Tag: Old Mutual International

Serious Violation of Investors’ Trust – by Investors Trust (life office)
Investors’ trust is what gets violated in so many cases by irresponsible and negligent insurance companies such as Old Mutual International, SEB, Generali, RL360, Friends Provident International – and, of course, the firm in the Cayman Islands: Investors Trust. These companies – also known as “life offices” (although we prefer to call them “death offices” because they help destroy victims’ life savings – and sometimes cause the death of their distraught victims) – have a number of lethal practices which result in financial ruin for thousands of policyholders:
- The life offices take business from any old known scammers – firms without proper licenses and with a known history of defrauding the public
- The life offices will offer toxic, illiquid, risky funds – including UCIS funds – such as LM and Mansion on their platform (without doing any proper due diligence as to how quickly these funds can eradicate the life offices’ victims’ life savings)
- The life offices will accept investment instructions from unqualified scammers who work for firms with no investment license – and, in some cases, with no insurance license either
- The life offices will accept dealing instructions – often with fraudulently-copied or forged signatures – on dealing instructions for toxic assets such as professional-investor-only structured notes
A prime example of these vile practices was in the case of Mr. S – a driving instructor from Milton Keynes. His final salary pension scheme was transferred to a QROPS in Malta despite the fact that he was a UK resident and had no need for his pension to be transferred offshore. His “adviser” was David Vilka from a firm called Square Mile International Financial Services. This firm had an insurance license but no investment license. Therefore, Square Mile could legally sell insurance products such as dog insurance – but could certainly not provide investment advice.

Mr. S’ pension fund was then placed in a “life bond” with Investors Trust in the Cayman Islands. This was an entirely gratuitous transaction, as he had absolutely no need of such a bond – known to be a spurious life assurance policy used for what is called a “single premium” insurance contract. These bonds are illegal in Spain, since the Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that they are being used to hold investments in contravention of the nature of what insurance is supposed to be (i.e. risk for the insurer).

The entire fund – which represented Mr. S’ retirement savings – was then invested in two toxic UCIS funds (illegal to be promoted to UK-resident, retail investors) called Symphony and Blackmore Global. Investors Trust negligently accepted these investments from Square Mile – in the full knowledge that this was absolutely against the interests of the policyholder and that the “advisory” firm had no investment license.

After a protracted battle, waged with great tenacity and dogged determination, Mr S did indeed get back a large proportion of his fund. But he still suffered what can only be described as a harrowing experience which resulted in a total loss of a significant chunk of his pension to the scammers (who will have profited handsomely from scamming him in the first place).

Far from being contrite or apologetic, however, the scammer who risked Mr. S’ pension in the first place – David Vilka of Square Mile International Financial Services in the Czech Republic – showed no shame and made no attempt to recover the remainder of his victim’s pension. In fact, when I exposed Vilka’s vile scam, I was threatened by his two-bit American lawyer Douglas Davies of Lowell Davies LLP.

But what of the Cayman Islands-based life office – Investors Trust? Did they try to help Mr. S recover his serious losses? Did they offer him compensation for the significant distress he suffered at the hands of the scammers at Square Mile? Did they publish a statement demonstrating recognition of the damage done to victims’ life savings by investing in toxic crap like Blackmore Global on the instructions of scammers like David Vilka?

The answer, of course, is a resounding “no”. Investors Trust could have done so much to reform these illegal practices and expose the likes of scammer David Vilka who scammed not only Mr. S out of a big part of his pension, but also scammed hundreds of victims into the Hong Kong QROPS scam (many of which got invested in Blackmore Global).

Instead of showing any contrition or regret for facilitating financial crime, an idiot at Investors Trust called Lindsay Paris emailed me threatening to sue me for using a picture of David Vilka and John Ferguson posing as vulgar spivs at Las Vegas. This revolting photograph is, apparently, the property of Investors Trust:

“This is my second attempt to reach you regarding the copyright infringement on your website. Please have the image removed immediately or we will have no other choice but to seek legal action.

This is not the first time you have fraudulently misused private images and copyrights without authorization. You are imposing on our ownership rights and we would appreciate it if you would refrain from any future use of Investors Trust-owned materials. It is a serious violation which we will continue to pursue.

Please have the image on this page https://pension-life.com/david-vilkas-vile-us-attorney/ removed immediately.

Thank you,

Lindsay Paris, Media and Communications Manager, Investors Trust Administration

lparis@investors-trust.com”

So, no apology for destroying victims’ life savings; no apology for taking business from a firm which was not regulated to give investment advice; no apology for investing a victim’s pension in a toxic UCIS fund run by known scammer Philip Nunn….just a complaint about a violation of their ownership rights of a picture of the scammers bearing the Investors Trust logo.

It is reported that Old Mutual International has put aside £69 million to pay compensation for their victims’ losses. May I suggest that Investors Trust should do the same thing – and then I will happily take down the vile picture of Vilka and Ferguson. But until then, it stays up. And if you want to sue me – go ahead: make my day.
August 13, 2018
WANTED: MAGIC FAIRY TO CURE WHAT’S WRONG WITH FINANCIAL SERVICES OFFSHORE

Humour me – you may consider me to be naive – but I believe that the ills of financial services (especially offshore) can be put right. All it takes is for the ethical stakeholders to outlaw the unethical ones. Yes, it will be a bit like something out of the Old Testament – but I firmly believe it can be done. And, more importantly, it MUST be done.

So many thousands of victims have lost part or all of their life savings already – and these people must be compensated. But, above all, future victims must be prevented.

Here’s my TOP TEN wishes that I want the Magic Financial Services Fairy to grant (as a matter of urgency):

Governments in the UK and all expat jurisdictions must wake up to scams – both offshore and at home. They must empower/galvanise law-enforcement agencies and give them the resources to tackle financial crime.

Regulators must put together effective regulations – and then ENFORCE them. Regulations on their own are worthless and pointless – the industry must be policed and failure to comply with regulations must be severely sanctioned.

Ceding pension providers must stop handing over thousands of pension transfers to scammers. The Scorpion campaign has had a negligible effect and all leading providers are still at it.

Advisory firms must be regulated – and not just for insurance. If all a firm does is sell insurance, that is fine. But if pension and investment advice is given, the firm must be properly regulated.

Advisers must be appropriately qualified. If they don’t have the right qualifications, they must demonstrate that they are studying and aiming to qualify within a reasonable, pre-determined time frame.

Investors with DB scheme transfers must get proper advice – avoiding flimflam which takes no responsibility for the end result of the transfer. QROPS providers must ensure they only accept business from regulated firms.

QROPS providers must also ensure they have understood and verified the members’ risk profiles – and then ensure that any investments made on behalf of those members are in line with their risk profile.

Life offices must stop accepting business from known scammers and unregulated firms – and cease investing victims’ life savings in unsuitable assets – such as structured notes and UCIS funds.

Life offices must pay redress to their victims for investment losses caused by negligence and fraud.

There must be a quality assurance system to which all offshore advisers, life offices, trustees and fund managers subscribe and adhere.

July 29, 2018
OMI IPO Profit Warning
OMI IPO Profit Warning – urgent please read carefully.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The term sheets of the Leonteq notes clearly stated:

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

and

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

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

OMI IPO Profit Warning

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

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

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

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

If I were a potential investor in OMI, I would ask myself why they haven’t used the £8.365 billion worth of profits they’ve just declared to compensate their thousands of victims who are facing crippling losses to their retirement funds. I would also think seriously about highly-likely sharp drops in OMI’s profits in the very near future. And if I were an investment adviser to any individual considering buying shares in OMI, I would firstly give them a dire profit warning, and secondly ask whether it is right to invest in such an unethical firm.
July 24, 2018
OLD MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL V LEONTEQ CASE MOVED TO LONDON

Old Mutual International filed a High Court application on 16^th March 2018.

On 20.3.18, Old Mutual obtained a judgment in the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man (Case Reference 18/0012). His Honour The Deemster Doyle, First Deemster and Clerk of the Rolls delivered his determination to OMI’s lawyer, Elizabeth Simpson of Simcocks.

But now Leonteq has been successful in having the proceedings transferred from the IoM to London. This will considerably help Leonteq and hinder OMI.

OMI’s case is that they are the victims of a fraud. Between 2012 and 2016, OMI invested approximately £200,000,000 in structured notes sold by Leonteq. The purchase of these notes was “conducted” on the truthfulness of representations made by Leonteq as to the amount of fees and costs to be deducted from the investments. OMI’s case is that what Leonteq claimed was false and fraudulent. The investments performed poorly as a result of the excessive level of fees. The losses are currently estimated to be well over £20,000,000 (although it is expected that this will increase – especially with the current devasting share price falls due to Covid 19).

OMI’s case against Leonteq is on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, constructive trust, breach of fiduciary duty, knowing receipt, dishonest assistance and unjust enrichment.

Let us look in some detail at the above aspects of the case.

Leonteq Securities has gone from strength to strength since this fraud began – despite the disgrace of this criminal matter. Their net profit in the first half of 2018 was declared as £30.73 million, and turnover £104.31 million – up 36% on the previous year. My first question is: are they still selling ultra high-risk structured notes? My second question is: what was the difference between the “ordinary” notes which paid 6% commission to the scammers, and the fraudulent notes which paid 8% to the scammers. Were the latter 33% more risky? Looking at the victims’ statements, it is impossible to tell the difference between the 6% notes and the 8% ones. There is no obvious higher failure rate – they just all look equally dire.

Right in the middle of the OMI/Leonteq matter, it was announced in 2014 that two salesmen were going to be added to the London branch: Walter Treur and Anders Stromberg joined on 25/27 June 2014. Treur was ex Commerzbank – another provider of toxic structured notes which also failed dismally and caused catastrophic losses to the Continental Wealth Management’s victims – and Stromberg was ex JP Morgan and Credit Suisse (although he had been unemployed for some time).

Another Leonteq employee, Michael Hartweg, left his job as deputy chief executive to spend all his time flogging the new business of toxic structured notes.

So, it is clear that Leonteq was making a lot of money out of these products. But, the question remains: was Leonteq complicit in fraud – or were they blissfully ignorant and just grateful for the huge profits they were pulling in?

In my humble view, structured notes are like a lot of other products which – if properly sold and used – can, in some cases, be beneficial/useful/enjoyable/harmless, but – if irresponsibly or inappropriately sold – can be deadly. Examples are: tobacco; alcohol; pornography; rat poison; fireworks; painkillers; kitchen knives; peanuts; plastic bags; cannabis.

Structured notes are “FOR PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS ONLY AND NOT FOR RETAIL DISTRIBUTION AND WARN OF DANGER OF LOSING PART OR ALL OF AN INVESTOR’S CAPITAL”.

I wonder which bit of that OMI failed to understand. They bought £200 million quid’s worth of the fraudulent 8% notes – how much of the 6% ones did they buy? We know that a large chunk of these went to the Continental Wealth victims and caused devastating losses. But that was just Leonteq – there was also Commerzbank, Royal Bank of Canada, Nomura and BNP Paribas. And there wasn’t just OMI – there was SEB and Generali doing the same thing.

Let’s be honest, the whole thing was a fraud. In the Continental Wealth Management case, CWM was a fraud; the structured notes were a fraud; the insurance bonds were a fraud; the hidden commissions on everything were a fraud. No party comes out of this with any honour. But, we must also bear in mind that OMI bought £200,000,000 of this toxic, fraudulent crap and allowed it to be used as investments for retail, low-risk pension savers. Additionally, OMI accepted dealing instructions from an unregulated firm which was selling the insurance bonds illegally. But let us not forget that Generali and SEB were just as bad.

Maybe Leonteq and OMI will volunteer to settle without a bloody legal battle – from which only the blood-sucking lawyers will win. The millions that both Leonteq and OMI will be paying over the coming months and years would be better spent on paying redress to the real victims in this disgraceful debacle – the Continental Wealth Management clients who entrusted their life savings to the scammers, the life offices and the structured note providers such as Leonteq – but let’s not forget Commerzbank, Royal Bank of Canada and Nomura.

July 21, 2018
SEB LIFE (OR DEATH) – WILL THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND BRING THEM TO JUSTICE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trafalgar is an independent financial advisor located in Germany

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

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

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

Really? Sub agents are illegal in Spain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and their regulatory authorities have oversight responsibilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trafalgar was never the victims’ agent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No they weren’t – the signatures were forged

or your appointed investment advisor.

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

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

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

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

Lost a total of 271,539 EUR

Investment in the Quadris Teak UCIS fund:

Lost 100,000 GBP

TOTAL LOSS IN SIX YEARS: 371,539 EUR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 12, 2018
10 essential questions to ask an IFA
Most victims of pension and investment scams bitterly regret not having asked more questions with regards to their financial planning. The problem is that they wouldn’t have known what questions to ask, and they probably wouldn’t have understood the answers even if they had. Pension Life offer you 10 essential questions to ask an IFA so you can ensure you are not the next victim.

All existing victims wish they had asked questions, obtained assurances, checked advisers’ qualifications and regulation. But, of course, it is now too late for the victims who have lost part or all of their life savings.

These victims all agree that it is important to prevent future victims. This is why we have come up with these 10 essential questions to ask an IFA, when considering financial planning and the transfer of your pension:

1 – How is the adviser and/or his firm licensed to provide advice to you in the jurisdiction where you – the client – live? Don’t be fobbed off with the answer that the adviser has an insurance license – that isn’t enough. The adviser needs an investment license. Also, don’t be fobbed off if the adviser says the firm is licensed in another jurisdiction – it needs to be licensed for where you, the client, live.

2 – If you are transferring a DB (defined benefit) or FS (final salary) scheme, you must get FCA regulated, qualified, independent advice on the merits of the transfer. Remember, the advice might be that you are better off leaving your pension where it is.

3 – Make sure the transfer recommendation (from a DB or FS scheme) is correct. Get a second opinion. You only get to do this once – and if the wrong road is chosen, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to correct it.

Check that the transfer advice report makes it clear that you, the client, are being advised on the transfer and that the advice is about what you should do – not what you could do.

4 – Don’t let the adviser put you into an insurance bond. Examples of these are Old Mutual International, SEB, Generali, Friends Provident, RL360, Hansard, Investors Trust. An insurance bond is a wrapper. A QROPS is a wrapper. You don’t need two wrappers. That’s like Superman wearing two pairs of pants over his tights.

The only purpose an insurance bond serves is to pay the IFA 8% commission. Plus, the insurance bond will tie you in for between five and ten years, and you neither need nor want to do that with a pension.

Insurance companies will take business from any old unlicensed, unqualified scammers. They don’t care. The quarterly charges are called “management charges” but that is very misleading because they don’t do any actual managing. Once the value of your fund starts to diminish because of the high charges and the toxic, illiquid, high-risk investments, the insurance company will keep taking its fees – sometimes until the whole fund is extinguished and worthless.

5 – What qualifications does the adviser have?

You wouldn’t take medical advice from an unqualified person posing as a doctor; legal advice from an unqualified person posing as a solicitor or accountancy advice from a person posing as an accountant. So why take financial adviser from someone with no qualifications?

It is a sad fact that in many jurisdictions, so-called advisers spring up with no qualifications and even no Financial Panning experience. Sometimes, they had been selling mortgages, second-hand cars or ice cream the previous week to selling pensions.

Pension Life covered the question of qualifications in a recent blog by Kim:

Using advice from Chartered Global about financial qualifications, you can discover that:
Level 3 Financial Adviser Qualifications

The most basic or entrance tier is the certificate level which is classed as a level 3 qualification within the UK framework, equivalent to A levels. Level 3 qualifications include:

CertCII: Certificate in Financial Planning issued by the Chartered Insurance Institute

CertPFS: Certificate in Financial Planning issued by the Personal Finance Society

CeFA: Certificate in Financial Advice issued by the Institute of Financial Services

Cert IM: Certificate in Investment Management issued by the Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment

Level 3 qualifications are sometimes held by adviser office staff and certain mortgage or protection advisers in a bank for example. These certificates require passing a selection of exams over 1-2 years and holders will have a general grounding in financial planning and financial services.
Level 4 Financial Adviser Qualifications

However, since 2012 financial advisers in the UK have been required to hold a minimum of a level 4 qualification to be able to continue to provide independent financial planning advice. The minimum required qualification to provide independent financial planning advice in the UK is now the diploma level, a level 4 professional qualification.

Look for the following letters or designations to identify a level 4 adviser:

DipCII: Diploma in Financial Planning issued by the CII

DipPFS: Diploma in Financial Planning issued by the PFS

DipFA: Diploma in Financial Advice issued by the IFS

IAD: Investment Advice Diploma issued by the Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment

Building on the certificate knowledge, level 4 advisers will offer a well-rounded understanding of financial planning and products, from general investments, structured products, to basic pension, protection, tax and savings advice.
Level 6 Financial Adviser Qualifications

A full two levels higher are the profession’s top tier of financial advisers; holders of level 6 qualifications equivalent to a bachelor honours degree. Completing a comprehensive suite of professional exams over many years, these top-flight advisers will be designated through one of the following:

APFS: Advanced Diploma in Financial Planning issued by the CII

CFPCM: Certified Financial Planner

Adv DipFA: Advanced Diploma in Financial Advice issued by the IFS

Advisers at this level will have advanced expertise in the main areas of general financial planning.
6 – Is the adviser planning on investing your life savings in professional-investor-only structured notes?

Structured notes are complex, risky, expensive derivatives which are only suitable for sophisticated investors who understand them. Few advisers/brokers understand them – but love them because of the very high commissions they pay. They also love them because once they have purchased them, there is no management to do – only stand back and watch them plummet in value.

Examples of structured note providers are Leonteq (currently being sued by Old Mutual International for fraud), Commerzbank, Royal Bank of Canada and Nomura. There are, of course, many more out there.

However, if your adviser/broker says he wants to invest part of your life savings in structured notes – ignore any old baloney about “capital protection” – and RUN LIKE HELL!

7 – Why are the firm’s own in-house funds used? An adviser can’t be independent if he is recommending his own firm’s own funds.

The way that financial advice is supposed to work is the adviser does a thorough, detailed fact find to analyse the client’s individual circumstances and risk profile. Then the adviser can go out into the market and find the most suitable and cost-effective investment products.

There is a huge choice and many good low-cost investment platforms. But some firms set up their “own” funds – which are merely somebody else’s fund which has been “white labelled” as the firm’s fund. This means there are two layers of charges.

An adviser cannot be independent if he is advising that his own fund should be the investment choice. This recommendation is usually made because of the extra commission which can be earned from an in-house fund, rather than because it is in the client’s best interests.

8 – Are UCIS funds going to be used?

Many a poor victim has lived to regret his trust and faith in a silver-tongued adviser’s ability to manage his investments. UCIS funds (Unregulated, collective investment schemes) are inevitably high risk and can have catastrophic results.

Such funds include EEA Life Settlements, LM, Harlequin, Brandeaux Student Accommodation, Premier New Earth Recycling, Dolphin Trust and many more which are sometimes no more than Ponzi schemes. Underlying assets include forestry, “clean” energy, eucalyptus and truffle-tree plantations, chia seeds, fine art, wines and speculative property.

Life savings have been decimated by failed UCIS funds – make sure your adviser/broker understands you don’t want your money to be invested in any of these toxic, high-risk, unregulated funds. You could well be promised high returns, but you have to remember that with high returns comes high risk.

9 – What is the full extent of the charges/fees/commissions on the entire transaction?

So many advisers conceal the full extent of ALL the fees and commissions. Victims only find out about them long after it is way too late. The “drag” on a fund can be catastrophic, even without investment losses.

If you are being advised to go into a QROPS, there will be the set-up and yearly ongoing charge (as well as exit charge); the adviser will charge between 2% and 3% set-up and then 1% (at least) annually; if UCIS funds are used, these can pay up to 25% commission (or even more sometimes); if structured notes are used, these can pay between 6% (for the regular ones) and 8% (for the fraudulent Leonteq ones). Then there is the 8% on the insurance bond. Then there is anything else the adviser can slip in without you noticing.

Victims of poor advice often only notice the dragging effect of all these charges on their fund after a year or so – or more. And by then it is too late, and the fund can never recover.

10 – Why were you graded as a “7” balanced investor – or even higher as an “adventurous” investor (when, clearly, you should have been graded as a low-risk investor)?

Here is the basic problem – the higher an investor’s risk profile is, the riskier the investments can be. This, of course, means that the riskier the investments are, the more commission the adviser can make.

After suffering crippling losses, many victims (retrospectively) look at their statements and documentation and find that they were graded as medium or high risk without their knowledge or consent. The adviser’s excuse is that the client valued growth above all else and that this was reflected in the risk assessment questionnaire.

Often, clients start off as low to medium risk, and then the adviser surreptitiously increases the risk profile. This can have catastrophic consequences for investors – and is what ALL of the known victims report as being the cause of their crippling losses.

The bottom line is that the public needs to be educated and warned about the bad practices offshore. Only by spreading the word about what happened to existing victims, will future victims be prevented.

People who have lost part – or all – of their pensions and life savings, are devastated and destroyed. They are facing potential poverty in retirement. Some will lose their homes, their health and their relationships. Some will take their own lives.
June 25, 2018
Old Mutual International (OMI) facilitating financial crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 23, 2018
GENERALI WORLDWIDE – FINANCIAL CRIME FACILITATOR
Generali has responded to one of the complaints by CWM victims. I have transcribed it below and put my comments in bold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We address the specific issues raised in your letter below.

The Portfolio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues Raised

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

Portfolio Management Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continental Wealth Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contractual Terms and Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussions with the Trustee and Trafalgar

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Channel Islands Financial Ombudsman

PO Box 114

Jersey,

Channel Islands JE4 9QG

Email: enquiries@ci-fo.org

Website: www.ci-fo.org

Jersey phone: 01534 748610

Guernsey phone: 01481 722218

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

What is a Pension Scam?
May 11, 2018
Keep Calm: Just avoid OMI/Quilter

OLD MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL HYPOCRISY OVER NEW MALTA REGULATIONS

OMI’s Peter Kenny advises the industry to “keep calm”.

He obviously wants to be able to keep flogging these useless, pointless and exorbitantly expensive insurance bonds to thousands of innocent victims.

With the announcement of new regulations in Malta for QROPS, International Adviser has quoted managing director of OMI (soon to be Quilter) Peter Kenny: “Old Mutual International is encouraging all market participants to help rid the industry of inappropriate structured products“.

Kenny´s statement, to the untrained eye, may seem logical and thoughtful. However, here at Pension Life we are well educated about OMI´s dirty laundry and routine use of toxic structured notes.

The statement Peter Kenny made is downright hypocritical. He is clouding the irresponsible and negligent actions OMI have made in the past, and the damage the high-risk structured products have inflicted on pension funds. Kenny hasn´t even mentioned the huge quarterly fees OMI have applied to ever-dwindling pension funds.

These fees are OMI´s way of clawing back the commissions paid to the scammers. And this is why victims are tied into these insurance bonds for so many years, and why there are such enormous penalties for exiting the bonds.

Kenny told International Adviser:

“The Malta Financial Services Authority’s proposed new regulations are sensible, appropriate measures to be taking.

Specifically, we welcome greater restrictions on structured notes. Old Mutual International is encouraging all market participants to help rid the industry of inappropriate structured products which are having a damaging impact on investor confidence and outcomes.

Over the years, Old Mutual International has taken action to tighten its criteria, introduced a maximum fee level, and in some cases banned certain types of structured products from certain institutions.

Not all structured products are bad, and they can be useful for clients who want a degree of capital protection whilst also providing exposure to investment markets or a fixed return. However, many structured products are often very complex in design. Regrettably, some investors and advisers will not always possess the depth of knowledge required to fully understand the risks and rewards associated with investing in such structured products.”

Doesn´t that sound lovely in theory! However, I´m sure the victims of the CWM pension scam would not agree.

“Specifically, we welcome greater restrictions on structured notes. Old Mutual International is encouraging all market participants to help rid the industry of inappropriate structured products which are having a damaging impact on investor confidence and outcomes.”

For the last eight years at least, OMI have allowed the use of structured notes. We have seen many examples of victims having 100% of their portfolios invested in structured notes – including the fraudulent Leonteq ones. We have the hundreds of victims of the CWM pension scandal as evidence of this.

Peter Kenny must surely be aware that OMI were happy to invest the life savings of the CWM victims into structured products which clearly stated at the top of the investment sheets (so as even the most short-sighted OMI employee could not miss it):

HIGH-RISK AND FOR PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS ONLY

Here at Pension Life, we do hope that even trainees at OMI are aware that pension fund members are retail investors and should be placed into low to medium risk, liquid investments. However, it seems that these details obviously don´t feature in OMI´s training manual.

Structured products are illiquid and they often lock the fund in for fixed terms – up to 5 years. Added to this is the fact that victims were also locked into ten or eleven-year term OMI´s life assurance policies. It is absolutely ridiculous to lock people into a product which does nothing to protect the funds and only serves to erode the value of the funds with the exorbitant quarterly charges which inexorably “drag” the fund down.

“Over the years, Old Mutual International has taken action to tighten its criteria, introduced a maximum fee level, and in some cases banned certain types of structured products from certain institutions.”

This is an outright lie and we have hard evidence that even in the past couple of years, OMI has done nothing to tighten its criteria in any of the CWM cases. In fact, OMI were still accepting fraudulent Leonteq structured notes up until very recently. Peter Kenny is being dishonest as the reality is that there was no thought or care at all over a very long period.

One Pension Life member started with a fund of £38,000. His last valuation showed that it was now worth just £800. When OMI apply their next quarterly fee, the entire fund will be wiped out as OMI simply kept taking their fees based on 11% of the original value (as opposed to the constantly dropping value). But clearly OMI didn’t care or even show any interest – they made a packet in fees, paid a huge commission to the CWM scammers and sat back and did nothing while the fund dwindled to nothing.

“Not all structured products are bad, and they can be useful for clients who want a degree of capital protection…”

I highlight here a “degree of capital protection” – just a degree? Pension funds are normally a person’s life savings. So what does a “degree” mean? 10%, 50% perhaps 75%? The degree of capital protection in the case of the CWM/OMI scam was 0%.

“Regrettably, some investors and advisers will not always possess the depth of knowledge required to fully understand the risks and rewards associated with investing in such structured products.”

Regrettably for the investors who were victims of the CWM scammers and OMI, they most definitely did not possess the depth of knowledge required to fully understand the risks. They put their faith in the smartly- dressed scammers. With promises of high returns, the high risk of the investments and high fees to be charged were left unmentioned. OMI were supposed to protect the victims’ interests but failed dismally to lift a finger to help arrest the downward spiral of the funds.

OMI just sat there like a lazy, greedy, callous parasite and watched the victims’ retirement savings dwindle.

Malta´s new regulations have been put into place to protect investors from scammers like CWM and firms like OMI. I think OMI are secretly seething as the changes to the regulations will surely affect their already dropping profits.

International Adviser also reported on 30 Apr 18:

“Quilter, formerly Old Mutual Wealth, said its assets under management and administration had fallen in the first quarter of 2018.”

Here´s hoping they fall further – much further – 2/3rds further like Pension Life members Pete and Val´s did. Peter Kenny needs to experience a taste of how the victims of the CWM scam felt at finally receiving the news that their pension funds had been left in tatters.

May 10, 2018
OMI AND IOM DEFEATED BY SPANISH COURT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEGAL GROUNDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RULING:

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

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

April 24, 2018
OMI SUES LEONTEQ over undisclosed commissions

A fine journalist at International Investment reports that Old Mutual International is taking legal action against Leonteq. She reports that this action is being taken on the basis that Leonteq lied about commissions paid to advisers for using high-risk structured notes.

This news is, of course, very welcome news – especially if it succeeds in securing redress for the “significant financial losses” for the Continental Wealth Management victims. OMI has stated:

“Had the true level of commission been disclosed, the high-risk structured notes would not have passed Old Mutual International’s (OMI) criteria, and no investments would have been made”.

OMI has mentioned the “true level of commission”. What it is referring to is the fact that for some particularly toxic notes, the commission paid to the scammers was 8% instead of 6%. The victims ultimately pay this commission – which is always hidden from them – but in reality the difference between 8% and 6% pales into insignificance when compared to the actual losses themselves.

Leonteq’s high-risk structured notes had been failing and causing crippling losses for years. Just as RBC’s, Commerzbank’s and Nomura’s had also done. One victim saw his £38,000 pension pot dwindle down to £800 since 2015.

The truth of the matter is the none of the victims should have had any of their retirement savings invested in high-risk structured notes which clearly state on the term sheets:

FOR PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS ONLY

Continental Wealth Management – an unlicensed firm of scammers – bought more and more structured notes. CWM was not licensed for either insurance or investment advice.

But this raises an important question:

Why aren’t SEB and Generali suing Leonteq?

The SEB and Generali victims suffered very similar crippling losses to OMI’s. What are they doing about this fiasco? What would their “criteria” have done to intervene had they realised Leonteq was paying the scammers 8% instead of 6%?

Apparently, Leonteq is now disclosing commissions on the term sheets for their products. Great. Problem is that the victims never get to see the term sheets – or at least not until it is way too late and they have lost half of their life savings. Having had access to a Leonteq termsheet which clearly states:

This Product may only be sold to qualified investors (the term “qualified investor” has the meaning as defined in Section 10 of the Swiss Federal Act on Collective Investment Schemes “CISA”).

and

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

But even if the victims had seen these warning and the fact that they were paying 6% or 8% – on high-risk structured notes – to have their fund systematically destroyed, what could these people have done about it? Because, at the end of the day, the client is not the client (apparently). The client is the life office. OMI, SEB and Generali are the legal owners of these dodgy structured notes. Or perhaps the trustee is the legal owner? Depends on who you ask and why – the answer is always different.

Fortunately for OMI clients – the MD of OMI – Peter Kenny – has said the company is “taking a firm stand against the behavior which has led to such devastating consequences”.

Kenny goes on to say that OMI “will do all that we can to bring to account those responsible.” And is “encouraging all market participants to help rid the industry of inappropriate structured products, which are having a damaging impact on investor confidence and outcomes”.

The International Investment journalist ends her article with Kenny’s parting comment:

“I would encourage all industry participants to work together to eradicate poor practices once and for all.”

For some, however, the damage has already been done.

A life’s worth of savings has already been destroyed.

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

As always, Pension Life would like to remind you that if you are planning to transfer any pension funds, make sure that you are transferring into a legitimate scheme. To find out how to avoid being scammed, please see our blog:

What is a pension scam?

FOLLOW PENSION LIFE ON TWITTER TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THINGS PENSION RELATED, GOOD AND BAD.

April 12, 2018
DEMAND FOR LEONTEQ’S AWARDS TO BE WITHDRAWN BY SWISS DERIVATIVES AWARDS

DEMAND FOR LEONTEQ’S

SWISS DERIVATIVES

AWARDS TO BE WITHDRAWN

alex.geissbuehler@gwp.ch, reto.weber@gwp.ch, stephan.welti@gwp.ch, pia.aeberhard@gwp.ch, admira.besic@gwp.ch, regine.wolfensberger@gwp.ch, media@leonteq.com , info@payoff.ch

(Interesting use of the phrase “pay off” in the awards organisers’ email address above – I wonder who got paid off to make this disgusting award.)

DEMAND FOR LEONTEQ’S SWISS DERIVATIVES AWARDS TO BE WITHDRAWN

On behalf of hundreds of victims of the Continental Wealth Management pension and investment scam – many of whom have lost huge proportions of their retirement savings – I hereby demand that the awards given to Leonteq at the Swiss Derivative Awards 2018 should be withdrawn immediately.

It is a sickening afront to decency that this award was ever given in the first place. The judges must surely have known that Leonteq had facilitated a major, multi-million-pound scam with Continental Wealth Management between 2010 and 2016. Leonteq has had the audacity to brag that “the awards are proof that Leonteq has a dedicated, strong and highly service oriented team in place. We are very proud of the recognition of our work, and would like to sincerely thank our clients and partners for their trust”.

Leonteq is “proud” of the destruction it has wrought on hundreds of people’s pensions and investments?

Leonteq has paid not a penny in compensation to its many victims – many of whom will die from stress-related illnesses due to the losses suffered from Leonteq’s toxic, high-risk structured notes. Leonteq was paying unlicensed scammers Continental Wealth Management commissions of between 6% and 8% to peddle these risky notes – which amount to nothing more than gambling. None of these notes were suitable for low-risk pension savers as the documentation clearly stated that there was a danger that investors could lose part or all of their capital.

To reward Leonteq for such behaviour, for facilitating a £200 million investment scam, and ruining many hundreds of victims, is a disgrace. This abomination brings shame upon Switzerland as a jurisdiction which tolerates such disgusting practices, and also brings the reputation of financial services into disrepute.

Kindly pass this email on to all those responsible for the Swiss Derivative Awards and ensure that the judges are removed and replaced with competent judges who do proper due diligence before handing out awards to a firm which facilitates financial crime.

Angela Brooks

March 25, 2018