked to previous pension scams and many victims have seen their pension funds destroyed with these high-risk, fixed-term notes, that are totally unsuitable for a pension fund. Often these structured notes have high commissions that make the ‘adviser’ big bucks.

6. Holding a DB pension puts you in good stead for your retirement. With a pension fund like this you are often better to ‘just do nothing’ and leave it as it is. Transferring it can lead to heavy charges and fees, meaning your fund becomes worth much less than before.

7. A pension is classed as a retail investment and needs to be invested in low to medium risk investments with a steady increase in value. Offers of high returns, especially in investments that use words like “renewable energies” or “property”, are illiquid and high risk. These types of investments are not safe for your pension. An example of this is the Elysian bio-fuels pension scam, facilitated by James Hay and Dolphin Trust – a German housing investment scheme – promoted to British steelworkers.

8. Time and time again, we see pension scam victims receiving the paperwork on the pension transfer ‘deal’ they have signed, only to realise that large fees and charges have been applied. The scammers are experts at hiding the charges and often quote the term: ‘free pension review’. Whilst they do not charge for all their visits and advice before you sign on the dotted line, they make up for this in transfer fees, commissions and often quarterly charges too! The quarterly charges will be applied no matter how your fund is doing. We have seen pension scam victims´ funds end up in negative equity due to being placed into an inappropriate fund which causes losses and second, continuing fees being applied. (Fees are normally based on the start value of the fund).

9. With the technology we have today, like smart phone apps, many firms are offering instant access to the progress of your pension fund through their own app. Options exist to add funds or change your investments and total transparency of investments and progress; a company that offers this service is Pension Bee. You should also get quarterly statements and annual reviews so you can track the progress of your fund.

10. We have seen pension scam victims repeatedly contacting their so-called advisers to try to get information on the demise of their fund, only to meet dead end after dead end. Again, ensure you are using a fully licensed firm that has an admin, compliance and support team. Ensure you are able to get a set of contact details (if not two!) and that there is a ‘real’ address and a landline – scammers often use PO boxes and mobile numbers.

Remember, it is your pension and your investment; you are entitled to ask as many questions as you like. These essential questions to ask offshore advisers should be simple for any trustworthy and transparent adviser to answer quickly and effortlessly. If your adviser is in any way cagey, vague or tries to avoid the question altogether, just walk away. An adviser who is unwilling to be totally transparent could well be a scammer.

Don’t be the next pension scam victim – wise up!

October 2, 2018
International Adviser and the Old Mutual International/Quilter Scams

International Adviser and the Old Mutual International/Quilter Scams. Today’s jolly:

“Future Advisory Forum Europe 2018”

at the Courthouse Hotel, Shoreditch, will see a number of players in the financial services industry discussing – presumably – financial services in 2018. I’ve looked at the agenda, however, and I can’t see anything about pension scams or investment scams and how to prevent them. Neither can I see anything about bringing negligent, lazy, dishonest, callous, greedy life offices such as Old Mutual International/Quilter to justice for facilitating financial crime.

I can’t see any evidence of any of the victims of scams either attending or speaking at this do. Surely to goodness, these people – the first-hand witnesses and experts on the mass destruction of life savings by the likes of Old Mutual/Quilter – should be the stars of the show. How can anyone discuss the future of financial advice in Europe without examining how the perpetrators operate, and planning how to stop them from doing so in the future?

International Adviser should hang its head in shame for failing to make sure that the perpetrators – especially Old Mutual International/Quilter – are brought to justice publicly for the destruction of hundreds of millions of pounds’ worth of life savings. And yet IA’s Old Mother Hubbard is consorting with them and giving Quilter’s Ryan Gardner a speaking slot on the “return of volatility”. How absolutely disgusting and sickening! The victims of Old Mutual International or Quilter – or whatever the hell they are calling themselves this week to try to obliterate their grubby past – know far more than this idiot will ever know about “volatility”. One calm and composed victim could sum the subject up in one simple sentence:

“I started with a lifetime’s worth of savings and now I’ve got nothing – although I’m still paying the OMI quarterly charges”.

That is pretty bloody volatile I would say. And all because OMI accepts business from any old filthy, unqualified, unregulated scammers – and pays them handsomely to invest in disgusting, toxic crap like professional-investor-only Leonteq structured notes.

Apart from IA’s Richard Hubbard and Quilter’s Ryan Gardner, the other speakers should know better and hang their heads in shame for consorting with the scum of financial services and leading perpetrators of financial crime.

Michelle Hoskin of Standards International intends to speak about a “global movement of change”. I hope that “change” includes campaigning for all scammers to be brought to justice, and all regulators encouraged to get off their lazy backsides and outlaw scams in their backyards. Michelle doesn’t say whether she wants the change to be good or bad. Hopefully, she means “good” – and that should include boycotting any rogue firms such as Old Mutual International which facilitate financial crime. If this woman wants to know why, she should perhaps ask Ryan Gardner why OMI bought £94 million worth of fraudulent, high risk, toxic crap from Leonteq between 2012 and 2016.

Then she should ask him why OMI just sat there for six years and watched thousands of victims’ life savings dwindle away to nothing. While OMI did nothing. And their victims considered suicide. Putting that lot right would be a pretty good global movement of change.

Other speakers at this CONference include Andy Cowin of Sterling – who wants to talk about taking advice on residency and domicile status. Hopefully, his talk will include advice for OMI’s victims who are in the process of losing their homes and will have nowhere to live thanks to OMI’s negligence. Residency/domicile is a pretty hot topic for these people. If Cowin doesn’t address this particular aspect of the subject, he should hang his head in shame.

And another one is Edward GOTT. Head of FX private clients. Caxton FX. He’s going to talk about “strategies to help high net-worth customers understand the risks relating to Brexit”. Hopefully, he is not going to ignore the plight of OMI’s victims – the low to zero net worth people whose only risk right now is starving or freezing to death – and for whom Brexit is irrelevant since OMI have destroyed all their money and they are staring at the prospect of homelessness in any country (whether part of Europe or not). Hopefully, he’s GOTT the balls to publicly shame OMI for facilitating such large-scale financial crime and hanging their victims out to dry.

Also on the roster of shame at this disgraceful event is Philip Robotham from Schroders. He is going to talk about “conversations advisers have with their clients and the investment selection process”. What he really needs to do is row his bottom to the murky end of the pond and examine why so many scammers were allowed by the likes of OMI to invest clients’ funds in toxic, risky, fraudulent investments. And why OMI accepted so many investment instructions (in toxic structured notes) from pond life such as unregulated Continental Wealth Management.

This event is being hosted by Richard Hubbard, Group Editor of Last Word, and Karen Blatchford, Head of International Proposition & Marketing, Old Mutual Wealth. Hopefully, during the “networking lunch”, their consciences will trouble them enough to give a thought to OMI’s victims. While Hubbard and Blatchford sip their bloody marys, maybe they will ask OMI what the bloody hell they are going to do about compensating their victims.

The victims are bound to ask why OMI are spending a huge amount of money sponsoring this event when, in fact, they have paid zero redress to those whose life savings they are responsible for destroying. Perhaps there are some real investigative journalists out there who would see the disgraceful irony in this and write a proper article on this sickening event.

September 20, 2018
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
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