Tag: OMI

Don´t put your trust in The Imperius Group

In my weekly hunt for the next firm to feature in my ´qualified and registered?´ blog series, I came across an advisory company that caught my attention: The Imperius Group, run by a fella named Tim Blogg, who claims to have retrained 25 years ago to offer pension and investment advice to expats.

Regular followers of Pension Life blogs will know that my current mission is unearthing advisers who claim to be fully qualified but fail to show up on any official registers (CII, CISI, LIBF). If they do not show on any register, how do we know that the qualifications they claim to have were actually achieved? If these offshore advisers refuse to follow the guidelines, how can they be trusted? Furthermore, if they are not registered, then they should not be making claims to these qualifications.

The reason Tim Blogg´s company, The Imperius Group, flashed up on my red beacon radar was the fact that he listed his company in partnership with various life assurance offices including OMI (Old Mutual International) and Generali. Links to these companies, a well-read Pension Life blog follower will know, is not a good thing. They are also linked to RL360 and Hansard Global.

Tim Blogg also has a bright and shiny Dolphin Trust logo underneath the mug shot of him and a promise of:

“I could give you a 10% annual return on your investment through tried and tested plans – if you’d like to find out more click here to read more about one of our most lucrative investment opportunities.”

Tim Blogg offers “strong steps into German property investment”, through Dolphin Trust (loan notes).

Ring any bells?

British Steelworkers were duped into investing their DB pension schemes into – yes, you´ve got it – into an unregulated fund: Dolphin Trust (in Germany). Celtic Wealth Management acted as the introducers to this investment and Active Wealth – now collapsed – acted as the advisory company. This investment scam has left British Steelworkers trapped and at risk in this totally unsuitable, unregulated investment.

Dolphin Trust IS NOT regulated and there is no evidence to show The Imperius Group is either.

Tim Blogg, founder of The Imperius Group, DOES NOT APPEAR ON ANY REGISTER as a qualified and registered financial adviser.

Aside from Tim Blogg, the only other person who claims to work for The Imperius Group is a lady called Emma Allen, listing herself as, ´Employed as a Personal Assistant by iBOS working for the Managing Director of The Imperius Group Limited.´ The Imperius Group website quotes the term ´us´ regularly, but from what I have found, it would seem this company is pretty much a one-man unqualified band.

Dolphin Trust has been used by an awful lot of pension and investment scammers – including Stephen Ward in the London Quantum pension scam (now in the hands of Dalriada Trustees).

Once again, I am left wringing my hands in despair at the state of the offshore financial sector and at purported financial advisers like Tim Blogg.

However, at least I will sleep soundly tonight knowing that another financial advisory firm has been outed. The Imperius Group and Dolphin Trust are not the company to trust with your precious pension fund.

To demonstrate the serious concerns about investments in Dolphin Trust, this is a copy of a letter sent by Charles Smethurst CEO of Dolphin Trust to investors. It would seem that although some investments have reached their maturity, other investors are still waiting for their funds to be released. This raises questions about the liquidity of funds and also the possibility of Dolphin Trust going bankrupt. Maybe the victims will have a claim over the properties, if indeed the German properties they think they have invested in actually exist.

August 29, 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
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
UAE REGULATOR DOES A BIT OF REGULATING

International Investment has written a jolly good article about the recent action taken by the UAE Insurance Authority – headed up by His Excellency Ibrahim Al Zaabi. I quote from Gary Robinson’s article:

“In a statement on the Arabic version on its website the IA has issued a circular confirming the suspension (of Holborn Assets) for a period of three months or until it is satisfied that the company has improved its performance.

According to Dubai-based sources that International Investment has been speaking to, the IA has written to regulated insurance companies notifying them of their action.”

I have no doubt that Holborn Assets will rise to the challenge magnificently and in a dignified manner – and will recognise the fact that it is time for the routine misuse of all insurance bonds in offshore financial services to come to an end. I also doubt Holborn Assets will sell any more RL360 products.

The Continental Wealth Management debacle must surely serve as a perfect example of how and why insurance bonds should not be used at all – and indeed how and why structured notes should be banned altogether. And yet, despite the Malta FSC’s lukewarm change in regulations to ban advisers without an investment license and limit structured notes to 30% of a portfolio, useless/pointless insurance bonds and toxic structured notes are very much the norm across the offshore financial services landscape.

The Eagle-eyed Sheikh Al Zaabi has obviously spotted something that regulators in all jurisdictions which affect British expats have turned a deliberate blind eye to. Insurance products can, have been, and are routinely abused. And the abusers often cause heavy losses to thousands of unfortunate victims. His Eminence also obviously recognises that turning a blind eye damages not only the jurisdiction in question, but also the reputation of financial services in general.

Quite frankly, it is shameful and embarrassing how many regulators behave (or rather fail to behave).

The FCA takes no action even when their nose is rubbed into obvious fraud – and let the British Steel disaster happen under their very noses. In fact it took public-spirited independent financial services professionals such as Al Rush, Darren Cooke and Henry Tapper to take it on themselves to try to rescue the steelworkers while the scammers hovered like vultures. I would like to be proud to be British, but the FCA is a national disgrace and an embarrassment to all British citizens. I wouldn’t mind if the FCA was just lazy, but it simply doesn’t care about the interests of those who get conned and scammed.

The Guernsey FSC allowed many frauds, including trustees Concept Trustees to sell UCIS fund EEA Life Settlements even after the FSA “toxic” warning. And, of course, EEA Life Settlements itself. Then the stable door shut with a resounding clang as an ombudsman was brought in, but told not to hear any complaints prior to July 2013. This effectively excluded all the worst scams which were being carried out in Guernsey by the likes of Concept Trustees – which took business from Stephen Ward’s Premier Pension Solutions which neither had regulation nor professional indemnity insurance.

The Gibraltar FSC appears to actively encourage outright scammers such STM Fidecs – and when financial crime is brought to their attention they go fishing for a few small, wet fish. Talking of fish, I think it is very fishy that Paul Garner, now of the Gibraltar FSC, used to work for scammer XXXX XXXX at Global Partners Ltd – the firm that “advised” hundreds of UK-resident victims to transfer their pensions to an STM Fidecs QROPS. Then STM Fidecs allowed XXXX XXXX to invest 100% of 100% of these victims’ funds into his own UCIS fund: Trafalgar Multi Asset (now in liquidation). I genuinely don’t know at which point Paul Garner moved over from Global Partners Limited to the Gibraltar FSC……but I have a feeling his leaving do will be an exceptionally (and uncharacteristically) lavish affair – and I am very much hoping to be invited. I hear there will be something fishy on the menu and Garner’s good fortune will be toasted with something bubbly. I have no doubt the cleaners will effectively brush all the crumbs under the carpet after the party.

The Central Bank of Ireland will be put to the test when scammers SEB (formerly Irish Life) are put in the spotlight. CBI has known for years that SEB – led by Peder Nateus and Conor McCarthy – has been facilitating financial crime. SEB took £ millions’ worth of business from unlicensed scammers Continental Wealth Management and allowed the whole lot to be invested in toxic structured notes: “for professional investors only”. These notes – including the fraudulent Leonteq ones (over which OMI is now suing Leonteq) clearly warned of the “danger of loss of part or all of your capital”. And yet SEB sat there and watched while hundreds of CWM‘s clients’ victims’ life savings were destroyed – and did nothing. This has left many victims in despair and poverty – with some contemplating suicide.

Against this backdrop of extreme ineptitude and collusion amongst this collection of chocolate teapots, motorbike ashtrays and fishnet willy warmers, let us all hope that the UAE Insurance Authority shows all these no-hopers what effective regulation should look, smell and feel like.

June 28, 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
SEB – DESTROYING LIFE SAVINGS
SEB – DESTROYING LIFE SAVINGS – accepting business and investment instructions from unlicensed scammers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structured Notes will not be accepted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEGAL GROUNDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RULING:

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

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

April 24, 2018
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
LEONTEQ “DRIVEN BY POSITIVE CLIENT SENTIMENT”
LEONTEQ “DRIVEN BY POSITIVE CLIENT SENTIMENT” (Really?) In their 2017 annual report, rogue structured note provider Leonteq has reported “GROWTH ACROSS ALL REGIONS – Driven by positive client sentiment and solid demand for structured products”.

I have no idea what sort of claptrap Marco Amato, CEO and CFO of Leonteq, thinks he is spinning in the 2017 annual report, but if Leonteq really is “experiencing growth across all regions”, this is very serious indeed. If hundreds more victims are going to lose their retirement savings across the globe due to Leonteq’s toxic, professional-investor-only structured notes being sold to low-risk retail investors, then he should hang his head in shame.

Leonteq’s Chairman – Christopher M. Chambers – is quoted as saying:

“We are immensely grateful to Marco Amato for having served as interim CEO during a very difficult phase for our company. He has done an outstanding job. We look forward to continuing to count on his experience and leadership as Deputy CEO and CFO.”

I just hope the new CEO – Lukas Ruflin – will start paying compensation to the CWM victims.

The only positive client sentiment that I can see, is that the Continental Wealth Management victims are positive that Leonteq should pay compensation for the terrible losses caused by their dodgy, toxic structured notes.

And Leonteq can, of course, afford to pay. Here are their 2017 results:

I note they paid their staff £87 million in that year. Way too much – I suggest they halve all employees’ wages until the Continental Wealth Management victims are fully compensated.

I have some other suggestions for Leonteq:
- Don’t take business from unlicensed firms
- Don’t take business from known scammers who put investors into extortionately expensive insurance bonds such as OMI, Generali and SEB
- Don’t take business from known scammers
- Don’t allow low/medium risk investors to be invested in Leonteq’s high-risk, toxic, professional-investor-only structured products which are clearly labelled:
“Danger of losing part or all of your capital”

Rogue life office, Old Mutual International, has been wittering on about suing Leonteq for many months – but never actually does anything about it other than spout a lot of meaningless hot air.

Time to make up your mind Old Mutual. Your victims are suffering terribly – and you don’t seem to care.
March 2, 2018