Tag: Old Mutual International

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
Blackmore Bond – yet another failed investment?

Blackmore Bond – yet another reason why only regulated advisers should be used for investment advice.

The clear link between the recently-failed LCF Bond and Blackmore Bond through Surge Group remind us how important regulated investment advisers are.

In the news again is the troubled Blackmore Group. This time we read that they have ‘temporarily’ closed their bond – the Blackmore Bond – to new business. Just a few weeks ago, Blackmore Bond changed the wording of the sales material on this product.

This new transparency revealed costs of 20% and the high risks involved in the bond. Prior to this, these details were well hidden in the small print.

The Blackmore Bond transparency was not due to Blackmore Group having a yearning desire to be honest with their victims. It was all down to new FCA rules for being “clear, fair and not misleading” whenever an investment is promoted.

Recently, there has been a lot of media coverage on high-cost, high-risk bond investments failing. One of these is London Capital & Finance (LCF). This unregulated bond collapsed and went into administration earlier in 2019. £236 million had been invested into it. But investors had not been warned of the costs and risks involved. Of this £236 million, over £50 million was paid to Surge Group for promotional and marketing services.

1,200 victims duped into investing in the LCF bond

have lost at least 80% of their money

Fortunately for investors in the Blackmore Bond, it is still active. However, with such high promotional and marketing costs, the bond needs to be very successful indeed to overcome the initial 20% charges – most of which were paid to Surge.

In relation to the closure of their bond, Blackmore Group state on their website:

“We have achieved our fundraising goals for this tax year and are not currently taking in new investment. We will be introducing our next offering in the following tax year, so please watch this space for future announcements.“

Another questionable investment from the Blackmore Group is the Blackmore Global Fund.

The Blackmore Global Fund has been heavily criticised and also featured on BBC 4 You and Yours. The fund saw 1,000 victims conned into this expensive, illiquid and high-risk UCIS. It is illegal to promote UCIS funds to retail investors in the UK. They are certainly not suitable investments for a pension fund.

David Vilka of Square Mile International Financial Services was one of the promoters of the Blackmore Global Fund. Vilka invested many of his UK-resident clients into this unsuitable fund. Undoubtedly, he was paid fat commissions for these investments. Unregulated and unqualified, Vilka was no doubt lining his own pockets, instead of doing what was best for his clients.

Vilka lied to his clients, claiming to be fully regulated. He transferred his UK-based victims’ pensions into the Optimus Retirement Benefit Scheme No.1 QROPS. Much of this money was invested into the Blackmore Global fund.

The connection between Blackmore Group’s Bond and London Capital & Finance (LCF) is Surge – a marketing agent. The LCF bond was promoted by Surge until it collapsed in December 2018.

After LCF collapsed, Surge went on to promote the Blackmore Bond. This promotion was done using ISA-rating websites.

London Capital & Finance is not the only failed investment in recent years. Other failures include Axiom with £120m worth of investors’ funds (£30m of which was with life offices FPI and OMI); LM £456m (£90m with FPI and OMI); and Premier New Earth (NERR) £207m (£62m with FPI and OMI).

The new transparency demanded by the FCA is much needed.

Unfortunately, it won’t change the fact that well over one billion pounds have been lost between LCF, Axiom, LM and NERR. We are still left wondering why the regulators have not taken a tougher stance on restricting the promotion of such UCIS funds. The FCA’s limp stance is especially worrying when the promoters of these high-risk bonds and funds are targeting UK retail investors.

All these failures and losses should remind both regulators and consumers that only regulated firms should be used for investment advice.

April 25, 2019
Olive Press Article on Continental Wealth Management

A SLICE OF THE ACTION by Joshua Parfitt of the Olive Press

EXCLUSIVE: Expats who lost millions to dodgy finance firm CWM fear action group boss may be scamming them too. It is a sad fact that people who have been victims of a scam will never fully trust anybody ever again. One thousand people once trusted the slick advisers at CWM with their life savings – and around £50 million was destroyed in the process. I am now in the front line, and am often the object of mistrust, doubt or – as this journalist puts it – outright fear. That is the nature of this matter – and when it happens I stand up and deal with it. The Olive Press journo, Mr. Parfitt, gave me the right to reply to this piece of “journalism” – and this is it. In bold.

Angry expats pursuing lost millions in the CWM financial drama have hit another roadblock. There is no roadblock. It takes time to put together a viable route to recovering the lost funds. It isn’t easy and it isn’t cheap – if it were, then everybody would be doing it. We have indeed hit several major setbacks: OMI agreed to settle in May 2018 and we worked out a payment plan to amortise the redress payments over a workable period. However, OMI reneged on the deal. We are now putting in place plans to take legal action against OMI and the other life offices and have now secured litigation funding to deal with this. We also had plans for legal action in Spain, with a law firm in Marbella. But despite our best efforts, could not obtain adverse costs insurance (to protect the claimants against the eventuality that we would lose and would end up paying the other sides’ costs). So we now have litigation funding and are using another law firm on the Costa Blanca and this litigation will be launched on Monday 29^th April.

Sources told the Olive Press a woman supposedly fighting their claims is in fact taking money while in a year and a half has not managed to win a cent of compensation. Of course the “sources” remain anonymous, while I do not. But that is to be expected. I know who some of the “sources” are and they include CWM clients as well as – probably – a firm of ambulance chasers (a claims management company) and some of the advisers. But, despite the malicious actions of the “sources” who are CWM victims, I will still represent them and help them recover their losses.

It comes as Denia court finally began proceedings against CWM’s former directors, including boss Darren Kirby, who we revealed had fled to the UK, this month. He hasn’t fled to the UK. He is in Denia. And is meeting me week commencing 29^th April during my meetings in Moraira with our lead cases and lawyer.

But now disaffected investors have accused expat Angie Brooks, director of a Spain-based company Pension Life, of abuse of trust – a claim she denies. It is interesting that these so-called “disaffected investors” are apparently happy to discuss their accusations with a freebie magazine’s journalist (although not happy to be named), but haven’t told me directly of their disaffection. They all have my email address – but if they report their disaffection anonymously to a journalist, how can I put things right or reassure them? The answer, of course, is that I can’t. So this calls into question whether these so-called investors either exist at all, or actually want to be reassured.

It comes after she took on scores of CWM casualties in 2017, charging them £1,500 for a year’s service and a £750 annual retainer. Every member was free to take their own independent action; pay their own legal fees and decline to join Pension Life. I have never solicited members and every person has joined knowing full well what the fees were and also how long and challenging the redress avenue was likely to be. Most solicitors taking on a new client in Spain would charge a minimum of 3,000 EUR plus VAT and then would then charge on an hourly basis thereafter.

One member of her Pension Life action group said he was left “desperate and depressed” as he could not continue to front the huge fees. And yet this member has not told me? If this supposed member is also desperate to get his money back, is he therefore going to pursue another route? And how much will this cost him? And how irresponsible was it of Mr. Parfitt not to tell me that one of my members was too desperate and depressed to tell me? Mr. Parfitt has claimed to be trying to get hold of me since the beginning of April, and yet I don’t have a single email from him (either on my Pension Life email or my personal one – both of which are freely available).

Now, the Olive Press has discovered that a UK debt collection company has been appointed to pursue a £600k loan taken out by a company for which Brooks is still active director. This is not true. There is no debt collection company – there is an insolvency practitioner. And this firm – Wilkins Kennedy – was appointed several years ago.

The liquidator, Louise Brittan, from Wilkins Kennedy, has worked on cases involving politicians Jonathan Aitken, Neil Hamilton and singer Kerry Katona, and is now chasing Brooks for the money. Wilkins Kennedy has appointed solicitors in London and I am dealing with them direct and have been for some years – as is my duty as a director of the company. Reigate Town Club was wound up on 10^th October 2011 but I have never resigned as a director as I take my obligations seriously and if there is ever any chance of getting any of the money owed to the company by the former directors, I will be eager to do everything possible to help bring them to justice.

The company, Reigate Town Club Ltd – which has not filed accounts since 2009 – owed £617,761 to the unnamed debtor, according to the UK’s official Companies House. This journalist has got his knickers in a bit of a twist here. There is a director’s loan account which is comprised of a sum of money owed by former directors Stewart and Marc Simpson to the company, and a sum of money owed by the company to me. The Simpsons owe the company a total of £617,760.83. The company owes me £240,050.36 – plus £40k approximately I spent trying (abortively) to sue the Simpsons. The company was wound up by HMRC because they taxed the Simpsons’ directors’ loans and there wasn’t enough money to pay the tax (as it was all in the Simpsons’ trousers). These are all facts which are in the public domain – so perhaps Mr. Parfitt might like to study how to become an investigative journalist – and not just listen to idle tittle tattle by “disaffected” unnamed people.

Another of Brooks’ companies, Thames Trust Ltd, was ordered to close by the UK government in 2016 following an insolvency investigation. Thames Trustees was not my company. I took over as a director of Thames Trustees, Imperial Trustees and Highgate Trustees in 2014 and was removed immediately by the scammers. Thames and Imperial were companies set up by Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions to act as the trustees/administrators of two fraudulent pension schemes – Capita Oak and Westminster . Both these schemes were placed in the hands of Dalriada Trustees by the Pensions Regulator and are now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. The companies had been directed by a string of “puppet” directors who had all headed for the hills when the Insolvency Service started investigating. Without a director of the trustee companies, the scheme members were in danger of facing unauthorized payment tax charges as the schemes would cease to be registered pension schemes without a trustee (on top of losing the whole pensions as the assets were arguably worthless). Thames Trustees was wound up by the Official Receiver on 11^th July 2016.

In alarming circumstances, it was found that the company received “significant commissions” without the knowledge of its clients. I don’t know where the journo gets this information from. The company shows zero income in the accounts on Companies House and owes £130,071 to its creditors. If Mr. Parfitt has credible evidence (as opposed to gossip from his unnamed sources) about undisclosed income, he should report it to the Serious Fraud Office (who will, of course, want to know who his sources are).

A British legal source told the Olive Press that Brooks, who lives in Granada, has “zero licenses, regulatory status or legal entity in Spain”. I am not practicing in any capacity that requires a license and I don’t have a company registered in Spain.

Another source demanded to know where the “huge retainer fees” have gone. There were no “huge” retainer fees. This journo really must learn not to rely so heavily on unnamed “sources” as this discredits the provenance of the source information and is just lazy journalism. The first law firm I was using in Marbella was charging 3,000 EUR plus VAT per client – plus a 30% success fee. Another law firm quoted me 75,000 EUR plus VAT just to look at the case. By comparison, the Pension Life membership fees are very modest.

The demands come after the Olive Press reported that three victims, who collectively lost “hundreds of thousands” to CWM, are having their case processed by Denia Court. What “demands”? The journo has mentioned one demand from an anonymous “legal” source. There is no connection between the action in the Denia Court and the action I am taking. I have no idea who is taking the action in Denia.

We revealed that Kirby failed to turn up after other directors appeared in court last month. I wonder if Mr. Parfitt has actually seen any copies of the court documents or whether he is, again, relying on hearsay emanating from his mysterious unnamed sources.

Brooks confirmed to the Olive Press that she is “not a licensed solicitor” (and I have never claimed to be – I am a tax adviser) but said the unpaid loan (at Reigate Town Club) was linked to two previous directors before she took her position. She said she has “nothing to do” with fraudulent practice at Thames Trust Ltd (Thames Trustees) and only has one tax return overdue for ACA Pension Life Ltd. She added her fees were “far below” what other licensed solicitors charge and said the lack of legal action was due to significant challenges in finding a suitable legal practice to take on the case. The Olive Press continues to investigate. Does it? Since speaking to the journo late last night, he has asked no further questions and requested no further evidence. I asked the journo why he hadn’t written anything about the huge amounts of money lost by the victims of the CWM group – and the appallingly bleak future so many of them are facing due to having had their life savings decimated. But he didn’t seem to be particularly interested in that aspect of this case.

Contact us at the newsdesk@theolivepress.es if you can help. Help to do what? Help Mr. Parfitt become a credible reporter? I really do wish him the best of luck with his journalistic career – but writing half-truths and quoting anonymous sources without credibility is never going to lift him out of the freebie rag ranks and into the realms of serious professional journalism.

The CWM story is a sickeningly fascinating summary of what is so terribly wrong with financial services in Spain, Europe and beyond. Mr. Parfitt could have used his talents and energies to help put this right. He could have focused on the parties who engaged with the systematic destruction of £50,000,000 – instead of spinning half-truths and idle gossip into an inaccurate and untruthful piece of very poor journalism. This piece benefits nobody – and does nothing to help the victims get their money back. Shame on you Mr. Parfitt. You may have tickled a few bitter people – but you have entirely failed to expose the root of the problem: unscrupulous insurance companies who manipulated and abused consumers, advisers and trustees alike.

There will, of course, be a few people who will be delighted by Mr. Parfitt’s piece.

I can think of one little bald guy with bitten fingernails who stinks of fish and works for a claims management company. Ditto several rogue (unregulated) advisers who have picked off orphaned clients and taken them from the frying pan and into the fire. I have no doubt they will all be buying you a beer or two in the next few days.

April 25, 2019
Who killed the pension? Scammers; ceding providers; introducers; HMRC?

In every pension scam there is one beginning, lots of middles, and always a wretched ending for the victim and a profitable ending for the scammers. The beginning is always a negligent, lazy, box-ticking transfer by a ceding provider – the worst of which always tend to be the likes of Standard Life, Prudential, Scottish Widows, Aviva, Scottish Life, Aegon, Zurich etc.

Pension scams are rarely simple and there are many different culprits to blame for the losses. The one common theme though, is that not one of the parties involved is prepared to take the blame for the victims’ losses – EVER. It was always someone else’s fault.

The pension scam trail is rather like a game of Cluedo. The question is: “who murdered the pension fund?”. We travel around the board trying to decipher who is to blame: at which point was the pension fund truly put at risk? – and with what weapon was the pension fund murdered?

While the pension fund transfer always starts with the negligent ceding provider, there are financial crime facilitators long before this: our old friends HMRC and the Pensions Regulator. HMRC registers the scams – often to repeat, known scammers. HMRC does no basic due diligence and deliberately ignores obvious signs that the scheme is an out and out scam. Then HMRC does nothing to warn the public when they discover there are dastardly deeds afoot. In the case of an occupational scheme, the Pensions Regulator allows the scheme to be registered and is slow to take any action even when obvious signs of financial crime emerge.

In recent cases, we have seen complaints – by the victims of scams – upheld against the ceding provider’s negligence in releasing the pension funds to the scammers and financial crime facilitators. And yet neither HMRC nor the Pensions Regulator is ever brought to account. The biggest problem is that – in the case of pension liberation – HMRC will pursue the victims and not the perpetrators. This then compounds the appalling damage done to thousands of people’s life savings.

We have often seen serial scammers like Stephen Ward behind scams such as Ark, Capita Oak, Westminster, London Quantum etc., and yet neither HMRC nor tPR take any action (except to pursue the victims for unauthorised payment tax charges). This is neither just nor reasonable – and yet this practice continues unchallenged.

Any half-decent detective would then turn his attention to the “introducers” and cold callers. These people draw in the victims with unrealistic promises of fat returns and “free” pension reviews. In the case of the London Capital & Finance investment scam, we have seen hard evidence of how lucrative introducing and lead generation has become. Surge Group earned over £50 million promoting the scam which saw 12,000 victims lose £236 million worth of life savings. Surge boasts that it has over 100 staff and that they are treated very well: “We have our own in-house Barista who makes the best flat whites in Brighton. Every day you will find healthy breakfasts, fridges brimming with drinks and snacks, weekly massages and haircuts provided onsite.”

In the case of the Continental Wealth Management scam, there was a further trio of suspects: life assurance companies – Generali and SEB and OMI. These providers of expensive “life bonds” pay the scammers 7% commission and facilitate the crime of defrauding victims into investing into high-risk, expensive, unsuitable investments that earn the scammers further fat commissions. Even when the portfolios have been partially or even fully destroyed (murdered), the life offices still take the huge fees and blame the advisers such as CWM – or even the victims themselves.

We also have the so-called regulators – such as the FCA (Facilitating Crime Agency) and tPR (the Pension Rogues), who are supposed to help protect the public from becoming pension scam victims. But these limp and lazy organisations are so slow off the mark, that the scammers have long since vanished by the time they take any action. This is evident in the recent London Capital and Finance investment scam; the FCA was warned back in 2015 but – of course – did nothing.

Another suspect in the pension murder crime scene is the Insolvency Service. Back in May 2015, the Insolvency Service published their witness statement in the case of a large cluster of pension scams – including Capita Oak, Henley Retirement Benefits, Berkeley Burke and Careys SIPPS – all invested in Store First store pods. The total scammed out of 1,200 victims was £120 million – and yet the only action that the Insolvency Service has taken has been to try to wind up Store First. Four years later. And all this will do is punish the victims even further – on top of HMRC punishing the victims by issuing tax demands.

The burning question is:

How long can all the parties involved in these pension scams, go on letting this happen and say it has nothing to do with them? In some cases we have the ceding providers blaming the victims for their losses!

Still, to this day, we see victims’ life savings invested in toxic and expensive assets. Nothing meaningful is being done to put a stop to it. The victims lose their money and the scammers escape with bulging pockets full of cash.

Other suspects include the advisory firms – some of which have no license to provide financial advice and few have sufficient professional indemnity insurance. Henry Tapper recently wrote an interesting blog recently about the FCA’s suggestion that financial advisory firms should have much higher PI cover.

In the offshore advisory space, regulation is still hit and miss – with some firms providing investment advice with only an insurance license. And many providing advice with no license at all. But still QROPS and SIPP trustees routinely accept business from these “chiringuitos”. But even the properly-regulated ones still routinely use expensive, unnecessary “life” bonds – and we now have hard evidence that this is a criminal matter in Spain after our recent DGS ruling against Continental Wealth Management and all associated parties.

The saddest footnote to this blog is that many so-called “experts” seem to think that the real culprit is the victim himself. They state that people who fall for scams were “stupid” or “greedy” or “should have known better. The well-worn trite phrase: “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is” gets trotted out all too frequently. But when even regulated and qualified firms and individuals have convincing sales patters that effectively con people into expensive, high-risk arrangements with hidden commissions and fake promises of “healthy” returns, is it any wonder that so many pensions are murdered every day? And when large institutions like Old Mutual International and Friends Provident International facilitate such pension and investment scams, is it any wonder that so many highly-intelligent, well-educated people get scammed?

Ask the victims of not just the £236,000,000 London Capital & Finance fund (bond), but also:

Axiom Legal Financing Fund – £120,000,000 (most of which offered by OMI and Friends Provident International)

LM Group of Funds – £456,000,000 (most of which offered by OMI and Friends Provident International)

Premier Group of Funds – £207,000,000 (most of which offered by OMI and Friends Provident International) – including Premier New Earth and Premier Eco Resources

Leonteq structured notes – £94,000,000 (all of which offered by OMI)

April 1, 2019
London Capital & Finance collapses

Another high-risk investment fund goes belly up. London Capital & Finance (LCF) has gone into administration, not long after taking a whopping £236m of investments – much of which was from first-time investors. It is thought that 12,000 investors have been financially ruined.

This tragic news comes as plans are being drawn up to take recovery action for the victims of three other failed funds: Axiom with £120m worth of investors’ funds (£30m of which was with life offices FPI and OMI); LM £456m (£90m with FPI and OMI); and Premier New Earth £207m (£62m with FPI and OMI).

With so many millions having been lost between LCF, Axiom, LM and NERR – well over one billion pounds – this does beg the question as to when regulators are going to take some effective action to restrict the promotion of such funds to retail investors. Because, without the active and highly-efficient marketing machine which operates so successfully in so many jurisdictions, these no-hoper funds would never get off the ground. But, of course, they pay fat commissions to the introducers and brokers who peddle them. So, obviously, exposing naive-investor clients to high-risk funds was very profitable.

This also begs the question as to why the success of such dreadful funds continues to flourish – and why trustees and life offices continue to offer/accept them. Certainly, life offices have a great deal to answer for when it comes to doing due diligence on start-up funds with no decent provenance or evidence that they have even the tiniest chance of succeeding.

The London Capital & Finance investment bond was touted as a “Fixed-Rate ISA”, with promises of 8% returns over a fixed term of three years. BBC News reported on the collapse and stated that “Administrators said investors could get as little as 20% of their money back.” Read the full report.

What is interesting in this case, is that the promoters – a Brighton-based firm called Surge PLC – are the same marketing firm that Blackmore Global used to promote their very expensive Blackmore Global Bond. Another high-risk and expensive investment bond, that up until recently failed to be transparent about the costs involved in the investment.

It is thought that LCF paid Surge PLC some £60m to run their marketing campaign, which amounts to a commission of about 25%! Surge ran a series of marketing campaigns comparing the bonds from LCF to high-street bonds, promising consumers an 8% return. Comparison websites put LCF at the top of the retail market for bond investments and did not highlight the high risk of the bond.

These ads were pulled by the FCA, due to LCF being regulated and authorised to provide consumer financial advice ONLY. They were not regulated for the sale of bonds or ISAs. It has also been found that the comparison websites were not independent, but rather had a connection to Surge PLC and are also owned by Paul Careless – we have mentioned Paul Careless in other blogs: he is the Director of Surge PLC and seems to be one of the only parties involved in these high-risk investments to be making any profits!

As with so many high-risk unregulated investments like this, the age-old question is, “Where did the money invested into LCF´s bond go?”

We know that LCF paid Surge that huge commission fee, and this then meant returns of up to 44% would be required in order for LCF to make good on its promises. Even in a great investment, this is an unbelievably high return and totally unrealistic.

Once the investments had been completed, the money was then ‘loaned’ out to twelve other companies, and some of these companies then sub-loaned the money. There are concerns that the companies who received these ‘loans’ have a connection to the directors of London Capital & Finance. Many of the firms were very new and four of them have never filed any accounts!

Michael Andrew Thomson, known as Andy Thomson, took over as the boss of LCF in 2015 and is also director of horse riding company GT Eventing. He and Careless are under investigation over the mis-selling of this bond and their connection to the other companies invested in. However, Careless claims he has only carried out marketing practices that were requested of him and his 25% commission fee is in line with market averages.

BBC News spoke to Neil Liversidge – an IFA who came across the scheme back in 2015 and consequently wrote to the FCA to warn them about the connections and possible mis-selling of the investment.

Mr Liversidge said: “The way it was promoted, a great many people could have fallen for this. A client brought it to us, but when we looked into it there was a lot of interconnection between the people they were lending to and the management of LCF themselves. We warned our clients off and the same day we wrote to the regulator raising our concerns about the promotion.”

Mr Liversidge, of course, was proved to be absolutely right. But, unfortunately, it took the FCA a further three years to shut the bond down, which ended up with 11,605 victims investing £236m in LCF’s bond. Investigations show that recovery is likely to be as low as 20% of the initial investments made.

Whilst the investigation goes forward, there have been no promises of compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).

BBC News reported:

“The FCA findings included that LCF’s bonds did not qualify to be held in an ISA account and therefore investors were being misled by being told the interest they earned would be tax free.

The FCA said it was “unlikely” investors of London City & Finance would be protected under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) but it was “for the FSCS to determine”.”

Yet again we see unregulated investments being mis-marketed, to innocent retail investors – and the high risks being masked by promises of high returns. With high commissions – also masked – lining the pockets of the introducers, these toxic investments only make those who receive the commissions any profit. The victims, again and again, lose their hard-earned savings and there is little that they can do to recover them without expensive litigation.

For more on this story listen to BBC Moneybox by clicking here.

March 21, 2019
Generali – jumping ship to avoid new regulations?

The mis-selling of life assurance policies and long-term savings plans has been a regular topic in our blogs. Many victims of pension scams see their funds mis-invested into life assurance policies. These life assurance policies do little more than drain the fund value with their expensive fees and costs.

Generali has for years been aggressively peddling these toxic products. Interestingly, they have just pulled their contractual savings plans – Vision and Choice – from the UAE market. Interesting and attractive names for profoundly ugly, expensive and destructive products.

We have to wonder if all the negative press surrounding Generali’s life assurance bonds has anything to do with it? Since 2016 there has been a huge rise in complaints surrounding the mis-selling of these products. With huge, concealed start-up costs, the funds rarely ever reach their original investment amount, let alone make a gain.

Furthermore, there has been a third push on regulations to improve how savings, investment and life insurance policies are sold. AND the Spanish insurance regulator (DGS) just confirmed that all such products sold in Spain have been done so illegally But Mr Vitiello of Generali claimed their decision to stop selling the Vision and Choice products in the Emirates was not linked to the new regulations. REALLY?!?!

Reported by The National. ae, Generali’s Marco Vitiello stated:

“We will not be accepting any new business applications for our current unit-linked saving products,” said Vitiello – General Manager of Generali’s Dubai branch. “There will be no impact at all to existing clients and contracts. They will continue to be serviced in the same manner as before.” In other words, they will just keep on losing money, being tied in for an unacceptable length of time and paying extortionate charges.

This is not the only big change Generali has made this month. The National.ae also reported that:

“Generali’s decision to stop distributing its contractual savings plans in the UAE came less than a week after the company sold its entire shareholding in its unit, Generali Worldwide Insurance, to the Guernsey-based Utmost Group”

We wrote about the proposed merger between Generali and Utmost Group back in August 2018.

The Utmost Group now has over £33bn in assets under administration and over 240,000 customers. We can only hope that customers of The Utmost Group will not become victims of mis-sold life assurance policies like the ones of Generali.

Generali was one of the culprits involved in the huge Continental Wealth Management pension scam, which saw as many as 1,000 victims, invested into high-risk, toxic, professional-investor-only structured notes.

Whilst the bulk of the victims were placed into OMI bonds, at least 25 (but probably nearer 100) of the victims were placed into Generali bonds by the scammers. The sum total of 25 pension funds invested into these toxic insurance bonds was a whopping £6,314,672. The losses on this amount are calculated to be approximately £3,604,528.

One victim invested £793,612 and has just £62,703 left! Losing a massive £730,909.

Another victim invested £142,626 and has lost £90,618! Leaving him with a fund of just £52,028.

Please note these figures are correct as at 2017/2018, so today’s value is now even lower. Despite the funds’ huge decrease in value, Generali continues to take their fees (based on the original amount deposited – not the current depleted value). Therefore, these amounts will continue to fall AND despite the massive loses be locked in for a fixed term.

It is, of course, a relief to know that they have decided to stop peddling these toxic, inappropriate bonds to victims. But we can’t help wondering why Generali have suddenly done this and really feel for those already caught up in these bogus “life” policies. Seems to us Generali are jumping ship to avoid the new regulations. With sudden revelations that maybe they should have checked all the details just a little bit more – and declined to take business from unregulated scammers.

As Generali are busy making changes and sales, we can only hope that compensating the victims of the CWM scam is on their to-do list. As they have sold their entire shareholdings, you might think that an honest firm would want to make right the wrongs they have done.

Not only did Generali allow these 25 victims to be put into wholly inappropriate funds and high-risk structured notes, but these investment instructions were also accepted from unregulated advisers. The scammers were paid high commissions by Generali and there is no sign of any remorse for the huge losses suffered by the victims.

What we do know is that victims are now preparing their complaints against Generali and CWM. The DGS has found that there is no doubt that the regulations of sale surrounding these products were breached by Generali.

Generali are not the only life office guilty of financial crimes: Old Mutual International and SEB were even worse – facilitating losses on a massive scale in the Continental Wealth Management case. OMI bought £94,000,000 worth of ultra-high-risk structured notes for retail investors – resulting in huge losses. Old Mutual was also heavily involved in more than £1,000,000,000 worth of losses in the Axiom, LM and Premier investment scams.

Seems it is no accident that “Generali” is an anagram of “Liar Gene”.

.

March 13, 2019
Hidden charges that destroy your pension funds
When we buy certain products, they have a warning on them. Cigarette packets, for instance, state that smoking is bad for your health. The wrappers show hideous images of what might happen to you if you use tobacco.

However, when it comes to investments, the ‘advisers’ selling dangerous investments are able to disguise the risks and costs. Offshore, there seems to be no effective code of conduct, or regulation as to what they must disclose and what they can conceal.

Last week the FCA slammed asset managers and retail investment firms over hidden fund charges.

When selling their investments, these firms are really good at omitting details of the full charges that will apply – not only initially – but on an ongoing annual basis as well. These hidden charges put your investment in danger.

The FCA has stated:

“In one case it found an asset manager had omitted a 4 per cent a year transaction cost from the UCITS Key Investor Information Document (KIID).”

In so many pension scams, we hear that the victims were sold a ‘free pension review’; they were not told about the transfer costs; that they were not told about annual fees either. In many cases, the transfer costs and fees work out to be considerably higher than if they had paid a proper fee for the review in the first place. These hidden costs put a huge strain on the fund and sometimes victims can lose up to 25% of their fund to hidden charges.

What worries us most is the lack of regulatory concern or control in respect of expensive and risky investment products. You can’t buy cigarettes without a stern health warning. The same goes for alcohol: bottles and cans clearly state how many units are in the container, and how many units men and women can safely drink per day. They also state that alcohol should not be consumed by pregnant women.

Alcohol companies manage to fit all this info about the dangers of drinking on a tiny label. And this poses the essential question as to why financial advisory firms are able to sell risky investments again and again – omitting clear warnings about the dangerous aspects of them.

Also highlighted in an article by Corporate Adviser:

“The FCA reserved its fiercest criticism for asset managers, saying it found instances where asset manager fact sheets or websites did not mention costs. When they did, they often gave the ongoing charge figure, which omitted transaction costs, performance fees and borrowing charges which are shown in the Key Information Document (KID). In one example, total charges in the PRIIPs KID equated to around 3 per cent per annum – but the only costs given in the fact sheet was the 1.2 per cent annual management charge (AMC).”

This is not news to us at Pension Life. It is something we have been writing about for sometime – and we have a great deal of evidence that hidden, excessive charges are a terrible blight on the face of financial services internationally. It is indeed excellent news that the FCA has finally highlighted the dangers of such hidden charges, but now we need to make sure these dangers are highlighted to the public. CLEARLY AND VISIBLY.

A prime example of advisers and hidden charges is the dastardly duo: Phillip Nunn and Patrick McCreesh. This pair of scammers received £ millions promoting the Capita Oak, Thurlstone Loans, Henley Retirement Benefits Scheme and Berkeley Burke SIPPS scams – leaving 1,200 victims facing poverty in retirement. With that disaster comfortably behind them, they then launched the £40 million Blackmore Global scam and now their network of scammers are promoting the Blackmore Bond which pays a 20% introduction commission to the introducers.

You can’t buy a gun without going to a registered shop and having a licence. (Although, I guess on the black market you can). If you buy a gun on the black market, it is going to be ‘hot’. The person you buy it from is going to be dodgy and it certainly won’t come with the correct paperwork.

So if you are a normal, law-abiding citizen (and cautious investor), you would want a legitimate investment which fits your risk profile – and full paperwork disclosing ALL the charges. Make sure you pick the right adviser who will give you evidence of all these essential details.

Dodgy advisers are still getting away with selling ‘hot’ investments: funds that are clearly toxic and dangerous to your pension fund. These advisers manage to do this very successfully by wrapping them in a fluffy cover and selling them with an array of unrealistic promises of high returns and alleged capital protection to reel the victims in.

When considering a pension transfer, we urge you to familiarise yourself with our ten standards. Your adviser ought to adhere to these standards anyway – and if he doesn’t then walk away. Number eight covers what we have talked about in this blog: CHARGES.

Your adviser MUST GIVE YOU: Full disclosure of fees, charges and commissions on all products and services in writing, before you commit. So before you sign anything regarding a pension transfer and subsequent investment, please ensure you know exactly what charges will be applied to your fund: before, during AND after. It is also imperative to know if there is a lock-in period and early exit penalty and to make sure you are comfortable with that.

Excessive and concealed fees can ruin a once healthy and happy pension fund – just like smoking can ruin your lungs and drinking can ruin your liver. Hidden charges can put your funds in danger and ruin your retirement savings beyond repair.

Here is a list of our ten standards.

STANDARDS ACCREDITATION CHECKLIST FOR FINANCIAL ADVISERS:
1. Proof of regulation for all services provided by the firm and individual advisers in the jurisdiction(s) where advice is given and the clients are based.
2. Verifiable evidence of appropriate, registered qualifications and CPD for all advisers. (Where there are insufficient qualifications, there must be clear evidence of plans and preparation to achieve required goals within a reasonable, stated time frame).
3. Professional Indemnity Insurance
4. Details of how fact finds are carried out, how clients’ risk profiles are determined and adhered to.
5. Details of the firm’s compliance procedures – assuring clients of the highest possible standards and assurance that risk profiles are always accurately and faithfully respected.
6. Clear and consistent explanation and justification of the use of insurance bonds for investments.
7. Unambiguous policy on structured notes, UCIS funds, in-house funds, non-standard assets and any ongoing commission-paying investments. Report of all investment recommendations for all clients and evidence as to how these match individual risk profiles.
8. Disclosure of fees, charges and commissions on all products and services at time of sale, in writing, before clients commit.
9. Account of how clients are updated on fund/portfolio performance.
10. Public evidence of complaints made, rejected or upheld and redress paid.
For more in depth explanation check out our other blog on the ten standards:

Cartoon blog – Don’t be the next pension scam victim
March 5, 2019
Time for all pension providers to wake up and stop pension scams

The recent PSIG (Pension Scams Industry Group) Scams Survey Pilot 2018 has identified seven “key” findings in their survey. As scam watchers, we are well aware of these points and are, of course, glad they have been highlighted.

PSIG’s key finding are set out below. So let us admit one key fact:

ALL PENSION SCAMS START WITH A TRANSFER BY A CEDING PENSION PROVIDER.

It is interesting that PSIG chose three particular providers to give their answers to the questionnaire sent out: XPS Pensions Group, Phoenix Life Assurance Company and Standard Life Assurance Company. I have no doubt they chose these three providers because of their extensive first-hand expertise at facilitating financial crime. In the Capita Oak and Westminster scams – distributed and administered by serial scammers XXXX and Stephen Ward – and now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office – Phoenix Life and Standard Life handed over dozens of pensions to the scammers. In Phoenix Life’s case, the total came to nearly half a million pounds’ worth, and in Standard Life’s case it was well over one million.

While there is, of course, substantial hard evidence that both the Pensions Regulator (formerly OPRA) and HMRC had been giving the industry plenty of warnings about scams long before the Scorpion Campaign was published on Valentine’s Day in 2013, it is also true that providers such as Phoenix Life, Standard Life – and other favourite financial crime facilitators such as Aegon, Friends Life, Legal & General, Prudential, Royal London, Scottish Life and Scottish Widows – carried on handing over millions to the scammers well into 2014, 2015 and beyond. And, in fact, they are still at it today.

The “Key Findings” do throw up some interesting facts:

“Information on scams is not readily available at an organisational level”.

Seriously? Don’t these organisations know how to do research? Do they really not know what to look for? They’ve had enough experience over the years – and have had enough examples of spending vast amounts of time trying to cook up reasons to deny complaints against their incompetence for handing over pensions to scammers – to write a whole encyclopedia about scams.

Organisations (such as Phoenix Life and Standard Life) could try talking to TPAS, or tPR, or the FCA, or the SFO, or Dalriada Trustees, or regulators in Malta, the IoM, Gibraltar, Dubai or Hong Kong. Or some of the thousands of victims – who have lost their pensions due to the incompetence and callousness of the ceding providers – who would readily fill in the blanks. There really is no shortage of readily-available, free information. They just need to take the time and trouble to ask for it. It really isn’t difficult. They just have to put their box-ticking pencils down for a few minutes.

“The Scams Code is seen as a good basis for due diligence”

I agree – it is really great. But it is also 78 pages long. Few people have to the time to read, understand or remember such long documents (with too many long words and not enough pictures). What would be helpful would be to get a few of the worst offenders: Aegon, Aviva, Friends Life, Legal & General, Phoenix, Prudential, Royal London, Scottish Life, Scottish Widows, Standard Life and Zurich, in a room at the same time – and bang their heads together. And threaten them that if they don’t get their acts together and stop handing over pensions to the scammers, they will be made to read and memorise the 78-page Scams Code and recite it every morning before coffee break. Twice. Then snap all their box-ticking pencils in half, and JOB DONE! It really isn’t rocket science – there are usually some hints which are as subtle as a brick, such as: the sponsoring employer doesn’t exist; or the member lives in Scunthorpe and is transferring to a scheme whose sponsoring employer is based in Cyprus. Or Hong Kong. Now, I know there was a bit of a hiccup with the Royal London v Hughes case when Justice Morgan overturned the Ombudsman’s determination. But dear old Hughes had probably had a few Babychams too many – and it had slipped his mind that the law is supposed to be about justice and common sense. And that just because a particular piece of legislation has been written by an ass, it doesn’t have to be interpreted with stupidity.

“Significant time and effort goes into protecting members from scams”

This, of course, may be true. I only get to see the cases where the negligent ceding providers do hand over the pensions to the scammers. I rarely get to see the ones that have a narrow escape. But what worries me is that I am in the process of making complaints to the ceding providers who have handed over pensions to the scammers, and not a single one of them thinks they have done anything wrong. So, if they do spend “significant time and effort” doing the protecting bit, how come so many of them still fail so badly? And then try to deny they failed. These providers spend very significant amounts of time and effort writing long, boring letters about how they did nothing wrong – letters which must have taken them at least an hour to write. And yet they won’t spent two minutes checking – and stopping – transfers to obvious scams.

“The more detailed the due diligence, the more suspicious traits are identified”

I am a bit suspicious that this indicates a touch of porky pies here. I’ve never seen any evidence of ANY due diligence by the ceding providers. A bloke at Aviva once told me that they spent thousands on research and due diligence – but I see no evidence of it. The problem is, the ceding providers don’t know what they don’t know. And, to coin one of my favourite phrases: “they don’t know the questions to ask, and even if they did then they wouldn’t understand the answers”.

Interestingly, if – instead of repeatedly spending hours denying they did anything wrong when they handed over millions of pounds’ worth of pensions to the scammers – they spent some time talking to me and the victims trying to learn what went wrong and what due diligence should have gone into preventing a dodgy transfer, they might learn how to stop failing so badly.

SIPPS (including international SIPPS) are the vehicle of choice by scammers

Agreed. But the scammers still love the good old QROPS. But whether it is a SIPPS or a QROPS – both of which are just “wrappers” at the end of the day, it is about what goes inside the wrappers. Where the scammers make their money is in the kickbacks: 8% on the pointless, expensive insurance bond from OMI, SEB, Generali, RL360, Friends Provident etc., and then more fat commissions on the expensive funds or structured notes.

“Quality of adviser tops the list of practitioner concerns, with member awareness a close second”

And hereby lies one of the main problems: ceding providers don’t know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. And that is because they don’t ask. And they don’t learn from their mistakes when they get it wrong. And they don’t care when they hand the pensions over to the bad guys and their former member is now financially ruined and contemplating suicide. Instead of trying to use their appalling mistakes to improve their performance and understand what “quality” actually means, and how to tell the difference between good and bad quality, they only care about avoiding responsibility for their own failings.

The problem about “member awareness” is that most people assume their ceding provider will do some sort of due diligence. They think that words like “Phoenix Life”, “Prudential” and “Standard Life” convey some sort of professionalism or duty of care. Most members are simply unaware of the appalling track record of these providers – and the extraordinary and exhaustive lengths to which they will go to avoid being brought to justice for their negligence and laziness.

“Sharing of intelligence would help avoid duplication of effort”

Oh, how heartily I agree! I remember a year or so ago, I shared some intelligence and a few beers with a nice chap from Scottish Widows. We met at one of Andy Agathangelou’s symposiums in London – the subject of which was pension scams. The Pensions Regulator was there, Dalriada Trustees were there, Pension Bee were there, lots of interested parties were there (including an American insurer from Singapore), and a couple of victims. I gave a joint presentation with one of the victims who described how he had been scammed and how his provider had handed over his pension so easily – well after the Scorpion watershed. The nice chap from Scottish Widows asked the victim why he hadn’t called the Police. The victim replied: “I am the Police”.

It was very telling that the room wasn’t full of delegates from Aviva, Phoenix Life, Prudential, Standard Life etc. None of them were interested.

Not a single provider has ever phoned me up to ask for advice, or to arrange to speak to some victims to learn something about how they were scammed and how and why their ceding providers had failed them so badly. There are so many victims all over the UK and the rest of the world. And what they all share is a passion to try to prevent other people from being scammed by the bad guys and failed by the bad pension providers. So this invaluable intelligence is freely available.

Until and unless the providers develop a conscience, they are going to continue to fuel the pension scam industry – and nothing will change. And the 79-page code might just as well be consigned to the bathrooms of Aegon, Aviva, Friends Life, Legal & General, Phoenix, Prudential, Royal London, Scottish Life, Scottish Widows, Standard Life and Zurich.

February 28, 2019
Cold calling scammers target expats after the ban in UK – BBC4 You and Yours

Every year we are seeing an increase in the number of victims falling for pension and investment scams. Despite warnings in the public domain and a huge array of information about how to avoid falling victim to a scam, it seems the scammers are so skilled at their sales techniques, that even the cleverest of people can fall for their slick pitches. Often the scammers use cold-calling techniques to initiate these pitches: using emails, texts, mail shots and the good ol’ phone.

We finally saw the introduction of the cold calling ban come into place in January 2019, with huge fines being threatened to firms using these techniques to promote pension sales. We have already written about the firms who have changed their scripts to escape the fines: Cadde Wealth Management is one of these firms. On top of this, we now find that the cold-calling ban has just encouraged the scammers to divert their efforts to British expats.

BBC4 You and Yours recently discussed how the cold-calling ban in the UK has seen a change in the scammers’ behaviour. Unfortunately, this is not a change for the better. As the ban only applies to the UK, scammers are targeting expats instead. This means UK pension holders are still the main target for pension scammers and are at greater risk than ever.

Listen to the show here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000241

Interviewed in the programme, Jamie Jenkins says he has noticed this change. He is Head of Global Saving Policy at Standard Life. He states in the report, “In recent months we have known that the cold-calling ban is coming in and criminals know that too. So we have seen a switch from cold calls originating in the UK to UK customers, to overseas calls to expat customers living abroad.”

Ironically, Standard Life has been one of the worst performers in terms of ceding pension providers who have recklessly and negligently handed over millions of pounds’ worth of pensions to the scammers. Completely ignoring the Pensions Regulator’s warnings in 2010, they shoveled £millions across to pension scams such as Ark, Capita Oak, Westminster, Continental Wealth Management, Global Fiduciary Services and many other QROPS scams.

Here at Pension Life, we know that expats are not just a new target of cold callers – many expats have already fallen victim to horrific pension scams, like those who lost large chunks of their pension funds to CWM. Continental Wealth Management fraudsters like Darren Kirby, cold-called victims, then followed through with repeat house calls and persuaded around 1,000 UK pension holders to transfer out of safe DB pensions into QROPS and illegally-sold life insurance bonds (such as OMI, Generali, SEB, RL360). With promises of high returns, a lump sum in cash and greater freedoms, many professional and well-educated people fell for the scam.

Many victims are now trapped in bogus life “bonds” that are falling in value yearly, while the life offices continue to take their quarterly charges – further damaging the impaired funds. Fortunately, the Spanish regulator – the DGS – has outlawed the selling of bogus life assurance policies this week, ensuring there should be fewer victims of this type of scam.

Here is our cartoon video reconstruction of how the Continental Wealth Management scam worked:

The BBC programme also talks to a Continental Wealth Management victim, Rebecca Cooke, who lost £75,000 after transferring out of an NHS pension and other secure investments.

“We were approached in 2012/13 by a company based in Spain (Continental Wealth Management) who were offering us advice about moving our private pension from the UK into another investment scheme based in the EU. We went with them, but it became blatantly obvious that we had suffered catastrophic losses in our pension and chased them up about what was happening. They had actually invested our funds badly and put them in high-risk rather in low to medium risk funds. Consequently, we had lost that amount of money (£75,000).”

She said she feels stupid for falling for the scam, but she is not alone in believing the shiny sales pitch of these scamming criminals.

It seems the only way to escape the scammers – anywhere in the world – is not to fall for their lies. But the challenge is to know what is true and what is false. And that isn’t easy – the scammers are very clever and can adapt quickly to invalidate public warnings and even use them to their advantage. In addition to the scammers, there are now offshore claims management companies circling like vultures and conning people into believing that complaints against offshore firms can be upheld by UK-based ombudsmen – and that claims can be made against the FSCS (Financial Services Compensation Scheme) in respect of Maltese trustees.

Know what questions to ask your IFA, click here to watch our cartoon

February 20, 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
Pension scammers must be stopped

In the Pension Life office, we have been wondering how to get the information about pension scams more widely seen, heard and taken on board. We’d like to ensure the masses are educated and aware that pension scammers can strike from many angles, and with a variety of “deals”. Pension scammers must be stopped and together we can work towards this.

A quick Google search of the phrase “Pension Scam” shows no end of advice available, so why is this information not being spread to the public more widely and effectively?

Why was 2017 the WORST year for pension scams?

Google’s current top-ranking search return for the phrase “pension scam” is How to avoid a pension scam by Pension Wise. This site offers simple and basic information on how to spot a scam and how to report it.

This is followed by The Pensions Regulator (tPR) which, offers 5-step advice to protect a pension from pension scammers.

In third place, the Money Advice Service offers information on “How to spot a pension scam”. Money Advice highlight that scammers can be very good at disguising themselves as bona fide, regulated companies.

The FCA’s website comes in fourth, with their information on smart scams, advising people to be aware that the offer of a free pension review is often cause for concern and suspicion.

But, even with all this information out there, 2017 was still the worst year ever for pension scams. It seems that despite changes to regulations, scammers seem to come out on top nine times out of ten. Serial scammers are able to move onward and upward, scam after scam after scam. Officials, like the regulators, ombudsmen, arbiters and HMRC just stand idly by letting it happen again and again and again.

Maybe the problem is that the scammers are ever evolving in their behavior and tactics – and the authorities just can’t keep up. Pension Life came about because of the Ark pension liberation scam. But scamming tactics have moved on considerably.

We now we have noticeably less liberation and more investment scams where the introducer heads for the investment with the highest commissions, with no regard for the risk or fees that are applied to the fund.

Furthermore, if someone does approach you via a cold call claiming to be a viable company with a convincing sales pitch – how do you know if what they are saying is genuine? How do you know if they are a qualified financial adviser? Unfortunately, in the business of pensions and finance, the sad truth is that you need to: trust slowly; question quickly.

In the CWM case, victims saw unqualified, unregulated advisers placing low to medium risk investors’ entire funds into high-risk, fixed-term structured notes.

Fractional scamming is also on the up. Unqualified, unregulated firms posing as financial advisers act as “introducers” – and often introduce thousands of victims to outright scams. The funds then go through various other parties’ hands to ensure everyone gets their piece of the pie. Each party involved along the chain, creams their bit off the top of the pension fund, until the fund is a fraction of its former self. This means it will take years to get the pension back to its original state, let alone to start showing a profit.

Perhaps one of the most iniquitous aspects of pension and investment scams is the routine use of insurance bonds. (a significant part of the fractional scam and an unnecessary second “wrapper”). The life offices themselves are a big part of the pension scam industry.

Firms such as OMI, SEB, RL360 and Generali accept business repeatedly from unlicensed firms and known scammers. These so-called “life offices” (although they really ought to be called “death offices”) sit back and watch while these scammers gamble away the victims’ life savings on toxic structured notes and high-risk investments. Despite reporting on the inexorable destruction of the funds, firms like Generali et al just keep on taking their fees every quarter – and will sometimes do so until there is nothing left in the fund.

The best advice we can give, is to ensure you know exactly who you are dealing with and where your money will be going – every penny of it.

There is no such thing as “free”, and there will ALWAYS be commissions and fees on any pension transfer, legitimate or not. But however much it is – as in REALLY IS – the client needs to know and accept these costs. Many advisory firms conceal the real costs and the clients only find out what they are when it is too late, and the damage has been done.

Make sure you have everything in writing AND read it all – at least three times, if not more!

Make sure you understand everything: the costs, fixed terms, the risk level of investments – and if you don´t, then ask more questions.

Keep a regular eye on your fund; don´t trust any company 100%; make sure you know exactly what your fund is doing and do not ever be fobbed off with the explanation that any losses are “just paper losses”.

If in doubt – JUST SAY NO!!

I am writing a series of blogs about pensions, pension scammers and how to safeguard your pension fund from fraudsters. Please make sure you read as many as possible and ensure you know everything you should about your pension transfer. You only get one shot at getting it right – if you get it wrong, the damage may never be undone.

If we can ensure the masses are educated about pension scammers and financial fraud, we can help stop the scammers in their tracks – globally.

January 30, 2019