Tag: Pension Fraud

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
Guardian Wealth Management and the two-horse race with Holborn Assets

Guardian Wealth Management and the two-horse race with Holborn Assets

This is the start of Guardian Wealth Management week – following the end of Holborn Assets week. Apart from bleats from Holborn Assets salesmen that I was compromising their chances of destroying more victims’ pensions, nobody has come forward and proposed realistic compensation offers for the existing victims.

So, I thought it would be good to set up a “race” between Guardian Wealth Management and Holborn Assets – with two new, fresh, thoroughbred complaints. And see which firm passes the post first.

But, first, let us have a look at the Guardian Wealth Management culture behind the scenes from the horse’s mouth: the self-employed salesmen who peddle Guardian’s products. These are published on www.glassdoor.com – and give an interesting insight into the inner workings of a financial services firm. Here are some of the comments:

“opportunistic”

Doesn’t Recommend – worked at Guardian Wealth Management full-time

Pros – Quick way to earn cash

Cons – Not always ethical with advice or product advice

This tells us a lot – GWM is an unethical selling machine (from this unhappy salesman’s experience)

Another unhappy guy relates even more details about the failings of the company:

“I do not recommend working here”

Doesn’t Recommend. Current Employee – Business Development Manager

Cons – poor training; poor communication; high staff turnover; lack of support; poor salary; constant changes to the business that are not needed; self-employed

Advice to Management: Look after your staff and actually value people over money. Your sales training needs a lot of work and you need to support new recruits rather than just weighing heavily on a manager that really just hogs all the leads.

This review tells us that the people who work for Guardian Wealth Management are nothing more than self-employed salesmen who work for commission on top of a pitiful basic “wage”.

“Working at Guardian”

Recommends – Current Employee

Pros – Great earning potential.

Cons – Can be high pressure, need to remain motivated and driven to achieve.

Just what we thought: pressure to sell, sell, sell! Doesn’t seem to be anything other than a bag of carrots to drive these salesmen to realise the “great earning potential” – rather than to provide good and appropriate financial advice.

“Business Development Manager”

Recommends – BDM in London

Pros – I currently work as a BDM for Guardian in their London office. I’ve been here just 5 months and have learned a huge amount. The guys here are extremely helpful and friendly. It’s hard work but the culture really is an advocate of the harder you work, the higher the rewards with no ceiling in place it’s up to you how successful you want to be.

So, this business development manager has got sucked into the intense sales-driven culture of Guardian Wealth Management – and all he can see is rewards for himself, rather than quality advice for clients.

Against this backdrop of high-pressure stable manners – and the constant pressure to win, win, win, the poor dumb schmucks at Guardian Wealth Management have no idea (yet) that if they fail to meet their sales targets, they’ll just be chucked on the muck heap. It is all about quantity, rather than quality.

The constant drive to flog more products – irrespective of whether they are right for the clients – just turns what should be a firm that strives for excellence into a sales sweatshop. They are also heavily into cold calling – I should know, as they cold called me a year or so ago and claimed to have offices in Spain.

This last Guardian Wealth Manager salesman has highlighted the fact that there is no “ceiling” to success. But what he has missed out is the fact that there is no floor to the depths the salesmen will go to scam victims for profit.

This week is Guardian Wealth Management week – and I will be kicking it off with a race to see which firm of scammers – Holborn Assets or Guardian Wealth Management – will be first past the post to compensate their victims. One from Israel and one from Australia. The stakes are high; the going is firm; the prize is glittering (a glowing compliment on the Pension Life blog). Take your seats for an exciting race.

April 21, 2018
Holborn Assets – What a cheek!

Seems we can´t get enough of Holborn Assets’ cheek this week. CEO Bob Parker has sent out a Q1 2018 newsletter and included on his mailing list a very unsatisfied and traumatised client who, through Holborn Assets’ negligence, has suffered a significant loss to her pension fund, with no compensation – or even apology.

Glynis Broadfoot was a victim of Holborn Assets’ rotten advice and service in 2011 and which resulted in her losing a significant portion of what had originally been a final-salary pension which should never have been transferred in the first place. Holborn Assets refused to help her, and simply kept taking their extortionate fees from her ever-shrinking pension pot. They had invested her in high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes which were totally inappropriate for a low-risk investor.

You can imagine Mrs. Broadfoot’s fury and disgust when this message popped up in her inbox.

In summary, despite the expensive advice given to Mrs. Broadfoot by Holborn Assets, and assurances that her pension would grow at 8% per annum, she ended up losing nearly a third of her fund. Despite the fund’s losses, Holborn Assets continued to apply their fees to the fund, totaling somewhere in the region of £11k!

Holborn Assets informed her, at the height of her distress over her losses, that they “had closed the case, and would not enter into any further correspondence”. Yet now, several years on, it appears she’s still on their mailing list – despite knowing full well they have left this victim’s retirement prospects in tatters.

Mrs. Broadfoot’s case was typical of “fractional scams“: expensive and unnecessary insurance bond (only purpose was to pay a fat commission to the scammers); expensive, high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes (again, high commissions for the scammers and heavy losses for the victim); hefty advisor fees. This was a very obvious scam which caused great suffering for the victim who is resident in Spain – but Holborn Assets was not licensed to provide investment advice in Spain.

In the years since Mrs. Broadfoot was scammed, Bob Parker did start to engage half-heartedly with a process of negotiating compensation for her losses. But so far she has not received one penny. Her local government final salary pension scheme – which she was conned into sacrificing by these unlicensed scammers – would have provided her with a guaranteed, index-linked pension for life and she could have retired comfortably. Instead, she has a seriously damaged fund which is unlikely to ever recover and provide her with the retirement income she needed and deserved.

So, far from getting the “best level of service and advice available” as boasted by Bob Parker, Mrs. Broadfoot was conned, scammed, fleeced and then dumped by Holborn Assets.

Which brings me on to the Trust Pilot reviews. Only 2% scored Holborn Assets as average or poor. Which is very surprising – given the number of people who report similar stories to Mrs. Broadfoot’s. But I think it is likely that those who gave four or five stars, haven’t yet found out what their losses are. In fact, some of these reviewers admit they were cold called by Holborn Assets. We know for sure Claudia Shaw was flogging the high-risk Premier New Earth Recycling UCIS fund to her victims and that there have been heavy investment losses.

One person who has given Holborn Assets a “poor” rating on Trust Pilot is a Mr. Norton who writes:

Not very impressed

I don’t believe anyone from Holborn has contacted me since September last year. In August 2016 I was contacted and advised to switch my policy which seemed ridiculous considering the additional charges I would incur, the fact it was even suggested causes me concern.

Then in September 2016, I was contacted to recommend my wealth manager for an award, again the audacity of this makes me wonder.

I have no idea on what your investment performance to date is over the past 12 months and I have not been given any confidence how my investments will be managed going forward now that I have finished paying your fees and I actually begin to get money invested.

I do plan to visit within the next month and hopefully by that stage you in a position to assure me I did not make a big mistake investing my money with you.
Regards
Ian Norton

Another victim has complained directly to Pension Life about the appalling treatment he has had at the hands of Holborn Assets:

“Since 2013, the fund has not done anything at all. The fees are much too high, excessive transactions have been made to earn themselves money on my account and the investments went down in value. There is no communication with Holborn Assets and they are unwilling to discuss this matter with me or to do anything about it.”

So, as the cheeky Bob Parker is aiming to infiltrate South Africa with his new weapon – the bright-eyed and bushy-chinned Lourens Reichert – I thought now would be a good time to make friends with Reichert and see if he can put some pressure on Uncle Bob. Reichert will, no doubt, be very pleased to help me sort these victims out – as he has a big bulging lump in his trousers courtesy of Bob’s golden handshake.

I might even nip down to Johannesburg and have a cup of tea and a cheeky biscuit with him. No doubt, he won’t want the sordid details of Holborn Assets’ scams to compromise his quest to conquer South Africa. If the natives find out just what his colleagues have been up to, he might find himself on the wrong end of a Zulu spear.

April 19, 2018
Fractional scamming – The trending pension scam

Having read Henry Tapper’s A Master Class in Fractional Scamming, here at Pension Life we feel we should share some facts with our readers about the “trending” investment and pension scam of 2018 – fractional scamming.

First of all here´s a bit about the fractional scam:

Today with new regulations, pension liberation has pretty much gone out of the window. Instead, victims are being offered to transfer their pension fund into a “new” scheme and invest in funds with promises of high returns and low risks. What is hidden in the small print is that whilst there MIGHT be high returns (possibly, if the wind is blowing in the right direction for long enough), the fund has to work its way through the hands of many parasitic introducers and advisers – each one taking their own fraction of the fund.

Henry Tapper uses a Pizza as a great example. Say you ordered a pizza which has been cut into eight slices. On its way to you, the pizza goes past 6 people, and each one takes a slice. Therefore 3/4 of the pizza has already been eaten by the time it gets to you. That does not leave much for you, the person whose pizza it was supposed to be.

This is what is happening to pension funds subjected to fractional scamming, they are being passed from one adviser to another and each one takes their slice.

So whilst the pension fund may well be going into a high-return investment, (when they finally arrive there), the fund has to recover from the percentage slices taken before any profit can be made. Using the pizza as an example, 75% of it was eaten before it arrived at its promised destination. 75% is a pretty high figure – even if the investment interest is 6.5%/7.5% – it is going to take another lifetime to get it back to its original value. Something the victims of fractional scamming don´t have.

The trending pension scam, fractional scamming – this image shows how the scammers skim their slice of the victims’ pension fund in this new wave of pension scam. Chip, chip, chipping away until the original pot is but a fragment of its original state.

What is most frustrating about the situation is that many of the people benefiting from the fractional scam are unregulated advisers. They are the unauthorised introducers who work with unauthorised – as well as authorised – IFAS who worked with Pension Trustees to transfer money into overseas funds. Each one taking their fraction of the fund.

$Pension Life blog - Fractional Scamming - The trending pension scam - don´t let your pension pot fall victim to fractional scamming$

Ways to avoid falling victim to fractional scamming are to ensure that the adviser you are proposing to use is fully authorised by the FCA in the UK. Or by the appropriate regulator in whichever jurisdiction you are resident. Do your own due diligence to ensure that you know all the facts about the transfer of your pension fund. What are the fees – as in ALL THE FEES – relating to the transfer; where will the fund be going and what exactly will it be invested in.

If you are cold called – HANG UP IMMEDIATELY

Do the adviser’s promises sound too good to be true? IF THEY DO, THEY PROBABLY ARE

High return/low risk investment – NO SUCH THING

The illustration on the left is based on the Continental Wealth Management scam which saw nearly 1,000 people have around £100 million worth of retirement savings put at risk. The first year would have cost the victim at least 16% of the fund, and thereafter around 8% a year. So it never had any chance of growing – while the “advisers”, bond provider and structured note providers got fat and rich.

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

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 19, 2018
Holborn Assets Johannesburg – Damaging more life savings?

EXCLUSIVE: Holborn Assets opens new office in South Africa. Oh, how wonderful for them! However, not so wonderful for the new victims Holborn will obviously be trying to scam into losing large percentages of their pension funds.

None of the existing victims have received compensation yet for their crippling losses due to expensive insurance bonds, high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes, and even higher-risk UCIS funds such as New Earth Recycling. And yet Holborn Assets appear to have plenty of spare cash to open a new office in Johannesburg. This new venture will be led by Lourens Reichert and will apparently employ an eight-strong team of advisers. Seems Holborn Assets is now set to exploit this new market and will, of course, have no trouble finding plenty of new victims and relieving them of their pension savings.

Bob Parker, Holborn Assets’ CEO and founder, said: “South Africa is full of potential. There’s an enormous amount of capital held by residents outside of the country and Lourens and his team are experts in advising clients on how to manage that for maximum growth and efficiency.”

You can almost hear Bob Parker smacking his lips and rubbing his hands with glee as he is already counting the enormous amount of money he is going to make out of scamming more victims.

If you are new to Holborn Assets here is a bit of background information on them. The outfit is based in various locations including Dubai, Saudi and Kuala Lumpur, as well as the UK and run by various Parkers: Simon, Bob, James etc. They have used mass cold-calling techniques to lure in victims and place their pension funds into high-risk, toxic investments – that pay maximum commissions.

Holborn Assets’ past victims have seen heavy losses to their pensions due to negligent, unregulated, unqualified advice into entirely inappropriate, high-risk, illiquid assets. This includes one victim’s $600k life savings – half of which were invested in New Earth Recycling (which, of course, was paying the best investment introduction commissions at the time).

Not only is Holborn Assets in the habit of destroying pension funds, the firm also has no shame in who they stick on their payroll. Take Paul Reynolds, who was banned by the FCA and fined nearly £300,000 for giving unsuitable and misleading financial advice, yet Bob Parker of Holborn Assets Dubai welcomed him with open arms. Holborn Assets also employed Darin Brownlee-Jones: the “Champagne Killer“. A drunk hit-and-run driver who killed an innocent man then walked away to drink champagne.

Bob Parker is clearly a man whose conscience bothers him not one bit after failing to compensate victims. He has the astonishing audacity to have his own page on his website to warn people about scammers!

And now Holborn Assets has employed Lourens Reichert, to be the face of Holborn Assets Johannesburg. Reichert has reportedly said “Holborn has a great reputation for its integrity, professionalism and for supporting its staff and investing in them and the business. It is also going in a really exciting direction and it’s great to join the company when it is on such a growth track.”

He obviously hasn’t done much research on the company he now works for and represents. Or did the whopping “golden handshake” he received from Bob Parker make him turn a blind eye to the grubby goings on inside Holborn Assets?

Reichert has apparently stated:

“Coming to Holborn gives my team and I the opportunity to grow the business even further. The first priority will be within South Africa and then we will explore the many opportunities that exist for providing specialist advice across the African continent.”

But Reichert has said nothing of repairing the damage done to so many victims and Holborn Assets’ failure to compensate them. Is Reichert really so blind? Or is he just greedy, selfish and heartless – willing to go on and do to more victims what Holborn Assets has already done to so many?

All that’s left to say then is “Look out South Africa!” If any South African residents get cold called by Reichert and his merry men, just tell them to hop it.

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

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 18, 2018
Victory for SIPPS Pension Scam Victims

A happy tale for the end of the week… not just one but two firms have been told they must compensate clients for poor advice on SIPPS transfers. A great victory against all firms using SIPPS to disguise their ill-advised pension scams sorry schemes.

Financial Planning today reported that:

The Financial Ombudsman Service has ruled against Portafina and Greystone Financial Services in two recent separate cases.

In both instances the clients were advised to invest in unregulated collective investment schemes (UCIS). These schemes are generally high risk and unsuitable for retail investments such as pension fund SIPPS. Both victims have suffered severe financial loss due to the UCIS their funds were invested in.

Mr P invested sums from his SIPP of £50,000 and two more of £20,000 into various funds before 2007 on the advice of Greystone. In May 2007 Greystone advised Mr P to invest £25,000 of his SIPP funds in the Rock Industrial UK Property fund and to also invest £25,000 in the Phoenix Spree Deutschland fund.

Mr P at 51 should have been a low risk investor, however he was encouraged to invest a high percentage of his SIPPS into the commercial property market. Greystone argued that the loss was not caused by the advice but by the unprecedented fall in the commercial property market.

The FOS told the firm it must put Mr P into the position he would probably now be in – or as closely as possible – if he had been given suitable advice.

With this case and many others now coming to prosecution, there is hope that there will be a reduction in firms advising their clients to invest in unregulated high-risk investments. In this case there is no mention of the ´fees´the firms applied to the investments they made, however it is safe to assume they would have applied a nice percentage to each investment, ensuring their pockets were well lined whilst the victim´s funds end with severe losses.

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

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 13, 2018
British Steelworker – SIPPS Pension Scam Victim

I am saddened to write about the first (but probably not the last) British Steelworker who has fallen victim to an investment scam as well as a pension scam. The British Steelworker was persuaded to transfer his DB pension AND invest £35,000 of his personal saving into an unregulated fund – Dolphin Trust (in Germany).

More and more, we are seeing innocent, hardworking individuals falling victim to pension scams due to their pension funds being invested in unregulated, high-risk, illiquid investments. It is just a matter of time before these unsuitable investments leave victims’ pension funds in tatters.

Mike Pickett, a British Steelworkers, had his savings loaned to an unregulated German property development company called Dolphin Trust. This was courtesy of (now collapsed) IFA firm Active Wealth. Mike not only transferred his pension fund, but also his life savings. His pension funds went into a SIPPS which then found their way to Gallium Fund Solutions.

Mike’s non-pension savings then went through Active Wealth into Dolphin Trust GmbH, which specialises in the development of German-listed buildings and promises 10% returns on investment. He says he was unaware that he was signed up to a fixed term payment (minimum 2 years) and of the associated 5% exit penalty to withdraw money from Gallium early.

Dolphin Trust IS NOT regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

The way victims were lured into this scheme is more than a little questionable. It is also somewhat confusing as to who was actually responsible for investing Mike’s funds. Much little like an traditional fable, the storyline seems to shift to ensure the blame can be passed where necessary.

It all started with a presentation made to British Steel Workers via Celtic Wealth. How on earth are these people were able to make a presentation to innocent victims-to-be for an UNREGULATED investment is beyond me. Especially when Celtic Wealth was not authorised to provide investment advice.

And here’s where Active Wealth came in. Celtic Wealth claimed “All regulated advice in relation to pensions and investments is given by Active Wealth (UK) Ltd.”

After the presentation by Celtic Wealth, Mike Pickett claims to have spoken to Active Wealth adviser Andrew Deeney, and says he was visited at his home shortly thereafter by Deeney and a representative of Celtic Wealth. He had three meetings with Active Wealth in total – two of which he said were with Deeney.

Active Wealth has now surrendered its pension transfer permissions following FCA action in relation to advice given to steelworkers. Andrew Deeney, now sole director and shareholder of regulated IFA firm Fidelis Wealth Management, claims he has no relation to these investments.

No one wants to take the blame for these mis-sold investments. Yet all involved would have contributed to the demise of the pension funds – and earned fees and commissions along the way.

Transfers into self-invested personal pensions (SIPPS) dominated the pension transfer market in 2017, accounting for 51 percent of all transfers. It is worrying to consider what percentage of that figure is being transferred into unregulated, toxic investments.

The problem with pension scammers is that they are very good at disguising themselves. They wear smart clothes, they are friendly, knowledgeable and very very persuasive. They have a series of different scams disguised as a great investment – when one collapses they move onto another, just as Andrew Deeney has and the infamous Stephen Ward.

The first way of avoiding a possible scam is to reject all cold calling.

Never take a ‘free’ review on your pension.

Always check that the advisers and companies are regulated

Make sure you know ALL the facts

Low-risk high return investment – THEY DO NOT EXIST

Too good to be true – it probably is

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

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
A win for the FCA against Capital Alternatives
Pension Life is pleased to report that the FCA has woken up long enough to do a spot of regulating and has won an important case over the promotion of unregulated investment schemes. The firm flogging the schemes, Capital Alternatives, must pay back nearly £17m to investors.

The FCA alleged that Capital Alternatives used “false, misleading and deceptive statements” to lure unsuspecting investors into four toxic, high-risk investments (scams) between 2009 and 2013. Capital Alternatives, ran investment schemes/scams involving rice farm harvests in Sierra Leone and carbon credits across Sierra Leone, Brazil and Australia.

In reality, Capital Alternatives sold more land to investors than it actually owned.

Court proceedings have been taking place since July 2013, with The High Court deciding in February 2014 that the schemes/scams were collective investment schemes which could not be lawfully operated by the defendants. Since this date defendants have been appealing the decision.

It must be highlighted that Capital Alternatives are not the only defendants involved in this case. This is perhaps why proceedings have taken so long. In fact, the FCA stated that there are a staggering 15 more defendants involved in this case.

The FCA lists the defendants:
1. Capital Alternatives Limited
2. Capital Secretarial Limited
3. Capital Organisation Limited
4. Capital Administration Services Limited
5. MH Trustees Limited
6. Marcia Hargous
7. Renwick Haddow
8. Richard Henstock (case settled)
9. African Land Limited
10. Robert McKendrick
11. Alan Meadowcroft
12. Regency Capital Limited
13. Reforestation Projects Limited
14. Mark Ayres/Eyres
15. Mark Gibbs
16. the estate of David Waygood (case settled).
The eighth and sixteenth defendants settled their cases previously and have paid £33,000 and £200,000 towards compensation for the investors. The FCA has received this money and will hold it until the Court issue further directions to the FCA about the return of money to victims.

The bad news for investors in Capital Alternatives, is that the High Court’s decision is still open to appeal. The FCA can proceed to obtain monies from the Defendants only when no further appeals are made. In the meantime, the FCA is seeking new injunctions restraining the assets of some of the defendants. We sincerely hope this means there will be some funds left to be returned to the victims of this scam.

But it would be better news if the other 14 defendants find it in their conscience to settle out of court and put the victims out of their misery. It is terrible to find out that you have put hard-earned money into high-risk, illiquid or even worthless investments.

FCA Director of Enforcement Mark Steward has been reported as saying:

“This judgment should send a clear message to all of those who use corporate facades to sell dubious investments. We will do what it takes to hold them to account for their misconduct.

We are acutely aware from experience that the risk to investors who deal with unauthorised firms is that most, if not all, investors are likely only to get a fraction of their money back.

Consumers should recognise that there are huge risks involved when investing with unauthorised businesses.”

Investors should be aware that investments into sustainable/renewable energies, farming and recycling schemes are favorites of scammers. They entice you in with promises of your investment being good for the environment. However, they are rarely good for your pocket. James Hay and Elysian Bio fuel is one example of toxic investment using biofuels as a lure.

In Novemeber 2017 we also wrote about the SFOs letter to Frank Field. The letter highlighted cases of prosecutions against pensions fraud.

Sustainable Agroenergy (SAE) Plc: investors were told their investments were in biofuel products, that land was owned in Cambodia and planted with Jatropha trees – a tree with highly toxic fruit that could be used to produce biofuel. At the time of sale, there was already evidence to show that the product was neither sustainable nor profitable.

New Earth Recycling fund – an investment scam promoted by a number of dodgy firms including Robert Parker of Holborn Assets and Paul Herd of Elite Wealth Management. This high-risk, toxic investment offered big fat introduction commissions. The introducers were the only ones to profit from this investment.

The BARRATT AND DALTON PENSION SCAM: – one couple fell victim to this scam despite being advised by their pension provider that it could be a scam. They received a lump sum and were told their pension was invested in truffle trees. After reporting the case to the police, they were later informed that their lump sum was from their own funds and HMRC promptly served them with a large tax bill.

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

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
Alan Kentish of STM Groups delivers news of record profits for 2017
QROPS provider STM Group’s Alan Kentish, is delighted to deliver reports of record profits for 2017. I wonder how delighted the victims of his previous scam, the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund, are to hear this. I think we’d be more delighted to hear that Kentish planned to pay all the victims of this investment fraud (currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office) full compensation for their losses.

The company, STM Fidecs, which has recently moved its head office to the UK from Gibraltar, says its annual profits grew last year by 43% after the introduction of a new SIPPS.

Kentish went on to say,

“Moving into 2018, we have a solid recurring revenue platform on which to look to launch new products and to expand our distribution network as part of a strategy to make our business even more robust.”

In our opinion, there is nothing robust about Kentish and his various dodgy products. And the Gibraltar regulator shares our opinion as well as our concerns. In a letter dated 6.11.2017, the GFSC wrote to the directors of STM Fidecs about their concerns following a series of onsite visits:

“COMPLIANCE: effectiveness and oversight of the company’s internal compliance functions; high turnover of staff in compliance officer and money laundering regulatory officer roles; general suitability and experience of compliance staff.

PROFESSIONAL TRUSTEE SERVICES: level and nature of due diligence when accepting new QROPS business and whether legal and regulatory obligations were being met; nature of investments e.g. the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund linked to serious customer detriment and fraud”

The Gibraltar regulator appointed three partners of forensic investigators CVR Global LLP to inspect and investigate the affairs of STM Fidecs. The deadline for completion of this inspection is end of March 2018 and the GFSC has warned that:
- a person who wilfully makes a statement or furnishes information knowing it to be untrue;
- a person who refuses to supply information or cooperate with an inspector
is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment.

I wonder if any of STM’s fat profits will be used to help balance the heavy losses made by the company’s past “mistakes”. At the height of the success of the Trafalgar Multi Asset investment scam, STM Fidecs was accepting more than £1 million a month from UK residents (none of whom should have transferred into a QROPS at all) and allowing it all to be invested in XXXX XXXX’s illegal UCIS.

I find it very hard to swallow that Kentish can continue to offer his “products” to unsuspecting future victims – given his murky past record. Kentish has stated “I look forward to updating the market on our developments during the year.” But has he updated the Trafalgar victims about the development of their lost funds being recouped? No he has not. He has just scraped his past misdemeanors under the carpet and hoped they will be forgotten.

After his arrest in October 2017, Kentish was released without charge and was fully backed by the STM board. (They are obviously a load of crooked clowns who are no better than Kentish himself). He has, also, been given the green light to further his venture into offering legal SIPPS wrappers to clients, that have the potential to contain high-risk, toxic investments. The results of which may well leave even more unsuspecting victims’ pension funds in tatters.

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

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.
March 29, 2018
Better Protection Against QROPS Pension Scams from PLIG

Here at Pension Life, we are well aware of QROPS and SIPPs providers being a favorite of the serial pension scammers and are very pleased to report that there is positive news of better protection against this, on the horizon.

Three years ago the Pension Liberation Industry Group (PLIG) launched a code of practice to protect retail investors from serial scammers. Whilst the code of practice managed to help towards the eradication of the big occupational scams, the serial scammers altered their gameplay and continued to score. Serial scammers are focusing on using SIPPS and QROPS providers as a way to lure unsuspecting victims into toxic, high risk investments. Legal “envelopes” with corrupt contents.

Fortunately, the PLIG has finally recognised this change of tactic and has now announced that it will be updating the code of practice to reflect the new tactics of scammers, with the hope of reducing the number of pension scam victims.

Despite this welcome positive news, I still can’t shake the idea that this updated code of practice by PLIG, is possibly too little too late. The situation with James Hay springs to mind. James Hay – the UK´s largest SIPP provider – has announced losses in 2017. James Hay was also involved in the pension liberation scam with Elysian, in which around 500 clients put £55m into Elysian Bio Fuels. The business failed in 2015.

The business failed in 2015 after SIPPS – including James Hay – had already been misused to lure in pension scam victims. This is just one of many such scams (off the top of my head). Believe me, there are many, many more similar to this – that have scammed unsuspecting victims out of millions of pounds’ worth of pension funds and into crippling tax charges.

Darren Cooke, a chartered financial planner at Derbyshire-based Red Circle Financial Planning, launched a petition to the government to ban cold calling in 2017, argued that it wasn’t new that Qrops had been “a favourite” of pension scammers.

He was quoted as saying: “The new Qrops legislation that was introduced in the budget [last year] has reduced scams a bit. So, to some extent, revisions are a little behind the curve. I actually think scammers are switching back to using SIPPS and [small self-administered schemes] SSAS again.”

We welcome this new code from the PLIG, however we can’t agree more with Darren Cooke who also stated, that the FCA needs to regulate the products and not just the advisers.

“As soon as the FCA [starts] regulating the product, it would stop regulated advisers recommending unregulated products. That would stop 99 per cent of scams.”

A small step in the right direction, where a huge leap needs to be made.

Dear FCA,

If you really want to stop pension scamming in its tracks:

BAN COLD CALLING

REGULATE THE PRODUCTS

PROSECUTE THE SERIAL SCAMMERS – ALL OF THEM!

Many thanks

Pension Life

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

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.

March 27, 2018
SALMON ENTERPRISES TAX TRIBUNAL VERDICT

SALMON ENTERPRISES TAX TRIBUNAL VERDICT:

The Salmon Enterprises victims will have to wait until after Easter for the verdict on the Salmon Enterprises Tax Tribunal appeal. This will be a very anxious time for the victims of James Lau – currently under criminal investigation – and the directors of Tudor Capital Management currently serving eight-year jail sentences for cheating the Public Revenue and money laundering offences.

The anxiety will inevitably be shared by the Ark victims – as HMRC now want to push ahead with the Tax Tribunal appeals as well (after seven years of dithering). The Salmon Enterprises determination may well have an impact on the Ark appeal so there will be hundreds of people desperate for news after Easter.

In the Salmon Enterprises appeal heard in London on Tuesday 20th March, HMRC was represented by Charles Bradley of Pump Court Tax Chambers. A distinguished and gentlemanly young barrister with a double first in history at Cambridge, it remains to be seen whether his arguments for HMRC’s case based on interpretation of legislation and authorities will outweigh our arguments for justice and morality. Perhaps history will surprise us all after Easter.

I would like to pay tribute to the dignity and courage of the appellants at the Salmon Enterprises hearing. Having traveled down from the north of England, and spent many days preparing themselves mentally and intellectually for the ordeal before them, my heart went out to them both. A teacher and an IT analyst, both victims had worked hard all their lives and led exemplary lives before falling victim to this scam at the hands of criminals.

These two appellants – like the Ark victims – have endured years of worry and damage to their health since they were scammed in 2011. I was immensely proud of them as they stood in the witness box and represented, effectively, all victims of the Salmon Enterprises and Ark cases.

As I listened to the case put forward by HMRC, and the testimony of their witness, the words of Margaret Snowdon (speaking at the Transparency Task Force Symposium in November 2017) kept ringing in my ears:

“It is morally wrong to impose tax penalties on victims of fraud”.

Margaret was appointed an OBE in 2010 and has, uniquely, for six years running been named as one of the Top 50 Influential People in Pensions and was awarded for her outstanding contribution to the pensions industry by the PMI in 2012.

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

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.

March 25, 2018
OMI complaint
COMPLAINT TO OMI, THE ISLE OF MAN FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, THE CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN AND THE ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL LIFE OFFICES

ATTENTION:

Martin Middleton, CEO

Michael Hampson
Complaints Handler | Complaints Team | Old Mutual International

T: 44 (0) 1624 655451 | Int Ext: 75451
F: 44 (0) 1624 611715
E: omifmcomplaints@ominternational.com | W: www.oldmutualinternational.com

Isle of Man Financial Services Authority
PO Box 58
Finch Hill House
Douglas
Isle of Man
IM99 1DT

info@iomfsa.im

GeneralMailbox.ATG@gov.im

Central Bank of Ireland:

enquiries@centralbank.ie

Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman

Lincoln House, Lincoln Place, Dublin 2, D02 VH29. Tel: (01) 567 7000 Email: info@fspo.ie Website: www.fspo.ie

AILO – Association of International Life Offices

secretariat@ailo.org

COMPLAINT REGARDING OMI’S NEGLIGENCE, FAILED GOVERNANCE AND FACILITATION OF FINANCIAL CRIME – European Executive Investment Bond (EEIB)

OMI has facilitated financial crime over a period of many years; stood by while innocent victims’ retirement savings were destroyed; paid huge commissions to an unlicensed (and illegal in Spain) firm of scammers; continued charging crippling fees while victims’ funds dwindled away; extorted early exit penalties from victims unfairly and unreasonably; failed to take any action to stem the torrent of huge losses of millions of pounds’ worth of retirement savings for many years. And now it is failing to uphold the victims’ complaints.

OMI has been in receipt of a number of complaints (and will be in receipt of numerous further ones) regarding their negligence and facilitation of financial crime in offshore financial services. OMI has not upheld these complaints – and indeed has neglected to grasp the extent of their own multiple failings and errors.

The existing complaints do relate to serious regulatory breaches and fraud – as well as failing to adhere to OMI’s own terms and conditions. Much of the fraud was caused by the financial advisory firm: Continental Wealth Trust (which traded as Continental Wealth Management). However, the firm’s fraud was only successful because OMI facilitated it.

The complaints submitted to date include:
- That investments were made into high-risk professional-investor-only funds. Many of these failed and caused huge losses to victims’ funds.
- That OMI paid commissions/fees to CWM who not only held no investment licence – but also held no license of any kind.
- As a result of the huge, un-disclosed commission paid to CWM – an unlicensed firm – OMI imposes crippling early surrender charges on the victims.
OMI has responded that they are “very sympathetic to victims’ concerns” and has responded that it appreciates what a very worrying time this must be for those who have lost such huge amounts of their life savings.

OMI has also stated that the roles and responsibilities of all the parties involved with this fraud have got to be clarified. However, OMI claims – entirely disingenuously – it does not want victims to get the feeling it is trying to distance itself from the grievances.

In order to address what it refers to as “concerns”, OMI has attempted to “explain” matters. The use of the word “concerns” is obviously a really crass clanger on the part of OMI, since the victims are absolutely not just CONCERNED – they are furious, terrified and devastated at their dreadful losses. Some victims are suicidal, and many have had their health seriously compromised.

OMI has described the EEIB as being held by the trustee for the benefit of a member of their pension scheme, enabling policyholders to hold a “wide range of investments in one tax-efficient product wrapper”. OMI goes on to claim that policyholders and their investment advisers “have complete flexibility over the investments they place inside the EEIB”.

Some or all of the above may be true. However, that does not make it right that OMI has allowed unlicensed advisers to place clearly unsuitable investments inside their wrappers. Further, it does not make it right that OMI then stood by and watched the investments fail for many years AND DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EXCEPT KEEP ON TAKING FEES BASED ON THE ORIGINAL VALUE – AND NOT THE REDUCED VALUE OF THE FUND.

OMI claims that it reviews all investments to ensure they meet Irish regulatory requirements, and their own administration requirements.

If this is indeed true, it is a very serious indictment of the Irish regulator if their requirements are so appallingly lax. What OMI seems to be claiming is that both the Central Bank of Ireland and OMI have such low standards that they will allow low-risk pension savers to have their retirement funds invested purely in high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes. If this is true, then the regulator is as bad as OMI in condoning an investment strategy which has no regard for suitability, liquidity, diversity and risk tolerance.

In fact, the Central Bank of Ireland has stated that it carried out a review of suitability requirements in 2017 and found that: “governance structures for the identification and treatment of vulnerable clients were absent or ineffective”. The CWM victims were about as vulnerable as it was possible to get – as their retirement savings were systematically and inexorably destroyed. And OMI’s governance structure was about as absent and ineffective as it is possible to get while it stood by and didn’t even bother to raise a red flag on the whole disaster as it unfolded.

There was no jangling of alarm bells as OMI watched millions of pounds wiped out. There was no expression of concern that the same toxic structured notes which had failed in earlier years were bought again and again by the same unlicensed scammers. There was no governance to protect new vulnerable victims from having their funds destroyed from 2015 onwards in the same way hundreds of victims had suffered in previous years.

OMI has claimed that customers/their appointed advisers are responsible for the suitability assessment and selection of the investments held in the policy – and that “it is important that customers read the prospectus/offering documents of investments carefully, before making any investment decisions”. However, OMI watched wholesale destruction taking place inside its own wrappers and took no action. Had OMI asked a few simple questions they would have found the following:
1. The victims were being advised by a known firm of scammers which had been involved in cold calling in the Evergreen pension liberation scam in 2012
2. The victims were being advised by a firm which was not licensed at all – for anything
3. The victims had ALL insisted they wanted either low risk or no risk investments as they could not afford to lose any part of their retirement savings
4. The victims had no idea their retirement savings were being invested in high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes
5. The victims’ signatures were repeatedly forged on the dealing instructions
6. The victims were duped into a false sense of security when losses started to be reported on their statements by the scammers claiming these were not genuine losses but only “paper losses”
7. The victims had no idea how high the charges and commissions were as these were not disclosed either by the scammers or by OMI
8. The victims were not consulted as to whether they wanted or needed an entirely useless and exorbitantly expensive insurance bond
9. The victims were unaware that tied agents are illegal in Spain
10. The victims were unaware of the huge fees and commissions which were concealed by both the scammers and OMI
OMI claims that term 12 of the EEIB policy terms states that it is the policyholder who bears the risk of investment. But then OMI goes on to assert that the policyholder was the trustee who would be classed as a professional investor.

So OMI has got to make up its mind – it has already stated that: “customers/their appointed advisers are responsible for the suitability assessment and selection of the investments held in the policy”. So who is the customer? The victim or the trustee? And whom did the adviser advise – the customer or the trustee? Or OMI?

OMI goes on to refer to term 11.4 of the policy which confirms that it may allow investment into professional or experienced investor funds because it owns the investments held within the EEIB, rather than the policyholder.

So, who gave the advice and to whom? OMI can’t seem to make up its mind who the customer is: the victim; the trustee or OMI itself. If OMI is the customer, why is it charging the victim fees?

OMI goes on to quote policy term 11.4.1 – which apparently clearly highlights that professional-investor-only funds carry a high degree of risk. So who is taking the risk? The victim, the trustee or OMI?

Let us ask ourselves, where did the original funds come from? Not the trustee; not OMI; but the victim.

OMI then procedes to claim that it will “only accept applications via regulated financial advisers”. But Inter-Alliance was not licensed to provide investment advice – or indeed insurance advice. CWM was not licensed either. So why did OMI accept applications from unlicensed advisors (who were also known scammers)? Also, OMI failed to identify that tied (insurance) agents are illegal in Spain – so it shouldn’t have been dealing with them at all – let alone paying them huge commissions.

OMI states that CWM was a member of Inter-Alliance WorldNet, and obtained their authorization to act via that membership. But this is not true – Inter-Alliance was not licensed and therefore neither was CWM. The application form may, in some cases, have confirmed the appointment of CWM as investment adviser with full discretion – but why didn’t OMI check that CWM was licensed? In fact, most of the victims were under the impression that they would be consulted on the investments and that their risk tolerance would be respected – but this never happened in any of the cases.

OMI goes on to claim that CWM was able to submit investment instructions directly to OMI, without consulting the trustees. But that isn’t true either: dealing instructions were sent to the trustees first, and then the trustees sent on new instructions. How can OMI not even know how its own internal systems work?

OMI concludes that it is sorry the complaining investor is “disappointed with the performance of some of the investments selected by CWM” and then goes on to claim the investments “met the criteria for a permitted asset under the EEIB policy terms”.

So who at OMI was responsible for writing and updating EEIB policy terms? Did this person not notice the losses repeatedly decimating the funds? Did this person not see the same investment failures repeating in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017? Did this person not question whether the policy terms ought to be revised somewhat? The answer to these questions is, inevitably, a resounding and disgraceful “NO”.

OMI is now refusing to refund or waive early withdrawal charges on the basis that CWM was an appointed investment adviser. This is because OMI initially paid a big chunk of commission to CWM – an unlicensed adviser and known scammer. If a victim wants to get out of the toxic, pointless insurance wrapper, in order to put a stop to the exorbitant fees taken quarterly out of the fund – and based on the original value rather than the decimated value of the fund – he basically has to refund the commission OMI paid to the scammers.

The victims remain dissatisfied with OMI’s response, and the complaint is now being referred to the Irish Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. OMI has deliberately misunderstood and overlooked every aspect of the victims’ complaints and failed to address even the most basic issues surrounding OMI’s failures and negligence.

OMI has facilitated financial crime over a period of many years; stood by while innocent victims’ retirement savings were destroyed; paid huge commissions to an unlicensed (and illegal in Spain) firm of scammers; continued charging crippling fees while victims’ funds dwindled away; extorted early exit penalties from victims unfairly and unreasonably; failed to take any action to stem the torrent of huge losses of millions of pounds’ worth of retirement savings for many years. And now it is failing to uphold the victims’ complaints.
February 22, 2018