Tag: SEB

GENERALI WORLDWIDE – FINANCIAL CRIME FACILITATOR
Generali has responded to one of the complaints by CWM victims. I have transcribed it below and put my comments in bold.

First, let us look at what Generali says on its own website. It is utterly astonishing as it is a complete pack of lies and does nothing to prove it was not facilitating financial crime:

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Our Vision: Our purpose is to actively protect and enhance people’s lives
- Actively: We play a proactive and leading role in improving people’s lives through insurance. This is untrue. Generali has neither been proactive nor played a leading role in improving people’s lives. It has taken no action to stop the scammers at CWM from destroying victims’ lives.
- Protect: We are dedicated to the heart of insurance – managing and mitigating risks of individuals and institutions. Totally untrue. Generali has neither managed nor mitigated victims’ risks. It has totally ignored the risks and simply stood by and watched hundreds of victims lose millions of pounds of their retirement savings.
- Enhance: Generali is also committed to creating value. What value? The only thing Generali is committed to is destroying value – and making money out of it.
- People: We deeply care about our clients’ and our peoples’ lives. For years, Generali has sat back and watched victims’ life savings being lost because of clearly unsuitable and risky structured notes. This demonstrates that Generali cares nothing about the clients and this is yet another black lie.
- Lives: Ultimately, we have an impact on the quality of people’s lives: wealth, safety, advice and service are instrumental in improving people’s chosen way of life for the long term. This is true – Generali has had a huge impact on the quality of hundreds of victims’ lives, by destroying their life savings.
- We tie a long-term contract of mutual trust with our people, clients and stakeholders; all of our work is about improving the lives of our clients. Generali has destroyed rather than improved the lives of clients.
- We commit with discipline and integrity to bringing this promise to life and making an impact within a long lasting relationship. Another black lie. There has been no discipline and no integrity. The impact by Generali has been destructive, toxic and dishonest.
GENERALI RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT DATED 20TH APRIL 2018

Thank you for your email dated 23 February 2018 attaching your updated Letter of Complaint and further accompanying undated cover letter concerning the performance of your Trustees’ Portfolio.

And here we have the first and biggest part of the scam. Generali is trying to make out that the client is not the client – but the pension trustee is the client. The only reason a trustee is used is to comply with HMRC rules. In the UK, HMRC contributes tax relief to help individuals build up as much value as possible in their pensions. But if the fund is transferred offshore, it has to be sent to a QROPS (qualifying, recognised, overseas pension scheme) – otherwise HMRC will charge 55% tax on the transfer. A QROPS is just a wrapper used to hold the funds. The trustee is a custodian used to keep the funds on behalf of the beneficiary – i.e. the member.

It wasn’t the trustee who worked hard for years to build up this fund out of the money he or she earned. Just as it won’t be the trustee who will retire on the income generated by the fund.

Let us look at the risk profile issue. Whose risk profile is done using a fact find? Is it the trustee’s? Is the trustee asked about his assets, liabilities, age, retirement plans? No, of course not. Is the advice to transfer given to the trustee? Negative.

Your complaint is addressed primarily to Old Mutual International (“OMI”) but it asserts that “Generali has acted in exactly the same manner as OMI, so although the complaint below relates to OMI, it is also appropriate for Generali. The problems complained about remain the same in both cases. We therefore respond to all the issues raised in the letter as if they are addressed directly to Generali Worldwide Insurance Company Limited (“Generali Worldwide”), as your complaint clearly intends.

It is clearly evidenced that Generali behaved as badly and negligently as OMI and SEB – and betrayed the victims in exactly the same way.

You have expressed deep concern that the Professional Portfolio has lost a significant proportion of its value because of the actions of the Portfolio Manager, Continental Wealth Management (”CWM”).

And herein lies the second part of the scam. Generali did no due diligence on CWM. They have referred to them as “Portfolio Manager”. But they had no license to be a portfolio manager – and they had a track record of cold calling and being involved in financial crime. So – irrespective of whether Generali thought the client/investor was the trustee or the victim – Generali should never have accepted investment dealing instructions from such a firm.

You also consider that Generali worldwide is ´complicit´ given we allegedly took no steps to stop the actions CWM took at the relevant time. Correct.

We are of course very sorry that the Portfolio has incurred losses following the investment decisions made by CWM. When did this “sorry” state begin? On the 23^rd February 2018 when they received the letter of complaint? Or at some time during the past six years when they sat and watched hundreds of policy holders’ funds being systematically destroyed?

We address the specific issues raised in your letter below.

The Portfolio

In order to address the issues you have raised it is first necessary to consider the relationship between you, the trustee (that you instructed to purchase the Portfolio) and CWM. Don’t forget the life office – Generali – itself. It was an integral part of this scam.

The Portfolio was established by your nominated Pension Trustee Momentum Pensions Malta Limited (“Trustee”) on 30 January 2013. In total you remitted GBP 473,043.29 to the Trustee and they used these monies to purchase the Portfolio, which itself is held in a trust. So Generali admits that it was the member which remitted £473k in the first place.

You are the first life assured on the Portfolio. The Trustee is the legal owner of the Portfolio and, in the first instance, it is they that have suffered the investment losses. So, the member himself hasn’t lost half of his original £473k? Thank goodness! So, if he just redeems out of this useless, exorbitantly expensive insurance bond, he can have all of his £473k back?

The Trustees owe you fiduciary duties in respect of your money “Your money”? So, you are sure it is the victim’s money and not the trustee’s money? You can’t seem to make up your mind whose money it is. I think Generali is getting dementia as it can’t remember what lies it has just told. In one sentence it is the trustee’s money and in the next it is the victim’s.

(which was “settled” into the trust) as basis for remittance into the Portfolio.

As the legal owner of the portfolio, it is the trustee that appointed CWM as the Portfolio Manager pursuant to the Portfolio Management Agreement dated 7 November 2012 (“PMA”). But did you, Generali, not notice that CWM was an unlicensed scammer? And once you started seeing, and reporting on, the huge losses did you not consider you had some responsibility beyond just reporting on the repeated losses for years?

CWM therefore owed contractual duties to the Trustee in Respect of the management of the Portfolio. Yes. And you, Generali, also owed duties to the victim whose money was being frittered away by the scammers. You have admitted it was HIS money.

Issues Raised

The letter of Complaint raises various issues. We consider that these can be summarised as follows:
1. You allege that CWM purchased “high risk, professional-investors-only structures notes” which you consider were unsuitable for your investment risk profile.
2. You allege that CWM gave advice and instructed sales and purchase of investments despite the fact that they were “neither licensed for insurance nor for investment”.
3. You have raised an issue with what you consider were the high commissions paid to CWM.
4. You have alleged that you were not informed of the level of charges that would be taken pursuant to the portfolio´s terms and conditions.
5. You allege that your signatures were “repeatedly forged on the dealing instructions”.
6. Finally you agree CWM made misrepresentations to you about the losses you were incurring.
You have also stated that OMI, and therefore we assume Generali Worldwide, have “facilitated financial crime over a period of many years”. You have asked that Generali Worldwide “own up to the financial damage and crime it has facilitated over a period in excess of eight years” and compensate you for the losses the Portfolio has suffered.

Portfolio Management Agreement

The PMA (enclosed), authorised fees for the portfolio management services as rendered (being 1% per annum of the Investment Value). And, as we know, this is Generali’s way of clawing back the 8% commission paid to the scammers. There was no “portfolio management”. Had there been any kind of management, this would have included doing something about the inexorable losses rather than just sitting there watching this victim’s losses mounting over a period of years. Bearing in mind he was one of many in the same boat, this makes it doubly disgusting that Generali took no action. You must have been aware that this victim – along with all the hundreds of others – had their life savings used to purchase professional-investor-only and high-risk structured notes.

As such, all instructions in relation to your Trustees´ Portfolio were properly issued by CWM, which we acted properly on in accordance with the PMA. Not true. The members’ signatures were forged. That is fraud. And you, Generali, facilitated financial crime.

Please note that Generali Worldwide is not a party to (or aware of) any commission arrangements between CWM and any investment product issuers. Really? Did you think CWM was just selling these toxic products for fun? You didn’t consider that as the only reason for selling the insurance bond was for the 8% commission, there might be another 8% commission for selling the structured notes?

In appointing CWM as the portfolio manager under the PMA, the Trustee expressly warranted that it would be bound by the decisions of CWM and recognised that CWM were acting for them, not Generali Worldwide. Furthermore, in appointing CWM the Trustees agreed that Generali Worldwide “shall not be liable for any damages, losses, costs or expenses to the Plan assets arising from the appointment of, or the investment instructions given by the Portfolio Manager. There is an interesting parallel here. The CWM scammers all say the same thing: “it wasn’t my fault; I didn’t do anything wrong; it was the others”

This will include, without limitation, any action or failure to take actions on the part of the Portfolio Manager to produce a reasonable investment return, in relation to the plan. So, you are saying that it is reasonable for Generali to have just sat there and said/done nothing about the losses for years? You could see millions of pounds’ worth of life savings getting wiped out routinely and yet you did nothing to help the hundreds of victims. Your website claims that Generali “protects, manages and mitigates risks”. So that is obviously another lie.

The Trustee also agreed to “indemnify (Generali Worldwide) against any and all liability it may incur, as a consequence of, or arising from or in respect of the appointment, activities and performance of the Portfolio Manager…” But did the victim agree to indemnify Generali? You have already admitted that it was HIS money. On the Generali website it states: “Meeting your financial needs: Effective wealth management, investment and pension options that can successfully cater for the diverse needs of global investors”. So do the words “effective” and “successfully” include sitting back and doing nothing about the losses? Generali could have picked up the phone and spoken to the trustee and/or the victim (depending on which party you considered “owned” the money that day) and said something along the following lines:

“Look, mate, we’ve been having a bit of a look at this portfolio. We’ve spotted that over the past couple of years it has halved in value. We’ve also checked up on the adviser, CWM, and we’ve realised the firm is not licensed to give investment advice and is operating illegally in Spain. We’ve also found out that it has been scamming people for years. We’ve also noticed that 100% of the investments are toxic, high-risk structured notes which are FOR PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS ONLY. We’ve also realised that the combination of failed investments and our own huge charges are eventually going to wipe this (and many other) portfolios out altogether. Do you think we ought to do something? Or shall we just sit here and let it happen?”

Continental Wealth Management

CWM are an independent firm of brokers, No they were not. In Spain it is illegal to work as a broker – whether for insurance or investments – without a license. CWM had no license.

entirely distinct from Generali Worldwide. Under Guernsey law, Generali Worldwide is prohibited from appointing agents in the sale of its policies. Guernsey law is irrelevant. CWM was based in Spain. It is only Spanish law that counts. Generali should have checked up to see whether CWM was licensed and when it discovered it had no license, Generali should have refused to accept any further investment instructions from the firm.

CWM owed duties to you / the trustee alone in recommending the Portfolio and providing suitable financial advice prior to its purchase. I wish you would make up your mind. You can’t seem to decide whether it is the victim or the trustee who is the client/investor. And now you are trying to make out it is both.

It is CWM, not Generali Worldwide, that had a duty to advise you / the Trustee of the suitability of the portfolio and its terms, including the relevant fees. At the time of the trustee´s application, Generali Worldwide were not party to the discussions regarding your chosen risk profile. Whose risk profile? The victim’s or the trustee’s?

CWM are solely responsible for any advice provided to you / the Trustee. It is a common misunderstanding that Independent Financial Advisers and similar Intermediaries are “representatives” of the insurer even though as a matter of law that is not the case in circumstances such as these. CWM was indeed responsible for the scam which Generali facilitated. But CWM was not licensed to provide anybody, whether the victim or the trustee, with either insurance or investment advice. And yet Generali accepted hundreds – possibly thousands – of investment dealing instructions from them. And when the victims started losing millions of pounds, Generali never questioned whether this unlicensed advice was going terribly wrong.

If you believe that relevant information about your Portfolio was either misrepresented or not properly explained to you / the Trustee at the time of the application you should seek redress directly with CWM or your Trustee. Again, legally, if there is an issue with the portfolio itself, which is denied, the correct person to complain to Generali Worldwide is the Trustee. In turn, the trustee owes you fiduciary duties in respect of the money you provided to them on trust. Just like all the scammers at CWM: it is everybody else’s fault but not theirs. The issue with the portfolio itself was that it served no purpose except to pay commission to the scammers – and provided no protection or benefit to the victims whatsoever. Indeed, the Generali wrapper simply made matters considerably worse by constantly eroding what little was left of the ever-dwindling funds with the constant quarterly charges.

In respect of the allegations that CWM misrepresented the performance of the Portfolio, again this is a matter for CWM, and their successors in title, to address. Generali Worldwide are not party to the updates that were provided. However, we note that you had access to our Online Service Centre where it was possible to view the performance of the Portfolio at any time. But didn’t Generali view the performance of this portfolio – and hundreds of others – and question what the hell was going on with all the CWM victims?

Regarding the instructions from CWM and any “forged signatures”, we comment that all the instructions received by Generali Worldwide from CWM were properly executed by them as the portfolio manager. Does Generali seriously believe that an unlicensed firm, operating illegally in Spain, was executing millions of pounds’ worth of dealing instructions (most of which resulted in huge losses) “properly”? This is an unbelievable statement.

Given their status as portfolio manager, any instruction only needs to bear their signature (or alternatively the signature of the Trustees). Signatures of the life assured are not required, as there is no contractual relationship between Generali Worldwide and the lives assured (and consequently the lives assured do not have authority to issue dealing instructions). We are not able to comment on whether the other signatures that appear on the instruction were forged. However given the PMA, it is Generali Worldwide´s position that it was the signature of CWM (or the trustee) which validate the instructions. CWM had no status as portfolio manager. Neither the firm nor the individuals were licensed. No dealing instructions should have been accepted from them EVER, under any circumstances whatsoever. Why do you think Malta has just made changes to the regulations to stop this from happening again?

Notwithstanding this, we are concerned to note any potential allegations of fraudulent activity and would encourage you to escalate any issue in this regard to the competent authorities, as necessary. Generali has facilitated financial crime – irresponsibly and negligently. Generali is being reported to the competent authorities.

Contractual Terms and Conditions

The Portfolio is governed by and constructed in accordance with Guernsey law, with contract acceptance (and policy issuance) having taken place in Guernsey. Your Trustee´s application was accepted in good faith in Guernsey on an unsolicited basis in 2013. Based on completion of the application your Trustee thereby confirmed their acceptance, and understanding of the portfolio´s Terms and Conditions. But who is the client? The trustee or the victim. Generali seems to change its mind depending on what argument it is trying to make. The broker and the owner of the funds were based in Spain (and the trustee in Malta) so Guernsey law is irrelevant.

As noted in section 10 of the terms and conditions (enclosed), your Trustee and Portfolio Manager are responsible for investment decisions and any choice of Investment Instruments is entirely at your Trustee´s own risk and it is they that had oversight over the investment settings made. Generali Worldwide accepts no liability for the performance of investment instruments or for losses, damages or costs arising out of, or in connection with Generali Worldwide subscribing to, or otherwise acquiring an interest in an Investment Instrument for allocation to the Portfolio. You will also appreciate that Generali Worldwide was not party to the advice provided to you (or the Trustee), or the rationale for investment decisions made by CWM in respect of the Portfolio (which we note is described in your covering letter). Again, Generali can’t make up its mind whether the client is the victim or the trustee. Either way, this argument seems to make it clear that there was absolutely no point whatsoever in having an insurance bond at all. It provided no protection and only served to hasten the destruction of the funds.

In respect of the portfolio´s fees and charges, these are laid out in section 15 of the enclosed Terms and Conditions. In signing the application form dated 7 November 2012 your Trustee confirmed that they understood the Terms and Conditions. So, it was all the trustee’s fault? But what were these fees and charges for? For sitting there and doing nothing about the destruction of the funds and facilitating financial crime? Under the terms of the contract for this so-called life assurance policy, generali stands to earn £47,304.33 – but for doing what exactly? Bugger all as far as I can see.

It was CWM´s duty to advise the Trustee as well as yourself in respect of the Portfolio´s Terms and Conditions. But CWM was not licensed to give advice – so how could it?

We therefore consider the contractual terms associated with the fees and charges in relation to the Portfolio to be clear. I agree: it is 100% clear that the contract is for Generali to pay a huge commission to a known firm of unlicensed scammers, and to charge quarterly fees to provide no protection or management or mitigation of risks (as falsely claimed on the Generali website).

Discussions with the Trustee and Trafalgar

We have corresponded with both your Trustee and Trafalgar International GmbH (Trafalgar) following your complaint. Given that CWM have entered into liquidation, we understand that Trafalgar have now taken on any liability for the actions of CWM (and are in turn licensed in Germany). So, yet again it is everybody else’s fault and responsibility – except Generali’s.

From publicly available information we have seen that Trafalgar have engaged with your Trustee to try to provide a solution to the issues that they and their beneficiaries face as a result of CWM´s actions. We have also confirmed this directly with representatives of your Trustees and Trafalgar/GlobalNet. We also note from our files that CWM have previously recognised it was their actions that led to some of the losses on the Portfolios and made offers to compensate the beneficiaries. What relevance does this have? This is a complaint against Generali – not a complaint against CWM. The CWM scammers are long gone and the company is worthless.

We have written to Trafalgar regarding your complaint. But this is about a complaint against Generali. What is the point of Generali writing to Trafalgar? Trafalgar didn’t operate this insurance bond. Trafalgar wasn’t on the scene in 2013.

They have told us that they have been trying to provide redress to the former clients of CWM and will respond formally to us in this regard. As yet we have not received any further correspondence from them and we are following up further for any updates. Yet again, Generali is just trying to deflect attention from their own lies and failings. But at least there is a tacit acknowledgement that redress is not only required, but that Trafalgar is trying to provide it (with no help from Generali).

Conclusion

Again, we are very sorry to learn that your Trustee´s Portfolio has suffered the losses you described. We understand that this is a source of deep concern for you and the other former clients of CWM that have been adversely affected. However based on the above, regrettably Generali Worldwide is unable to provide the requested redress. Presumably, if the losses are to be borne by the trustees, then the victim can have all his money back? This constant banging on about the trustee “suffering the losses” is pointless. If it is really true, then as Generali has acknowledged that the victim owns the money, then give it back to him. In full.

CWM advised your Trustee in respect of the purchase of the Portfolio and its management pursuant to the PMA. But was not licensed to do so – and therefore did so illegally.

We repeat that CWM are not an agent of Generali Worldwide. Any fees, charges or commissions are in line with the Portfolio´s Terms and Conditions which we consider are clear. It was CWM´s responsibility to explain these to you / the Trustee at the time of their application. But it is also clear that CWM was not licensed, so this is irrelevant.

The Trustees are entirely responsible for any losses incurred on the Portfolio as a result of the actions undertaken by CWM. Generali Worldwide were not a party to any alleged misrepresentations regarding the Portfolio´s performance. All instructions received from CWM were valid and pursuant to the terms on the PMA. Does the PMA specifically state that instructions can be accepted “validly” from unlicensed, known scammers who are trading illegally? Perhaps when your pants catch fire, you’d like to go to an unqualified, unlicensed scammer posing as a doctor?

At no point did Generali Worldwide act improperly, and there is no contractual basis for deviating from the contract terms nor is there any justification for compensation from Generali Worldwide. So, you are acknowledging that there is absolutely no point whatsoever in having a Generali insurance bond? And admitting that the claims made on the Generali website are false?

Our purpose is to actively protect and enhance people’s lives

We play a proactive and leading role in improving people’s lives through insurance.
- We are dedicated to the heart of insurance – managing and mitigating risks of individuals and institutions.
- Generali is also committed to creating value
- We deeply care about our clients’ and our peoples’ lives
- We have an impact on the quality of people’s lives: wealth, safety, advice and service are instrumental in improving people’s chosen way of life for the long term.
For the avoidance of Doubt Generali Worldwide strenuously denies that we have committed or facilitated any financial crimes as alleged. But throughout this absurd denial, Generali has indeed admitted repeatedly that it has facilitated financial crime by placing so much emphasis and responsibility at the feet of an unlicensed firm of scammers operating illegally in Spain.

This complaint, and the ridiculous response by Generali, will now be referred to the Financial Crime Unit in Jersey as well as the:

Channel Islands Financial Ombudsman

PO Box 114

Jersey,

Channel Islands JE4 9QG

Email: enquiries@ci-fo.org

Website: www.ci-fo.org

Jersey phone: 01534 748610

Guernsey phone: 01481 722218

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

What is a Pension Scam?
May 11, 2018
SEB – DESTROYING LIFE SAVINGS
SEB – DESTROYING LIFE SAVINGS – accepting business and investment instructions from unlicensed scammers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structured Notes will not be accepted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEGAL GROUNDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RULING:

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

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

April 24, 2018
OMI SUES LEONTEQ over undisclosed commissions

A fine journalist at International Investment reports that Old Mutual International is taking legal action against Leonteq. She reports that this action is being taken on the basis that Leonteq lied about commissions paid to advisers for using high-risk structured notes.

This news is, of course, very welcome news – especially if it succeeds in securing redress for the “significant financial losses” for the Continental Wealth Management victims. OMI has stated:

“Had the true level of commission been disclosed, the high-risk structured notes would not have passed Old Mutual International’s (OMI) criteria, and no investments would have been made”.

OMI has mentioned the “true level of commission”. What it is referring to is the fact that for some particularly toxic notes, the commission paid to the scammers was 8% instead of 6%. The victims ultimately pay this commission – which is always hidden from them – but in reality the difference between 8% and 6% pales into insignificance when compared to the actual losses themselves.

Leonteq’s high-risk structured notes had been failing and causing crippling losses for years. Just as RBC’s, Commerzbank’s and Nomura’s had also done. One victim saw his £38,000 pension pot dwindle down to £800 since 2015.

The truth of the matter is the none of the victims should have had any of their retirement savings invested in high-risk structured notes which clearly state on the term sheets:

FOR PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS ONLY

Continental Wealth Management – an unlicensed firm of scammers – bought more and more structured notes. CWM was not licensed for either insurance or investment advice.

But this raises an important question:

Why aren’t SEB and Generali suing Leonteq?

The SEB and Generali victims suffered very similar crippling losses to OMI’s. What are they doing about this fiasco? What would their “criteria” have done to intervene had they realised Leonteq was paying the scammers 8% instead of 6%?

Apparently, Leonteq is now disclosing commissions on the term sheets for their products. Great. Problem is that the victims never get to see the term sheets – or at least not until it is way too late and they have lost half of their life savings. Having had access to a Leonteq termsheet which clearly states:

This Product may only be sold to qualified investors (the term “qualified investor” has the meaning as defined in Section 10 of the Swiss Federal Act on Collective Investment Schemes “CISA”).

and

Given the complexity of the terms and conditions of this Product an investment is suitable only for experienced Investors who understand and are in a position to evaluate the risks associated with it.

But even if the victims had seen these warning and the fact that they were paying 6% or 8% – on high-risk structured notes – to have their fund systematically destroyed, what could these people have done about it? Because, at the end of the day, the client is not the client (apparently). The client is the life office. OMI, SEB and Generali are the legal owners of these dodgy structured notes. Or perhaps the trustee is the legal owner? Depends on who you ask and why – the answer is always different.

Fortunately for OMI clients – the MD of OMI – Peter Kenny – has said the company is “taking a firm stand against the behavior which has led to such devastating consequences”.

Kenny goes on to say that OMI “will do all that we can to bring to account those responsible.” And is “encouraging all market participants to help rid the industry of inappropriate structured products, which are having a damaging impact on investor confidence and outcomes”.

The International Investment journalist ends her article with Kenny’s parting comment:

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

For some, however, the damage has already been done.

A life’s worth of savings has already been destroyed.

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

As always, Pension Life would like to remind you that if you are planning to transfer any pension funds, make sure that you are transferring into a legitimate scheme. To find out how to avoid being scammed, please see our blog:

What is a pension scam?

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

April 12, 2018
DEALING WITH STRESS WHEN SCAMMED OUT OF YOUR PENSION

DEALING WITH STRESS WHEN SCAMMED

OUT OF YOUR PENSION

Being scammed out of a big chunk of your pension once is bad enough. But TWICE is awful. Double pension scam victim Jessica M.J. talks about her experience and gives other victims advice about how to cope with the stress that results from being a pension scam victim.

Jessica was scammed by Continental Wealth Management – one of Pension Life’s top-ten worst scammers – into the Evergreen QROPS scheme. Continental Wealth Management was acting as the cold callers and lead generators to Stephen Ward’s firm Premier Pension Solutions. Evergreen was a New Zealand pension scheme which was being used for pension liberation fraud using Ward’s pension loan company, Marazion. Jessica did not get (and was not offered) a loan.

Jessica was brave and generous enough to share her own story – which, sadly, was so typical of hundreds of other cases. However, she was one of the few who were actually scammed twice by Continental Wealth Management. She spoke of her own feelings: “I was very angry. I felt betrayed, cheated.”

After losing a third of her pension, Jessica was then moved by Continental Wealth Management to a Malta QROPS and put into an Old Mutual International insurance bond (which she didn’t need and couldn’t afford – and only served to earn the scammers a hefty commission). By investing what was left of the fund in high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes, half of what was left of Jessica’s pension was then destroyed. So she ended up losing two thirds of her hard-earned retirement savings.

Continental Wealth Management collapsed at the end of September 2017, leaving hundreds of victims with their pension funds in ruins and facing poverty in retirement. Old Mutual International, Generali and SEB – the life offices who allowed this devastation to happen and stood idly by while the structured notes destroyed the victims’ funds – have done nothing to compensate the victims for their losses.

Jessica has advised the public:

“There’s a lot of scammers out there – check ’em out!”

Sadly, if Jessica had known the questions to ask, the warning signs were there from the start. Continental Wealth Management was not licensed for investment advice. Few of the so-called advisers had any qualifications relevant to financial advice. The investments were professional-investor-only structured notes provided by RBC, Commerzbank, Nomura and Leonteq – among others. Continental Wealth Management used life bonds provided by Old Mutual International, Generali and SEB. These bonds served absolutely no purpose except to pay the scammers huge commissions. Dealing instructions had forged client signatures and the advisers lied about the losses when they were first reported claiming they were “only paper losses, and would recover”.

March 18, 2018
Say NO to structured notes for pensions!

Structured notes – say NO to them if an adviser wants to invest your pension in them. They are high-risk investments which are for professional investors ONLY – and not for ordinary retail investors – especially pensions.

Say NO to structured notes for pensions!

Structured notes have been used as pension investments for some years. Many advisers don’t understand them – and certainly, no retail pension investors understand them either. Structured notes are definitely not the low risk, high return investments originally promised – and the capital is NOT protected as claimed by some advisers.

As in the above example, it is a disgrace that structured note providers such as Commerzbank, Nomura, RBC and Leonteq have allowed their toxic products to be used for retail pension savers. Even when these rotten products have nosedived repeatedly, these dishonest and dishonourable providers keep on flogging them to destroy victims’ retirement savings.

Along with the rogue advisers – such as the scammers from Holborn Assets and Continental Wealth Management – and the rogue structured note providers, there are also rogue insurance companies who accept these toxic, high-risk, professional-investor-only investments. These insurers know full well that accepting these notes will doom the policyholders to poverty in retirement, but they don’t care. Some of the worst of these “life offices” are Old Mutual International, SEB, and Generali. These companies are no better than scammers and really should be called “death offices” since they effectively kill off thousands of victims’ life savings with their extortionate charges.

Commerzbank, Nomura, RBC and Leonteq all claim to be “award winning and innovative companies” and yet they show zero compassion to the victims who lose huge proportions of their retirement savings. The structured note providers keep paying commissions to the scammers – ranging from 6% to 8% of the investments. And then, when the structured notes go belly up, they simply sell more of the same toxic rubbish to the same scammers in an attempt to further ruin the victims.

So what the hell are structured notes? And why should investors say NO to them?

A structured note is an IOU from an investment bank that uses derivatives to create exposure to one or more investments. For example, you can have a structured note betting on the S&P 500 Price Index, the Emerging Market Price Index, or both. The combinations are almost limitless.

Say NO to structured notes for pensions!

Structured notes are frequently peddled by less-scrupulous financial advisers – as well as outright scammers – as a “high-yield, low-risk” supposedly backdoor way to own stocks. However, regulators have warned that investors can get burned – which they frequently do. If the investment banks can flog it, they will make just about any toxic cocktail you can dream up. In reality, a structured note is an unsecured debt issued by a bank or brokerage firm – and the amount of money the investor might (or might not) get back is pegged to the performance of stocks or broad market indexes.

Read more: Structured Notes: Buyer Beware!

On the surface, the ‘cocktails’ the structured note providers make seems like they could generate a great return. However, the truth is they often benefit the financial adviser rather than the investors.

Structured notes are suitable for professional investors only – and the fact sheets issued by the providers state this clearly. Whilst they do offer high returns if successful, they are also high risk with no protection on the amount invested. Structured notes should not be used for pensions.

Continental Wealth Management(CWM) invested over a thousand low to medium risk clients’ retirement savings in structured notes – mostly provided by Commerzbank, Nomura, RBC and Leonteq. These clients now have seriously decimated funds and are worried sick. But Commerzbank, Nomura, RBC and Leonteq have shown neither remorse for their toxic, high-risk, illiquid products nor concern for the hundreds of victims.

OMI (Quilter), Generali and SEB have also been totally disinterested in the thousands of failed structured notes they have facilitated. Indeed they are even charging the victims crippling early exit penalties when they decide to get out of the expensive and pointless insurance bonds which are further eating into the remaining funds.

Most structures notes have no guarantee, so their worth often depreciates to less than the paper they are printed on. Much like a bet at the races, if you bet £10 on Noble Nag to win in the 2.30 at Kempton Park at ten to one, you are guaranteed to win £100 if the horse wins. But if the horse doesn’t win, you say goodbye to your money.

Most structured notes are dressed up to look appealing to the uninformed victim. But in reality they are high risk and illiquid and can result in total decimation of a victim’s life savings. The advisors rarely disclose the commissions they are earning from the purchase of the structured notes (or from the insurance bond). Plus, once the structured notes start showing a serious loss, the adviser just dismisses this as “only a paper loss”. As the advisors have already taken their cut, they are rarely bothered if this high-risk investment does lose the client money.

So if you hear the term ‘structured note’ in connection with your retirement fund, just say ‘NO’. The only people profiting from this type of investment are the advisers.

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

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.

January 27, 2018
CONTINENTAL WEALTH MANAGEMENT – PREMIER PENSION SOLUTIONS’ SISTER CO

Continental Wealth Management closes 29.9.17

Continental Wealth Management (CWM) was a financial advisory firm based on the Costa Blanca in Spain. Headed up by Darren Kirby, there were – until earlier in 2017 – 35 people working at the firm. The firm claimed to have £50 million worth of assets under management and around 500 clients. The firm closed down on 29.9.2017.

During 2016/17, numerous clients of CWM began to realise that their pension and investment funds – managed by CWM – were shrinking in value dramatically. In fact, many clients had seen alarming losses being reported on their valuation statements and had asked CWM for an explanation. CWM had assured the distressed clients that these were “just paper losses” and advised them not to worry.

It has now become clear that in fact many clients have indeed suffered catastrophic losses and there is a very great deal of concern. One victim was taken into hospital on 25.9.17 with a brain hemorrhage and her husband fears that the distress of this situation has contributed to this life-threatening condition.

It is feared that up to 40% of CWM’s clients may have been affected by this situation.

BACKGROUND TO CWM

CWM “advisers” acted as sharks

In mid-2011, Stephen Ward’s Premier Pension Solutions (PPS) lost the lucrative Ark pension liberation scam when the Pensions Regulator placed the scheme in the hands of Dalriada Trustees. Ward had advised 160 victims to transfer £10m worth of secure pensions into this scheme on the promise of having 50% of their pensions paid to them in cash. He also assured them these payments would not be repayable or taxable and that the pensions would be invested in “high-end London residential properties”.

In the event, neither of these assurances turned out to be true. Dalriada is now making claims to recover the 50% liberations and HMRC has issued tax demands at 55% of the cash received (and the tax will still be payable even if the liberations are repaid). The High Court called the Ark scheme a “fraud on the power of investment”.

Having ruined 160 lives, and made up to £1 million profit out of the Ark victims, Ward immediately turned his attention to his next scam: Evergreen New Zealand QROPS and his Marazion “loans”. Having seen how easily victims could be duped into transferring their safe pensions with the promise of 50% liberation, Ward appointed CWM as “introducers” to the scam.

Here is an actual account by one of the Evergreen/PPS/CWM victims of what happened to her:

Mrs. A: “I was first cold called by CWM in 2011. I first met Phil Kelman of CWM in January 2012. I was told only positive things about transferring my pensions and to be able to take 100% of my pension funds.

This, however, changed after the first meeting and I was then told that due to the government closing loopholes I would only be able to get 50% of my pension fund and that the other 50% would be in the Evergreen QROPS earning enough interest over the 5 years to cover the 50% that I could withdraw (before the age of 55) – a win win situation!

There was no mention of the 50% being given as a loan until much further down the line. This was supposed to have taken 6 weeks at the most, but it actually took nearly 10 months. I was told that the “loan application” was a paper exercise just to cover things – I obviously have no proof of these conversations! Due to the fact that in the beginning it was not a “loan” there was no talk of a 55% tax charge, also as it was QROPS I was told it wouldn’t have incurred a tax bill.

I was not given any opportunity to say what the consequences of losing my pension or gaining an extortionate tax bill would be – either in the short or long term. If I had known of the huge risk of losing everything then obviously I would not have gone ahead. I did not state that I was willing to risk everything to get the “loan”.

I was told that Evergreen was a safe place for my pension to be as Evergreen was “approved”. I was given a graph to show how my pension would not only make the 50% back up but make more on top of it.”

Marco Floreale – former CWM “adviser” – now MD of Carrick Wealth

Mrs. A’s case was handled by CWM’s Marco Floreale (now Managing Director of Carrick Wealth) who claimed to be the managing director of CWM. Her secure, final salary, £100k Royal Mail pension was transferred to Evergreen and she was forced to sign a five-year “lock in” before receiving her “loan”. The loan agreement issued by Stephen Ward included annual interest at 8.5% compound which would mean that her £50k loan would have increased to £75k at the end of the five-year term. She was also charged more than £10k in fees.

There are now around 300 victims trapped in Evergreen as they are not allowed to transfer out. Ever. Between them they have lost £10m worth of pensions. The CWM personnel involved in this scam claimed that PPS was their “sister” company and have offered no help or compensation for the victims’ losses and terrible distress. One victim died of cancer in February 2017 and her husband is convinced that the stress of the Evergreen situation brought on the disease.

Phil Kelman, Jon Meek, Robert Pearl, Gemma Broad and Anthony Downs were among the CWM personnel who assured the victims that the transfers were in their interests as well as safe and prudent. It was, of course, later discovered that the Evergreen fund was invested in illiquid, high-risk, toxic funds – including personal, unsecured loans. Evergreen was removed from the QROPS list in November 2012 and the victims have now been told they can never transfer out.

It is not known how many other Stephen Ward/Premier Pension Solutions scams CWM was involved in, but when Evergreen got shut down CWM started acting as “advisers” to British expats in Spain and France. They were still working with Stephen Ward of PPS who provided the transfer advice. It is now thought they advised more than 500 people and that around 40% of these have suffered crippling losses to their investments.

I do not know whether CWM ever disclosed their previous involvement with Stephen Ward’s scams to the clients – although it is doubtful that any people would have felt comfortable using CWM had they known they had been responsible for the 300 Evergreen victims. Certainly, CWM did not disclose their past activities to either Trafalgar International or Momentum Pensions – had they done so they would never have been given terms of business by either firm.

From 2013 onwards, CWM invested hundreds of low to medium risk clients’ investments in high-risk, illiquid assets. CWM completely ignored the suitability issue and paid no heed to the clients’ preference for safe, low-risk investments. Clients’ signatures were repeatedly copied and once the losses started to appear, CWM assured them that there was nothing to worry about and they were “only paper losses”.

When asked why so many clients were put into professional-investor-only investments, CWM replied that the investors themselves were not the clients; but the insurance companies were the clients. When I showed CWM evidence of forged signatures on dealing instructions several months ago, there was no response then and no further communication from them subsequently.

In mid-September, it was reported that Darren Kirby and Anthony Downs had both resigned from CWM and on Friday 29^th September 2017 the firm closed down altogether. CWM is rumoured to have tried to become a tied agent of a Cyprus-based firm called Woodbrook. But it is further suspected that Woodbrook has finally come to the conclusion that such an alliance may not be prudent.

The most important thing now is the restitution of the victims’ funds. OMI, Trafalgar and Momentum Pensions, have come to the table to try to find a solution and restore of the victims’ pensions and investments. If we can achieve an equitable settlement, this will be a first in European financial services. However, the parties who have not come to the table are life offices Generali and SEB, as well as other pension trustees including Concept, Sovereign, Pantheon, Elmo and STM. It is no surprise that STM have not come to the table, because they pulled up the drawbridge in the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund scam, run by XXXX XXXX – now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

I would like to thank all the victims for their patience so far. But it has now finally run out – unsurprisingly. The mood has darkened and victims want action. A valuable information and commentary resource is the Repdigger forum. One interesting post recently reminded contributors that it was Stephen Ward of Premier Pension Solutions who provided the initial transfer advice. Nothing changes.

Stephen Ward is also connected to Capita Oak.

pension-life.com/top-10-deadliest-pension-scammers-hmrc/

October 1, 2017