Tag: Pension Life

Celtic Wealth Management BRIBED British Steelworkers

Just a few weeks ago we reported on Mike Pickett, the first British Steelworker – SIPPS pension scam victim. But now there is more shocking news on Celtic Wealth Management – the culprits behind this toxic transfer which found victims’ pension funds put in danger in February of this year.

It would seem Celtic “advisers” were so desperate to nab victims that they bribed them with sporting event tickets.

New Model Adviser revealed one victim showed them a text message that Celtic Wealth had sent him:

The text, which appears to be sent from Celtic Wealth representative Liam Powell and is dated 7 November 2017, states: ‘Hope you’re keeping well, wondering if you would like 2 complimentary tickets for Ospreys home match this Friday evening. If you’d be kind enough to let me know that would be great. Regards Liam Celtic.’

The victim then informed them that other colleagues had been offered tickets to see football team Swansea City play in the Premier League.

I guess Celtic Wealth was aiming at covering both sporting sides to ensure they had a wider range of victims to bribe. This tactic may also have distracted victims from the fact that they were an unregulated company meaning they were not authorised to provide investment advice to anyone – ever. Even with free sporting tickets!

Active Wealth, which WAS an authorised company, was also involved in this SIPPS scandal with Celtic Wealth Management. Celtic acted as “introducers” and gave talks to the British Steelworkers – and the bribes – which I’m also informed included plates of sausage and chips. Active Wealth, an authorised firm, completed the pension transfers.

Active Wealth has now surrendered it’s pension transfer permissions following FCA action in relation to the advice given to these steelworkers.

Malta has just announced that they will be changing their regulations surrounding pension advisers, stating that NO unauthorised advisory firms will be able to introduce investors to regulated trustee firms. Isn’t it a shame that this is all a little too late for the victims of unregulated introducers. Furthermore, this only applies to Malta – for the time being. The British regulator would do well to bring in similar rules – as well as 28 further countries on HMRC’s QROPS list. Firmer regulation like this would stop unregulated firms like Celtic Wealth Management from up-selling toxic pension advice.

We will be waiting in the stands, wringing our hands anxiously, waiting for any more fall out from the British Steel case. British Steelworkers were, sadly, sitting ducks for these unregulated foxes like Celtic Wealth.

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

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, get all the information in writing and get a third party to check the details.

If you have been the victim of a scam hear how Pension Life member Jessica M.J. who lost two thirds of her pension to Continental Wealth Management, talks about dealing with stress.

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

April 30, 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

Holborn Assets “Smere Campaign”

Oh dear, Holborn Assets has fallen at the first fence – even before I’ve started the race! You couldn’t make it up. And typical of scammers, Holborn Assets is very concerned about the interests of their company and their profits, but couldn’t care less about the victims it has ruined.

This Leahy guy can’t even spell “smear”. But then he can’t spell “leaky” either – so what do you expect?

Leaky claims to have “over 17 years extensive knowledge of Operations, Technology, Space Management, Strategic Planning, Implementation of Facilities Management Applications, Project Management and Web Design”. I guess all that multi-tasking didn’t leave a lot of spare time for learning the English language. (And remind me never to use him to design my website).

Anyway, apart from the fact that this is a big advantage for Guardian Wealth Management (the equivalent of getting a much lighter jockey and a few oats before the race), this will sort the men from the boys at Holborn Assets. Those who have no conscience, ethics, spine, guts or balls will “un-friend” me as instructed. But those with strength of character will question whether they really want to be associated with a firm that routinely destroys clients’ life savings. The smart ones will realise that having “Holborn Assets” anywhere on their CV will be the kiss of death to their career.

Interestingly, I had an email from a chap this weekend who explained that he and a number of his colleagues had left the firm last year. He was very discreet about the reasons, but it was clear he was smart enough to see the writing on the wall and get out before his personal reputation was damaged. Who knows – maybe he even works for Guardian Wealth Management now?

I know which horse my money’s on!

From: Gerry Leahy <gerry.leahy@holbornassets.com>
Date: 22 April 2018 at 14:22:44 GMT+8
To: holborn_all@holbornassets.com
Subject: [Holborn All] LinkedIn request from Angela Brooks
Dear All,Many of you may have received an invitation to connect with someone called Angela Brooks.Please ignore this request and if you have already connected please disconnect immediately.This person is spearheading a smere campaign against the company and we are looking at our options including legal.Regards

Gerry J Leahy B Sc (Eng) C Eng

Chief Information Officer| Holborn Assets

Level 15 | Al Shafar Tower 1

Barsha Heights | Dubai, UAE

P.O. Box 333851

Tel: +971 4 457 3800

Fax: +971 4 457 3999

gerry.leahy@holbornassets.com

www.holbornassets.com

April 22, 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
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
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
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
EVERGREEN RETIREMENT TRUST QROPS SCAM

EVERGREEN RETIREMENT TRUST QROPS SCAM – HOW DID IT ALL WORK?

Victims were cold called by Continental Wealth Management (CWM) and duped into transferring their UK pensions into the Evergreen New Zealand QROPS on the promise that they could access 50% of their pension. CWM acted as the “sister” company to Stephen Ward’s Premier Pension Solutions (PPS).

Once the 300+ victims had been sold this idea – on the promise by pensions “expert” Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions that the 50% in cash would not be taxable – the transfers went ahead. More than £10 million pounds’ worth.

CWM assured the victims that the 50% cash would not be taxable because the scheme was set up and run by international pensions expert and author of the Tolleys Pensions Taxation manual Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions.

Once the transfer had gone ahead, and the victims were eagerly awaiting their 50% in cash (albeit having to pay 10% in fees for the privilege), they then started to chase up their cash. There were delays after delays.

After many weeks of frustration, the victims were then told they had to apply for a loan. They were told that this was merely a formality – paperwork to ensure that the cash would not be taxable by HMRC. And they were sent loan application forms from a company called Marazion – Stephen Ward’s company in Cyprus.

Victims were then forced to sign a five-year Marazion loan agreement. And forced to sign a five-year Evergreen “lock in”. Clearly, this was designed to stop victims from transferring out of Evergreen before their Marazion “loans” were paid off.

Evergreen recently sent out a notice to victims advising them the Evergreen Scheme is being wound up. (Surprise surprise!!). Here is the Evergreen notice with my comments in bold:

Evergreen Retirement Trust – closure and winding up

We are writing to inform you that the Evergreen Retirement Trust (“ERT”) is being closed and wound up with effect from Friday, 6 April 2018. So why, just days earlier, were you writing to victims to tell them could take their 30% tax-free lump sum and transfer out? You knew this day and the winding up would eventually take place – and why as well as when. And yet you have misled and distressed a large number of your victims knowingly and intentionally.

Why is ERT being wound up? We all know exactly why ERT is being wound up. HMRC realised that the scheme was operating pension liberation fraud in partnership with Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions early on – in 2012 – so removed it from the QROPS list in November 2012. Your Manager’s Report for the year ended 31.3.16 refers to “concerns raised by HMRC” but you do not disclose the fact that you had been caught and the scheme removed from the QROPS list as a result. The other reason the fund is being wound up is that you have run out of excuses now the five-year lock-in period is up. In your Manager’s Report, you claim that service contracts were entered into by Evergreen Retirement Trust for admin, trustee and other services which have minimum fixed fees. But you have never provided evidence of these alleged “contracts” – nor have you explained why you have carried on paying these unaffordable costs. You have been trying to obscure the fact that 41% of the underlying assets of the fund were in Penrich and Spectrum and that this is where the loan funds came from. You have for years tried to pretend that you knew nothing about the Marazion loans. But the original trustee – Perpetual Trust – even had a virtually identical logo to Marazion!

We have been considering the future of ERT for some time. Despite our best efforts, ERT has not been as successful as we had originally hoped. This is the understatement of the century surely? Best efforts? I would really hate to see your worst efforts. You’ve spent the last five years telling members they can’t transfer out because of the five-year term Marazion loans – and knowing all along that you were always going to wind the scheme up because there was nothing to be done about at least 41% of the scheme being in illegal loans using Penrich and Spectrum funds – the underlying assets of the scheme.

The main reasons for this have been the inability to attract new membership into ERT and the increased compliance costs arising from transition to the new, more rigorous, Financial Markets Conduct Act regulatory framework that now applies to it. And what exactly did the “more rigorous regulatory framework” say about the scheme operating pension liberation fraud as part of the scheme?

Although we explored a number of avenues to resolve these issues, we ultimately determined that it would be in members’ best interests for ERT to be wound up and the scheme brought to a close. What would have been in the members’ best interests would have been to allow the members to transfer out several years ago when we first asked Evergreen for transfers. It is clear from your own accounts that you have indeed allowed 10 people to transfer out £500k worth of funds last year – presumably these were people without Marazion loans?

What happens next? Until 6 April 2018, ERT will continue as normal and you will have the same rights and benefits as before. On and from 6 April 2018, the assets in your member account will be realised and the proceeds paid into your nominated bank account after the deduction of applicable fees, expenses and any taxes in respect of the winding up process. So for people under the age of 55, you are proposing triggering an unauthorised payment which would be taxed at 55% by HMRC? Unbelievable.

A final set of scheme financial statements will be prepared, audited and sent to all members, and the relevant regulatory notifications will be filed. So how are you going to account for the Marazion loans? You must surely realise that this is a huge problem and you can’t just keep ignoring it and pretending you weren’t involved in this aspect of the scam.

To allow this process to occur in an orderly fashion, members will not be able to request transfers (except as set out below) or make further contributions, and benefit payments will be put on hold pending the final distribution of wind up proceeds. So how are you going to account for the Marazion loans? How will these be factored into the wind-up proceeds?

Some of the scheme’s assets are illiquid and as a consequence the winding up process could take some time. Why on earth are any of the assets illiquid? No pension scheme assets should be illiquid. You have been dealing with this matter for more than five years and you always knew that there was a purported five-year lock-in, timed to coincide with the five-year term of the Marazion loans. So why on earth invest in illiquid assets?

Based on current market conditions, we expect the winding-up process to be fully completed and a final distribution to be made around December 2019. So what you are saying is that you never intended to honour the five-year lock-in in the first place. You wanted a seven-year lock-in so that you could continue to hide the Marazion loans.

Prior to the final distribution of wind up proceeds, partial distributions may be made as assets are realised, provision for anticipated costs are made and as such funds become available to make those partial distributions. In 2016 you purchased £5.87 million worth of assets. Why – in the full knowledge that you were going to wind the fund up a couple of years later – did you buy illiquid assets?

What are my options? Unless you advise us otherwise by 6 June 2018, you will receive your winding up proceeds in cash to the bank account nominated in accordance with the requirements noted below once the winding up process above has been completed. For members under the age of 55, you cannot do this as it will trigger an unauthorised payment and the victims will get taxed at 55%.

For members who have not been tax resident outside the UK for five clear and consecutive UK tax years, receiving winding up proceeds in cash could have adverse UK tax consequences. We are therefore offering members the option of having their winding up proceeds transferred to another QROPS or registered UK pension scheme instead of being paid directly in cash. But you are asking other trustees to accept in specie transfers of unknown provenance (by your own admission at least half of the fund is illiquid) and with at least 40% of the fund subject to a fund which provided the Marazion loans.

These members are strongly encouraged to obtain professional tax advice from an independent and qualified UK tax adviser before making any decision. Of course they do – including tax advice on the 50% Marazion “loans” which you facilitated and of which you have always been not only aware but in which you have been complicit.

If you wish to have wind-up proceeds transferred to another scheme you will need to provide us with notification by 6 June 2018. And which “other scheme” is going to accept illiquid – possibly toxic – assets bought by a clearly inept and irresponsible trustee which has also facilitated pension liberation? Any members with a Marazion loan will be deemed to be “high risk” by any new pension trustee and a mechanism for repayment of the loan will need to be put in place.

Please note that transfer of the assets will occur over time, in line with the distribution of the funds to other members. What do I need to do? If you have been tax resident outside the UK for five or more clear and consecutive tax years then all you need to do is provide us with updated proof of identity and address documentation together with official bank documentation evidencing a nominated bank account held in your name (see the Appendix to this letter for more details about this requirement). But that only applies to those over the age of 55 and without a Marazion loan presumably?

Once that documentation has been provided, you will receive your winding up proceeds into your nominated bank account as funds become available through the winding up process. You will also receive copies of the final audited financial statements in due course. Do you mean once you have figured out how to account for the Marazion loans funded by Penrich and Spectrum?

If you have not been tax resident outside the UK for five complete and consecutive UK years, we strongly encourage you to seek professional tax advice from an independent qualified UK tax adviser. You should then advise us whether you wish to receive your winding up proceeds in cash, or transfer your member account to another QROPS or registered UK pension scheme. So what are you going to do if no trustee will accept an in specie transfer and the members are under the age of 55?

If you still wish to receive your proceeds in cash, you will need to provide us with the documentation (including official bank documentation evidencing a nominated bank account held in your name) referred to in the previous paragraph. In either case, if you wish to transfer your member account to another QROPS or registered UK pension scheme, please advise us before 6 June 2018 and we will send you the relevant transfer forms. It is now clear, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you must immediately account for the Marazion loans and show how these are accounted for in the scheme accounts. You have avoided this question for several years and now is the time finally to come clean.

If the trustee of the other scheme agrees, a proportion of your transfer to that scheme might comprise a transfer of underlying investments of ERT, as well as cash. I doubt any receiving scheme will be thrilled at the thought of accepting any of ERT’s underlying investments in the full knowledge that approaching 50% of the original transfers were given out in fraudulent “loans”.

Please be aware that all payments made out of the scheme, including in the winding up process, are required to be reported to HM Revenue & Customs.

Who should I contact with questions? If you have any questions about the winding up process, you can contact our customer services team by email at transfers@evergreentrust.co.nz, by telephone on +64 3 974 1505 or by post to PO Box 36270, Merivale, Christchurch 8146. Please note that we do not provide financial advice or tax advice. Yours sincerely, The Directors Evergreen Capital Partners Limited So, will Evergreen finally answer the questions about the Marazion loans? Fully and transparently? I doubt it. And I would like to remind Evergreen that scammers are criminals.

April 11, 2018
BLACKMORE BOND – SHAKEN OR STIRRED – CARELESS OR STUPID?

In the wake of hundreds of victims fearing heavy pension losses in the Blackmore Global fund, we now have another disaster waiting to happen: Blackmore Bond.

This new threat to unwary investors has been analysed by Bond Review. Just to be clear, many people were duped into investing their pensions in the Blackmore Global UCIS fund – which has never published an independent audit. We now have a second threat offered by Phillip Nunn and Patrick McCreesh. Blackmore Bond PLC is promoting these unregulated, capital-at-risk bonds which purport to pay up to 8.5% per annum – but with potential for total loss. How many more people will this high-risk bond ruin financially?

BLACKMORE BOND – SHAKEN OR STIRRED – CARELESS OR STUPID?

Bond Review raises an intriguing question: how come Paul Careless and Surge Group have got involved with Nunn and McCreesh? Unless he has been careless (pun intended), Careless looks to have an unblemished past and Surge (in Brighton) looks to be a bona fide company.

In 2017, Careless’ company Surge Group offered £3,000 in sponsorship to the Kent Police rugby team. This was accepted, but then he tried to change the sponsor from Surge Group to Blackmore Bond. And Blackmore Global started claiming on their website to be “Proud supporters of Kent Police Rugby Team”. So why would Careless – himself an ex-police officer – try to con the police and also get into bed with Nunn and McCreesh?

Let us just remind ourselves that Messrs Nunn and McCreesh were the cold callers/lead generators in the Capita Oak and Henley Retirement Benefits scams which are now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. Nunn and McCreesh scammed/attempted to scam up to 300 victims a month for more than two years. Unsurprisingly, Kent Police declined the toxic offer to have any association between a law-enforcement agency and known scammers.

But here’s another puzzle: a geezer called Kenneth “Buzz” West also appears at first glance to be relatively harmless. He is a director of numerous companies – including European Wealth. The only stain on his reputation that I can find is that his former company, Ashcourt Rowan, was fined £412k by the FSA in 2012 for dodgy investments in his other company: Savoy Group. But Ashcourt Rowan held its hands up and paid the fine.

So why on earth would “Buzz” risk getting tangled up with Nunn and McCreesh? Buzz is now Chairman of two of their companies: Blackmore Group and Blackmore Bond. Unless his brains are shaken as well as stirred, he is committing professional suicide – knowingly and deliberately.

Or perhaps I am being too harsh. Maybe he has taken on the role of Chairman so that he can ensure that Blackmore Bond does not sell any toxic, high-risk products to low-risk victims; and also so that he can get the long-overdue Blackmore Global fund audit done. Maybe he also has plans to get the Blackmore Global victims compensated for their losses and distress suffered in the past couple of years.

We need to be very clear about Blackmore Global: it is a UCIS fund that was illegally promoted to retail investors in the UK and which unregulated David Vilka of Square Mile International was flogging to UK victims in the Hong Kong QROPS scam. This accounted for 64 victims with a combined transfer value of £1.6 million – all introduced by cold-calling firm Aspinall Chase – run by Nunn and McCreesh.

According to Companies House, Kenneth Buzz West is a Cypriot and resides in Cyprus.

It just so happens that I am going to Cyprus in a couple of weeks – so hopefully he will invite me for a wee drop of Zivania and Halloumi on toast. And once our whistles are whetted, we can discuss the Blackmore Global audit and compensation.

March 31, 2018
EVERGREEN – HARD-TO-SWALLOW, EVER-GRIM QROPS SCAM

EVERGREEN – HARD-TO-SWALLOW, EVER-GRIM QROPS

Why hard to swallow? Around 300 victims of this pension liberation scam are anxiously waiting to see whether they can ever get any of their fund out – and whether there is anything left of the original £10 million. A few victims have got out successfully over the past few years – but only those who did not have Stephen Ward’s 50% Marazion loans.

The 300 victims – most of whom were cold-called by Premier Pension Solutions’ “sister” company, Continental Wealth Management – have waited for an agonising five or six years to see whether they will ever see a penny out of their original retirement savings. For some (those who have reached the age of 55) the wait may soon be over.

A while back, the trust deed was changed – without the members’ agreement – so that nobody could access their rightful PCLS – tax-free 30% lump sum at age 55 (to which they are legally entitled) until the expiry of their “lock-in” period. These lock-ins were designed to prevent members from transferring out until their pension liberation loans had been settled – with the loan terms being five years.

The trust deed amendment included the five-year term being five complete tax years (as opposed to natural years) and the fact that after the initial 30% withdrawal, the remainder would be left in the Evergreen scheme to provide an “income for life”. This, of course, assumes there is anything left of the fund.

But, confusingly, Evergreen’s Simon Swallow is now saying that a member with a loan can indeed transfer out of the scheme altogether once the lock-in expiry date of 6th April 2018 has passed.

From: Simon Swallow <simon.swallow@chartersquare.co.nz>

Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 8:31:08 PM

To: Evergreen/Marazion Victim

Cc: Evergreen Trust – Transfers

Subject: Re: Evergreen Retirement Trust Annual Report

Dear Victim,

My apologies for the delay in responding to your email over the weekend. I have reviewed your email and my email sent previously. I apologise as I incorrectly stated that your lock-in would expire after 5 years in the scheme, however, the scheme documentation has the lock-in expiring at the end of 5 complete UK tax years (rather than 5 years membership in the scheme). Therefore, your lock-in will expire on 6 April 2018. The rules of the scheme will allow for you at that point to:

Withdraw 30% of the funds

Transfer the funds to another scheme

Or a combination of the above

I think that the prudent approach would therefore be for Evergreen to send you the necessary forms in February to effect a combination of the above options for you. This would include a withdrawal form (for the 30%) and a transfer out form for the remaining balance after the withdrawal. You will need to decide on another scheme to transfer the remaining balance to.

Kind regards

Simon

I have resisted the temptation to correct Swallow’s appalling English. Hopefully, my considerable restraint is appreciated. Best put our efforts into getting these victims out of this pile of Kiwi crap.

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

Tag: Pension Life

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.

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

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.

This Leahy guy can’t even spell “smear”. But then he can’t spell “leaky” either – so what do you expect?

I know which horse my money’s on!

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

“opportunistic”

“I do not recommend working here”

“Working at Guardian”

“Business Development Manager”

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.

“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”.

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.

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

BLACKMORE BOND – SHAKEN OR STIRRED – CARELESS OR STUPID?

So why on earth would “Buzz” risk getting tangled up with Nunn and McCreesh? Buzz is now Chairman of two of their companies: Blackmore Group and Blackmore Bond. Unless his brains are shaken as well as stirred, he is committing professional suicide – knowingly and deliberately.

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.

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.

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:

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.