Tag: Peter Bradley

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
COMPLAINT AGAINST PENSIONS REGULATOR
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PENSIONS REGULATOR

RE THE ARK (AND OTHER) PENSION SCHEMES

30.12.2016

From ANGELA BROOKS OF PENSION LIFE
1. BACKGROUND:
2. PENSIONS REGULATOR’S OBLIGATIONS AND OBJECTIVES:
3. ARK VICTIMS’ CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. BACKGROUND:
This official complaint is against the Pensions Regulator and other public bodies who were, or should have been, responsible for preventing pension scams and protecting the public. The Ark schemes were launched in 2010 by – among others – Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions S.L. and Premier Pension Transfers Ltd. The six Ark schemes had been registered by HMRC and the Pensions Regulator with no due diligence by either to establish whether the schemes had been set up with the specific purpose of operating pension liberation; whether they were bona fide occupational pension schemes set up by a sponsoring employer which intended to trade and provide employment; whether there was a competent trustee and board of trustees in place; whether there was a clear Statement of Investment Principles or whether there was ever any realistic prospect of the schemes providing member benefits.

At around the same time, a multi-million pound occupational pension scam was being vigorously promoted by James Lau of Wightman Fletcher McCabe while the administrators/trustees of the scheme, Andrew Meeson and Peter Bradley, were under criminal investigation for cheating the Public Revenue (and were subsequently jailed). Also, former barrister, solicitor and porn star Paul Baxendale-Walker was promoting a whole series of liberation scams unhindered by the authorities – despite having been firmly in the spotlight since 2007 as a passionate advocate of liberation. And KJK Investments/G Loans was a further liberation scheme flourishing at around the same time, having been started in 2009.

By the time Ark was getting well underway, tPR (formerly OPRA) was fully aware that liberation scams were proliferating and that the feeble warnings they had made back in 2002 about scams which had been operating as far back as 1997 had reached neither the public nor the industry effectively. In 1999, tPR had been investigating two scammers – Stephen Russell and William Ferguson – for a £6m pension fraud. The pair were jailed for five years in 2003.

In fact, tPR were fully aware that since 1999 pension scams were on the increase, and yet did not make it clear to ceding pension trustees what their statutory obligations were in respect of transferring victims into scams. On 13.7.2010, tPR Chair David Norgrove stated that: “Any administrator who simply ticks a box and allows the transfer, post July 2010, is failing in their duty as a trustee and as such are liable to compensate the beneficiary.” But pension trustees claim they never read that message (let alone heeded it) and that it was neither publicised nor distributed. Further, in the same year Tony King, the Pensions Ombudsman, reported that he had “found that pension trustees failed in carrying out serious fiduciary responsibilities to others in circumstances in which the law specifically states that they should not be protected from liability.” And still tPR did nothing. And the Pension Schemes Act 1993 was not amended to reflect the urgent need to protect the public.

The Scorpion Campaign was launched by tPR in 2013 after fifteen years of failing to warn trustees and the public, and omitting to make it clear to trustees what their statutory obligations were to pension scheme members. During this period, the pension scam industry matured into a deadly serious and well organised large-scale operation in the UK, with many new “players” coming into the arena having been trained by Stephen Ward, Paul Baxendale-Walker and other founders and pioneers of early scams.

It was – by the time Scorpion dribbled weakly and ineffectually into the arena – well known to tPR what the typical characteristics of pension scams were and what phrases and claims were habitually being made by the scammers to dupe their victims into signing over their gold-plated pensions into worthless, toxic schemes and being financial ruined. Among the many key phrases (such as “your pension is frozen”; “tax-free loan”; “guaranteed 8% returns” etc.), was the most powerful of all: “the scheme is HMRC approved”. There was, of course, no such thing as HMRC were as guilty of lazy, box-ticking negligence as the culpable ceding provider trustees (see separate complaint against HMRC). But to this day, tPR has done nothing to dispel this myth, and in fact even continues to help the scammers to this day by using the same incorrect phrase on its own website: “If you are required to register a scheme with TPR that does not require HMRC approval, please contact us.”

http://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/trustees/registering-new-schemes.aspx

Even by the time tPR had published the feeble Scorpion campaign in February 2013, the scammers acknowledged this was having a negligible effect on their various scams, and merely moved the goalposts a little to avoid detection. Capita Oak, Henley and Westminster continued to operate successfully beyond February 2013, but only a few ceding pension trustees either noticed Scorpion at all or took any steps to put into practice the minimal due diligence suggested by Scorpion.

In the full knowledge that Stephen Ward was one of the most prolific pension liberation scammers, tPR took no action to suspend any schemes in which he was involved. As a consequence, in August 2014, a Police officer was scammed out of his Police Pension by Ward’s Dorrixo Alliance and into the toxic London Quantum scheme. In fact, far from having any widespread effect, the multitude of scams continue to this day unaffected by tPR’s dismal attempts to protect and inform the public.
1. PENSIONS REGULATOR’S OBLIGATIONS AND OBJECTIVES:
According to their own website, tPR’s statutory objectives are set out in legislation and include promoting and improving understanding of the good administration of work-based pensions to protect member benefits. These objectives are detailed below with notes in bold.
- to protect the benefits of members of occupational pension schemes tPR has failed to do this and as a result of repeated failures over a period of more than fifteen years has facilitated the scamming of thousands of victims out of millions of pounds’ worth of occupational pensions and into millions of pounds’ worth of tax liabilities
- to promote, and to improve understanding of the good administration of work-based pension schemes tPR made no effort to work with administrators and trustees of schemes such as Royal Mail; local authorities; the NHS, the Police etc., to help them improve their understanding of how to avoid transferring victims into scams
- to reduce the risk of situations arising which may lead to compensation being payable from the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) Through multiple failings over a period of more than fifteen years, tPR has exposed the PPF to huge amounts of compensation claims. This is paid for by the ethical, compliant sector of the financial services industry who are understandably deeply unhappy that they have to bear the cost of tPR’s negligence and omissions
- to maximise employer compliance with employer duties and the employment safeguards introduced by the Pensions Act 2008 tPR has done nothing to ensure that occupational pension schemes have a bona fide employer that either trades or employs anybody – or even exists at all
One thing which tPR omits to state as being one of its obligations or objectives, is to take action to prevent pension scams in the first place by carrying out due diligence on the trustees, administrators or sponsors of a scam before registering it. In fact, it is clear from evidenced facts, that what should have been simple common sense in terms of basic, obvious vigilance and diligence, was not done. No questions were asked; no checks were made; no basic suspicions were raised. There is no evidence that anybody at tPR ever had the intelligence to ask questions such as whether schemes repeatedly administered by Stephen Ward or his accomplice Anthony Salih and registered to 31 Memorial Road posed any risks to the public.

Over the past couple of years, numerous “whistle blowing” reports have been made to tPR by members of the Class Action but they have been studiously ignored. At a meeting in April 2015, tPR were invited to work with (rather than against) the Class Action, but this too was ignored. Also at this meeting, the Capita Oak case was discussed. The Insolvency Service subsequently wound up the trustee of Capita Oak, Imperial, but tPR has taken no action to protect the members’ interests and has left 300 victims facing the loss of £10.8 million worth of pension transfers which were 100% invested in Store First store pods (now arguably worthless). The Henley and Westminster victims are facing a similar fate with zero intervention by tPR.

In 2014, evidence of Stephen Ward’s pension scam portfolio was handed to HMRC – including numerous occupational schemes and a pension trustee company: Dorrixo Alliance (registered at 31 Memorial Road, Worsley). However, neither HMRC nor tPR carried out any due diligence to see how many scams were under the trusteeship of Dorrixo and the toxic London Quantum scheme slipped through yet another gaping hole in the net, leading to dozens of victims losing £ millions of pension funds (including final salary ones).

Reverting back to 2010 when the most damning of tPR’s multiple failings started, hundreds of people were left to be scammed into the Salmon Enterprises scheme with no warnings by tPR that the administrators were under investigation for fraud, and thousands of people were left to be scammed into the various Baxendale-Walker and KJK Investments schemes.

Along with Ark, 2010/11 alone accounted for well over a quarter of a billion pounds’ worth of pension fund losses and crippling tax liabilities. And this excludes the dozens of scams still being run by Stephen Ward to this day and which tPR continues to ignore. In fact, it has recently been reported that pension scams are by now accounting for over £10 billion worth of losses so the 2010/11 figure may well be substantially higher in reality.
1. ARK VICTIMS’ CIRCUMSTANCES:
HMRC’s and tPR’s investigations into the Ark schemes commenced in the third quarter of 2010 and continued sporadically until tPR placed them in the hands of Dalriada Trustees on 31.5.2011. Had tPR taken action months earlier, hundreds of victims could have been spared the appalling ordeal they have endured for the past five and a half years and also avoided risking losing their pensions and gaining crippling tax liabilities. Also, several suicides could have been avoided.

Since 2010, tPR has appointed Dalriada Trustees to 24 schemes in total and by mid 2015, Dalriada had charged a total of £4,465,426.66 in trustees’ fees and £5,760,562.16 in adviser fees – total £10,225,988.82. £3,355,385 of this was in respect of the Ark schemes – i.e. a third overall.

It should most certainly have been within the remit of tPR to ensure that criminal proceedings were taken against the various scammers responsible for Ark and dozens of other scams. From 2010 until the present day, the teams of scammers who have earned many £ millions from their various scams have been left free to enjoy their proceeds of crime and set up further scam after scam without hindrance or intervention from tPR.

Apart from the known prosecution and jailing of Bradley and Meeson in 2013, and Russell and Ferguson in 2003, there is no information available as to what actions – if any – tPR has taken (or ensured Dalriada took) to bring large numbers of scammers to justice. Since 2013, out of 2,008 reports made to Action Fraud, seven suspects have been charged or summonsed in relation to pension scams. That is a success rate of 0.35% and means that at least 2,001 scammers are still out there today, scamming away merrily and profitably.

It has been reported that “Project Bloom” was set up in 2013 to tackle pension liberation and other related scams. This was allegedly a joint venture between regulators, government departments, the National Crime Agency, police forces and Pension Wise. This has been a clear and dismal failure (including the fact that the Police themselves handed a Police pension over to Stephen Ward’s London Quantum scam in 2014). The Pensions Regulator has failed to mount an effective warning campaign and has allowed thousands of victims to face financial ruin and poverty in retirement. In fact, it is reported that pension fraud has increased by 150% since the introduction of Pensions “Freedoms” in 2015 – with no credible plan by tPR for prevention.

There are a number of ways in which tPR must now begin to make up for these serious failures over such a long period of time:
1. It must make it clear what ceding pension trustees’ duties were in relation to transfer due diligence for the past fifteen years – so that these negligent ceding providers can be brought to justice for their failures and pay due compensation to their victims whose pensions were handed over so casually to the scammers. This is in accordance with tPR Chair David Norgrove’s announcement in January 2010 that negligent box-ticking trustees are “liable to compensate the beneficiary” and that this is a statutory obligation – although the Pension Schemes Act 1993 was never amended to reflect this
2. Publish a comprehensive list of all pension scam warnings and announcements made by both HMRC and tPR (and any other parties) in the past fifteen years – so that negligent ceding providers can no longer claim they had never heard of pension liberation scams prior to the 2013 Scorpion campaign
3. Appoint some competent and appropriately-qualified executives to take on tPR’s responsibility for mounting an effective public information campaign against pension scams
4. Appoint a dedicated team to work with law-enforcement agencies to ensure ALL scammers are brought to justice – not just 0.35% of them.
The pension scam industry must finally be brought down. No ifs, no buts. A zero tolerance policy must be adopted.
January 2, 2017
COMPLAINT AGAINST HMRC – REGISTERING PENSION SCAMS
COMPLAINT AGAINST HMRC 30.12.2016

RE ARK PENSION AND OTHER PENSION LIBERATION SCHEMES

COMPLAINANTS:

VICTIMS OF PENSION SCAMS AND MEMBERS OF THE PENSION LIFE GROUP ACTION:

AND MEMBERS OF THE PENSION LIFE GROUP ACTION:

AND MEMBERS OF THE PENSION LIFE GROUP ACTION:
1. BACKGROUND:
2. HMRC’S OBLIGATIONS AND OBJECTIVES:
3. WHAT HMRC MUST NOW DO TO PUT THINGS RIGHT:
BACKGROUND

This complaint against HMRC for registering pension scams is one of a series of complaints against public bodies which have collectively failed British citizens and UK pension savers by omitting to take timely action to prevent and warn potential victims. The multiple failures of HMRC, the regulators, the DWP and the police authorities have contributed to numerous pension disasters – all of which could and should have been avoided.

To put this complaint into perspective, and highlight how HMRC have failed in their public duty over a period of many years and in many difference cases, it will be helpful to explain an exchange which happened in 2011 in the Salmon Enterprises case.

In the matter of TM8648, the Pensions Regulator and HMRC had been investigating the directors of Tudor Capital Management, a pension trustee and administration firm, for offences involving dishonesty, deception, fraud, cheating the Public Revenue and money laundering. This process had started in early 2010 and tPR’s Determinations Panel met several times over the next couple of years or so. The directors of Tudor Capital Management – Peter Bradley and Andrew Meeson (ex HMRC tax technicians) – were eventually jailed for eight years.

HMRC did nothing, however, to prevent these two suspected fraudsters (Bradley and Meeson) from registering further pension scams while they were under criminal investigation. These further scams included Hollywell, Pennines and Mendip – all operating pension liberation – well over a year after the criminal investigations had been launched.

In the Salmon Enterprises case – one of 25 registered by Tudor Capital Management, one victim’s ceding provider – Nationwide Building Society – was concerned about a transfer request in excess of GBP 200k and sought confirmation of Salmon Enterprises’ HMRC registration. HMRC responded in June 2011 to confirm that the scheme was indeed registered under Section 153 of the Finance Act 2004 – but made no mention of the trustees’ criminal investigation. Richard Farrell, Compliance Manager of Nationwide, then expressed further doubts to HMRC: “My concern about the scheme administrator, Tudor Capital Management, is based on the fact that an article appeared in the pensions press on 21.10.2010 stating that four people connected with Tudor Capital Management have been arrested on suspicion of fraud, cheating the Public revenue and money laundering”. HMRC replied that they were unable to disclose any information regarding Tudor Capital Management due to their “strict rules on confidentiality”.

Clearly, HMRC could and should have taken steps to de-register the Salmon Enterprises scheme but failed to do so. In the full knowledge that the scheme was being run by suspected fraudsters and was operating pension liberation, HMRC stood back and allowed 116 people to transfer into Salmon Enterprises, and then issued tax demands for unauthorised payment charges on the entire amount of all the transfers.

This echoes HMRC’s conduct in the Ark schemes: they were aware of the reciprocal “loan” system being operated by the trustees in quarter three of 2010. They made “enquiries” repeatedly until the end of the year and had a meeting with the operators at the end of February 2011. But still HMRC did nothing: did not de-register the schemes and did not issue any warnings to potential victims. At this time, there was GBP 7 million in Ark. By the time tPR eventually placed the schemes in the hands of Dalriada Trustees, there was GBP 30 million in Ark. HMRC had stood by for more than six months, and done nothing to prevent hundreds of victims from being scammed. But then sent out the tax demands for 55% tax on the “loans”.

HMRC registered the Ark and

schemes as occupational pension schemes in 2009/10 and will claim they had no obligation to perform any due diligence at the time of registration – and indeed that they had no responsibility for consumer protection. They will also claim that when a scheme is first registered – and before anyone transfers into the scheme – there is no evidence that there is anything wrong or that a scheme is being used fraudulently for liberation.

But, at some point before, during and after the registration of the Ark and Salmon Enterprises schemes, HMRC, the Crown Prosecution Service and tPR were already investigating Tudor Capital Management for fraud and were in regular communication with the operators of Ark. Tudor Capital Management had registered 25 different pension schemes in total – one of which was Salmon Enterprises. But long after HMRC knew the directors of Tudor was suspected of fraud, they left all these schemes operating and scamming hundreds of victims. In the full knowledge that both consumers and the pensions industry see HMRC registration as a robust reassurance that a receiving scheme is bona fide, HMRC took no action to warn the public as widely as possible that scams and scammers were proliferating, nor to warn the industry and make ceding pension trustees’ legal responsibilities and obligations clear to providers.

In fact, at the height of the flourishing growth of Ark, one ceding provider – HSBC – was contacted by a member for reassurance that the Ark scheme was indeed bona fide. HSBC assured the member that the only thing they were required to check was that the receiving scheme was HMRC registered. HSBC concluded that as the Ark scheme was indeed HMRC registered, there was no reason to perform any further due diligence.

During the same period, the disgraced former barrister Paul Baxendale-Walker was registering hundreds of pension schemes for liberation purposes. So, 2010 was a fertile and busy year for the scammers with large numbers of bogus occupational schemes being registered by HMRC and thousands of victims being scammed into losing their pensions. HMRC were not only fully aware of this, but had been investigating the criminal element of various schemes along with the Crown Prosecution Service for many months. Indeed, the first recorded pension liberation scam was investigated by HMRC in 1999 and the pair behind this fraud were jailed in 2003 – although not for defrauding the public but for defrauding HMRC.

So, from 2010 onwards, nobody at HMRC decided to “call time” on this obvious large-scale fraud and implement any degree of policing or researching schemes at the point of registration – to put in place some form of prevention rather than waiting until after thousands of lives had been ruined. Indeed, in the Ark case, HMRC had stood by between September 2010 and February 2011 and left the promoters and administrators to get on with building up a head of steam to the point where there was around £7 million in transfers (and presumably, half of that given out in MPVA loans).

From late February 2011, when HMRC met with Craig Tweedley and Stephen Ward, until the appointment of Dalriada on 31.5.2011, a further £23 million was transferred into Ark while HMRC allowed hundreds of victims to proceed to probable financial ruin. HMRC could have suspended the schemes at any point while they conducted their investigations – and indeed Craig Tweedley repeated offered to do so.

Ark, Tudor Capital Management/Salmon Enterprises and Baxendale Walker’s various schemes accounted for around £200 million worth of lost pensions and at least a further £60 million in tax liabilities. And yet since 1999, when Russell and Ferguson were jailed for five years for cheating the Public Revenue, the only criminal action taken by HMRC was against TCM directors Peter Bradley and Andrew Meeson who were jailed for pension tax fraud against HMRC. No action has ever been taken against any of the scammers for defrauding ordinary citizens. Thanks to HMRC considering consumer protection was not within their remit, the scammers have all been left to go on to set up and run dozens of further scams and ruin thousands more lives over the next several years.
1. HMRC’S OBLIGATIONS AND OBJECTIVES:
HMRC have stated that their role is to “protect the valuable tax reliefs given to pension savings”. But if this were so, the question must be asked: why did HMRC do no due diligence at the point of registration of these various scams? Active consumer protection may well not be part of HMRC’s specific roles, but equally avoiding consumer damage should be an automatic matter of common sense and decency on the part of HMRC. It is well known that consumers and even industry professionals have assumed that HMRC registration strongly implies some form of “approval” – and indeed even former Pensions Minister Steve Webb used the term “HMRC Approval”. It makes no sense for HMRC to register so many pension schemes in the full knowledge that they could be used for scams without carrying out even the most basic checks. On the HMRC website, the Taxpayers’ Charter is published: “Your rights – what you can expect from us”:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/your-charter/your-charter

1.1 Respect you and treat you as honest

“We’ll treat you even-handedly, with courtesy and respect. We’ll listen to your concerns and answer your questions clearly. We’ll presume that you’re telling us the truth, unless we have good reason to think otherwise.”

How can it possibly be “even handed” to pursue the victims of scams so vigorously for unauthorised payment tax charges when no action is ever taken to pursue the scammers who caused the situation in the first place? This is inequitable. It is neither courteous nor respectful to demand tax which has arisen through no fault of the victim because they have been defrauded. HMRC has not listened to the concerns of the victims – either at meetings or in correspondence and has not answered any questions either clearly or at all in the Ark matter. For five years, HMRC has given confusing and contradictory answers to the question of if/how/where they intended to try to tax the Ark loans and claimed to be consulting tax experts. In the Salmon Enterprises case, HMRC have claimed they did not believe the loans were loans because there were no loan agreements produced by James Lau. Even though all the victims have made clear statements they were told the loans were indeed loans and that this was why they were not taxable, and HMRC has admitted they have had meetings with Lau, they are still treating the victims as though they are not telling the truth and denying their Protected Assessment appeals.

HMRC does not operate in a vacuum. HMRC has the power to influence outcomes for thousands of people and make the difference between financial ruin and financial stability; literally the difference between life and death for some people. Respect for their fellow man should be at the heart of HMRC’s operation. Taxes come from people – human beings. But it is not enough to claim to treat people with courtesy and respect – HMRC have to actually do it.

In their appeals against HMRC’s demands for unauthorised payment taxes, victims have repeatedly informed HMRC that they were victims of fraud, that they were told the transaction used a lawful tax “loophole” and that the “loan” would definitely not be taxable. And yet still HMRC treat the victims as though they were the dishonest ones and pursue them relentlessly for the tax, while completely ignoring the dishonest scammers themselves.

1.2 Provide a helpful, efficient and effective service

We’ll help you understand what you have to do and when you have to do it.

HMRC gave many of the victims no warning of their intention to issue Protected Assessments (tax demands) and accused the victims of not declaring their pension “loans” on their tax returns when the victims had had no idea the loans would be taxable. But there was no question of HMRC telling the victims anything or giving them any warning of the position.

We’ll deal with the information you give us quickly, efficiently, and keep any costs to you at a minimum.

HMRC have spent five years messing about with the Ark cases – giving contradictory and confusing information and opinions on the possible tax outcomes. To call this dealing “quickly” is totally untrue and misleading.

We’ll put any mistakes right as soon as we can.

It was a mistake to have registered the Ark schemes in the first place. And once HMRC knew or suspected – in Q3 2010 – that Ark was operating pension liberation, HMRC should have de-registered the schemes immediately. When HMRC held their meeting with Craig Tweedley and Stephen Ward in February 2011, they should have agreed to suspend the schemes – at the point when there was £7 million in the schemes. Instead, HMRC did nothing until tPR placed the schemes in the hands of Dalriada Trustees on 31.5.2011 at which point there was £27 million in the Ark schemes – and over the next three months a further £3 million was transferred in. Had HMRC taken action back in Q3 2010, or December 2010, or February 2011, hundreds of victims would have been saved £ millions in lost pension funds and tax liabilities. This was indeed a grave mistake, and HMRC has done nothing to put this right. Quite the reverse in fact.

1.7 Tackle those who bend or break the rules

We’ll identify those who are not paying what they owe or are claiming more than they should and recover the money. We’ll charge interest and penalties where appropriate and be reasonable in how we use our powers.

There is no evidence that apart from the four known prosecutions in the past thirteen years, that not a single one of the many other serial pension scammers has ever been brought to justice. Many – if not most – of these scammers have actively practised tax evasion themselves and had sheltered the £ millions earned out of scamming thousands of victims over a period of many years by sending the proceeds of their crimes offshore.

The Ark, Salmon Enterprises, Baxendale-Walker victims did not consciously or deliberately bend or break the rules. They were defrauded by bent financial advisers (and/or “introducers” posing as financial advisers – some regulated, some unregulated); a solicitor; an accountant and many other professionals. And HMRC know this perfectly well.

This complaint against HMRC concludes with the fact that in the full knowledge of who the scammers were, they allowed them to continue registering, promoting and operating new scams for years – in fact right up until the present day – unhindered. The scammers who were running the Ark schemes went on to run Capita Oak, Westminster and London Quantum. And even when HMRC were handed the evidence they still did nothing.

It is hard to quarrel with the victims who strongly suspect that HMRC themselves are guilty of a scam: allow the registration of a scam in the full knowledge that it is operating pension liberation, leave it to defraud hundreds of victims into participating, and then levy GBP millions worth of tax dem

3. WHAT HMRC MUST NOW DO TO PUT THINGS RIGHT:
- Declare an immediate amnesty for victims of pension fraud. HMRC’s failure to de-register scams was what led to the scammers defrauding the victims. This is akin to rape victims being punished in Middle Eastern countries, while the perpetrators are left free to re-offend as often as they like without sanction. The pension fraud victims have been through years of hell and should now be left alone by HMRC tormentors to get on with what is left of their lives in peace – and to try to find a way to avoid poverty and deprivation in retirement as most of them have lost their pensions.
- Pursue the perpetrators vigorously for tax evasion. Most of them have earned vast fortunes since 2010 and enjoy high standards of living complete with helicopters, private planes, sports cars, country houses, offshore property portfolios and champagne lifestyles. These are the people (and their assets) that HMRC should be pursuing – and not the hard-working, conscientious, innocent people who were defrauded by these monsters in the first place.
- Compensate the victims for losing their pensions avoidably. HMRC has failed to de-register so many schemes over so many years, and has caused financial ruin which could so easily and simply have been prevented and so many innocent people saved from the wretchedness of the past six years.
- Put in place a system of policing and properly approving pension scheme registrations. This should include (inter alia) the following basic and obvious steps:
1. Check that the trustees/administrators of a scheme are not under criminal investigation
2. Check that the registrants have not been involved in previous scams
3. Check that the registrants’ address has not previously been used for scams – e.g. 31 Memorial Road, Worsley
4. Check that an occupational scheme is genuine i.e. set up by a sponsoring employer which trades and employs people
5. Check that an occupational scheme’s sponsoring employer actually exists
6. Check that a scheme has a trust deed which is not forged
7. Check that evidence that a trustee, administrator or scheme is a scam has not previously been provided to HMRC
8. Check that legislation works. If it doesn’t, report it to the government and get it strengthened. The “not my job/responsibility/concern” approach is invalid and flies in the face of what a body of public servants should be doing – i.e. serving the public.
It is no good for HMRC simply to protest that when a scheme is first registered, there is no evidence that there is anything amiss. Taxpayers are supposed to be diligent, and there are severe penalties for failing to be so. The same applies to HMRC: it is supposed to serve the public – not fail and betray them.

Finally, HMRC must engage with all the other responsible authorities and be VIGILANT against pension scams. One of the most important examples of HMRC’s failure to carry out any due diligence is the case of the Barratt and Dalton scam (now in the hands of Dalriada Trustees). One of the main promoters of this scam was Julian Hanson who was a leading promoter and introducer in the Ark matter – and was responsible for GBP 5.5 million worth of transfers – second only to Stephen Ward’s GBP 10.6 million worth of transfers. And yet neither HMRC nor tPR nor any of the other public bodies (staffed by highly paid employees with healthy final salary pensions) bothered to pick up on this.

HMRC must now put their failures right, compensate their victims and put together a coherent plan to avoid this kind of negligent, incompetent performance in the future.

What is a Pension Scam?
January 2, 2017
Salmon Enterprises Pension Scam – how it all worked

SALMON ENTERPRISES PENSION SCAM – THE WAY THE SCHEME WORKED

James Lau, allegedly a financial adviser with Wightman Fletcher McCabe operating from an office in the Regus building, Great Pultney Street, Bank London. Lau explained the Salmon Enterprises pension scam to clients using a series of diagrams that members could release funds from a pension transfer and use them for any investment rather than be tied to investments chosen by the pension trustee/administrator. He also explained that part of it could be taken out as a loan which he claimed was legal. He also stated that HMRC was aware of this and accepted that it was not a tax avoidance scheme.

Members never received any loan agreement or pension statement from either James Lau or the trustees – Tudor Capital Management – despite repeated requests to both Lau and his assistant Victor Ray. A number of members subsequently introduced the scheme to friends, family and associates.

The advantages stated by James Lau were that pension funds could be released legally and used for a person’s own use. Members could invest it or receive as a non-repayable loan which was “legal and non-taxable as it was a commercial loan”. Lau also claimed the loan would have a nominal percentage each year to pay back which would be covered by the rest of the pension left (approx. 15% of the transfer) which would be invested. The returns it would make would cover the interest of the loan. Lau made it clear this was not a tax avoidance scheme and complied with HMRC rules and that the loan could be extended.

Lau also claimed that the underlying assets of the scheme were “various, diverse, low-risk opportunities, including forex in his own company Goswell Square Capital – a venture with Omari Bowers and Andrew Skeene who have since been investigated and made bankrupt following the collapse of the FX venture.

James Lau claimed to be authorised by the FSA at the time with Wightman Fletcher McCable under the Clarkson Hill insurance group.

The trustees of the Salmon Enterprises pension scam – Tudor Capital Management – were the subject of a criminal investigation by the CPS, HMRC and the Pensions Regulator which was published on 8.4.2010 (prior to many of the transfers) and resulted in the trustees: Peter Spencer Bradley, Alison Bradley and Andrew Meeson, being jailed for tax fraud. Tudor Capital Management had been the trustees for 25 schemes in total.

THE IDENTITY OF THE MAIN PLAYERS

James Lau

Victor Ray

Peter Spencer Bradley

Alison Bradley

Andrew Meeson

HOW THE MAIN PLAYERS WERE INVOLVED

Lau was the main promoter; Ray was the administrator; Bradley and Meeson (now in jail) were the trustees.

June 8, 2016