Tag: Salmon Enterprises

  • Justice Morgan’s Mad Mistake: Donna-Marie Hughes and Royal London Mutual Insurance Society

    Justice Morgan’s Mad Mistake: Donna-Marie Hughes and Royal London Mutual Insurance Society

    JUSTICE MORGAN’S MAD MISTAKE

    (IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CHANCERY DIVISION)

    The law is an ass – especially when it fails to protect pension scam victims

    This judgement makes the law not just an ass, but a whole herd of donkeys.

    Dear Justice Morgan

    I refer to your judgment in the matter of Donna-Marie Hughes and Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Case Number CH/2015/0377 on 19th February 2016.  

     

     

    With absolutely no apology whatsoever, I must point out that your judgment – overturning the Pensions Ombudsman’s Determination in this matter – is so stark staring, raving mad that it verges on utterly bonkers.

    In a number of complaints, the Ombudsman has found that although the legislation is missing a few key words, it is clear that a person should only transfer into an occupational scheme if they are genuinely employed by the sponsor of the scheme.  The Ombudsman drew attention to the fact that the words “employed by the sponsor of the scheme” are, curiously, missing (obviously, whoever wrote that passage nipped out for a liquid lunch at the crucial moment).  But he used his common sense and pointed out that it would be a “very strange result” if a person wanted to transfer into an occupational scheme without any employment relationship or arrangement with the sponsor.

     

    It is my obligation to refer you to the fact that the industry, regulators, law enforcement agencies, courts, ombudsmen and victims (existing and future) desperately need the legislation to be tightened – not relaxed (or, as in this case, made completely impotent).  This judgment has effectively given the green light for hundreds of scammers to scam innocent victims out of their hard-earned pensions.

     

    History, since 2011, shows that various pension liberation scams including Ark (Lancaster, Portman, Cranbourne, Woodcroft, Tallton, Grosvenor) Capita Oak, Westminster, Evergreen, Salmon Enterprises, Eric’s Yard, Pennines, London Quantum, Headforte, Southlands etc., all share a collection of common traits:

     

    1. They were set up, administered and promoted by unregulated firms
    2. These firms obscure the identity of the team
    3. The address of the firm is a virtual office
    4. The assets of the scams being peddled include high risk, illiquid, speculative investments entirely unsuitable for pensions
    5. Bogus “occupational” schemes are registered with HMRC and tPR (who do nothing to check that the sponsoring employers actually trade or employ anybody – or indeed even exist at all)
    6. Pensions are liberated using a variety of “loan” structures which victims are assured are legitimate “loopholes”
    7. Transfer and loan fees are extortionately high
    8. Victims are promised unrealistic gains such as “guaranteed 8% return per annum”
    9. Assets are entirely unsuitable for pension schemes and often include huge “kickbacks” for the introducers

     

    The firms and individuals offering these schemes have included:

    • Premier Pension Solutions in Spain (run by Tolleys Pensions Taxation author Stephen Ward – available on Amazon if you need a copy: http://www.amazon.com/Tolleys-Pensions-Taxation-2014-2015-Stephen/dp/0754549356)
    • Gerard Associates http://www.gerardassociates.co.uk/
    • Frost Financial
    • Continental Wealth Management
    • J. P. Sterling
    • Viva Costa International
    • Windsor Pensions
    • Blu Debt Management
    • Wealth Masters
    • Paul Baxendale-Walker
    • James Lau

    Thousands of victims have lost £ billions and gained £ millions in tax liabilities.  The assets of these schemes have included offshore property, store pods, car parking spaces, unregulated collective investments, eucalyptus forests, hedge funds, forex, Cape Verde etc.

    Now, I am not saying that Bespoke Pension Services are scammers.  http://bit.ly/1VGeSPn but on the back of their victory in the case of Ms. Hughes, there are a further 160 blocked pension transfers sitting with the Pensions Ombudsman.  We have no way of knowing whether they will all be pension transfers invested in Cape Verde, but we do know the Hughes case must have been very important to Bespoke Pension Services’ business.  After all, they must have invested a considerable amount in legal fees to take an £8,000 transfer attempt to the High Court.

    Interestingly, Bespoke Pension Services are unregulated and their address is a virtual office.  According to their latest published accounts the firm is insolvent.  The two directors/shareholders – Mark Anthony Miserotti and Clive John Howells – have between them an impressive portfolio of investment, consultancy, property development, investment and financial planning companies – one of which is called “Fortaleza Investments” which suggests something Brazilian.

    On the back of your judgment in respect of Royal London, there will be a serious problem for all the pension providers who performed so appallingly in Ark, Capita Oak, Westminster, Evergreen et al: the worst of which being Standard Life, Prudential, Scottish Widows, Aviva and Legal and General.  Having handed over £ millions worth of pension funds since 2010 – in a lazy, negligent, box-ticking fashion – there is evidence that they are trying to mend their ways.  Or there had been, until your judgment in the Hughes/Royal London/Bespoke Pension Services case.

    I would draw your attention to Clause 53 in Justice Bean’s Ark ruling where he makes it clear that legislation wording must be interpreted intelligently – and not blindly.

    Justice Bean ruled on the ARK Pension Scam case

    He is obviously trying to make the point that it is essential to avoid an anomalous or unjust result from failing to look behind the intended meaning of wording.  Indeed, the Pensions Ombudsman had already done that when looking at the wording when he said that he found that a transferee did need to be employed by the sponsor of an occupational scheme in order to avoid a “strange result”.

    Your judgment has put at risk thousands of victims’ pensions.  There have already been suicides, nervous breakdowns, life-threatening illnesses, broken marriages and families.  There will be widespread poverty in retirement and many people will lose their homes.  A strange result indeed – which does rather beg the question of how victims will get any protection or justice now?

    This judgment makes the law not just an ass, but a whole herd of donkeys.

    Regards, Angie Brooks

     

  • Salmon Enterprises Pension Scam – how it all worked

    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.

     

  • Pension Liberation Fraud Facts

    Pension Liberation Fraud Facts

    Pension Liberation – ruining thousands of lives.  HMRC pursues the victims of pension liberation fraud and not the pension liberation fraudsters.  This has got to change.Facts about pension transfers

  • Pension Liberation “Loans”

    Email to Michael Bridges, Compliance, HMRC from Angie Brooks, ARK Class Action – re pension liberation loans.

     

    11 November 2015

    Dear Mr. Bridges,

    Re: Pension Liberation “Loans”

    Thank you for calling me yesterday and for discussing the various aspects of the pension transfers and “loans”.  Some important points arose from our discussion, and I feel it would be valuable to get these recorded and addressed.
    The first issue was whether any of the members/victims ever asked their existing/ceding providers if they could provide a loan.  It has never occurred to me to ask this question so – by copying in a number of members to this email – I am reaching out to ask them this specific question:
    “Did you ever ask or consider asking your original pension provider – e.g. Standard Life, Aviva, Royal Mail, NHS etc. – whether they could provide a loan?”
    If I get any replies I will let you know.  I suggest the answer will be a resounding “no” – but rather than assume the response I will leave it to the experts, i.e. the victims themselves, to answer this question.  (I think you will find the answer in the Q10’s anyway.)

    How do Pension Liberation “Loans” work?

     Victims of different scams were told different things, and the “loans” were structured in different ways.  Some were told the loans were repayable; some that they were not repayable; some received elaborate loan documentation; some received nothing.  However, the common fact is that they were all told in no uncertain terms that the “loans” were not taxable.  Many of the scammers went to great lengths to try to create the illusion that there was no connection between the loans and the transfers and that it was entirely a coincidence that they both happened at the same time.

    Elysian Fuels

    In fact, in a recently-published case: Elysian Fuels (£240 million now valued at £zero) the participants were told by financial advisers that the 84% “loans” were not taxable and that regulated SIPP providers James Hay and Suffolk Life were fully aware of and “happy” with the “loan” structure.  I have copied and pasted the emails outlining this scheme below for your information.

    Tax Compliance

    The point I am trying to make is that if an “ordinary man in the street” is assured by an IFA, a solicitor and a SIPP provider that a transaction is tax compliant, there is no reason for him to question that assurance.  What makes matters worse for the victims (and better for the scammers) is that the vehicles for the scams – whether an occupational scheme, QROPS or SIPP,- are registered by HMRC in the first place.  This gives the illusion that there is something “safe” or “approved” about the entire structure and indeed the scammers often use the term “HMRC approved” to dupe the victims.
    I have copied James Hay into this email and hopefully – as a regulated SIPP provider – they will come back with some further professional and regulated views on how and why pension liberations/loans/maximising arrangements (or whatever “label” is used to describe the liberation mechanism) are so easy to sell as “tax free” transactions.  Hopefully someone at James Hay will be able to provide some enlightening “inside” information and views on the subject.
    I could tell that you felt impatient with the fact that so many people believed these various liberation scams were legitimate and tax compliant.  With the greatest of respect, I would point out that as you work for HMRC in Compliance, it is your job to be an expert on pensions taxation.  But the victims don’t tend to have that knowledge or education and won’t have read Tolley’s Pensions Taxation (420 pages) http://www.amazon.com/Tolleys-Pensions-Taxation-2014-2015-Stephen/dp/0754549356.
    You also pointed out that if there was no loan agreement or contract, then there was no loan.  Each scam worked differently, and as far as I can see the only one with a proper, enforceable loan contract was the Evergreen QROPS/Marazion loan scheme run by Stephen Ward from Spain.  The word “loan” was merely a four-letter word – sometimes accompanied by the term “non recourse” as in the James Hay/Elysian example below.  We could debate “when is a loan not a loan?” all day long, but the bottom line is that the victims were misled and defrauded.  In some cases by a government consultant on pensions; and in some cases an added layer of apparent respectability enhanced the illusion that the transaction was safe and compliant by involving FCA-regulated IFAs and SIPP providers.
    Another scheme for pension liberation was Salmon Enterprises which worked with the trustees Tudor Capital Management.
    All in all, it is a disgraceful state of affairs, and I am afraid HMRC themselves have played their own part in helping facilitate these scams for the past five years – resulting in ruin for many thousands of victims while lining the pockets of the scammers.
    Regards, Angie

    From: Alan Fowler <fowlerpts@gmail.com>
    Date: 17 October 2013 21:28:21 BST
    To: William Perkins <billperkins62@gmail.com>
    Subject: Fwd: a solution for you !

    Interesting….but I’m amazed that reputable SIPP providers will countenance this.   Who’s making the loans?  I’m not sure I see how the SIPP pays the member (or anyone for that matter) £100k – with what/who’s money?  And won’t the SIPP need to verify that the shares in Xco are actually worth £100k.   That said, if the IFA is doing these, it seems the process works………..

    Regards,  Alan
    ==============
    Begin forwarded message:
    From: Stephen Ward <SWard@ppsespana.com>
    Subject: Re: a solution for you !
    Date: 17 October 2013 20:58:15 BST
    To: billperkins <billperkins62@gmail.com>
    Cc: Alan Fowler <fowlerpts@gmail.com>
    The arrangement I heard about today works like this as an example ( ignoring fees) and this is the simplistic version …
    1.  Client borrows 16k or thereabouts (this is available in the package)
    2.  He gets a non recourse loan (which will not be repaid) of £84k
    3.  He buys shares in Xco for £100k.   These are listed on the CISX ( name is Elysium)
    4.   Transfers £100k to James Hay SIPP
    5.   SIPP pays member £100k for the shares .,,,
    6.   Member repays the 16k and trousers £84k
    My IFA connection has done 40 of them so far
    Advice to transfer to the SIPP is from an FCA regulated IFA
    James Hay and Suffolk Life know the full structure and are happy with it ….
    Fees ….. On transfer to SIPP ( need to agree the commercials with the IFA)
    Regards
    Stephen
    Sent from my iPad