Category: Pension Scams

  • Dolphin Trust – a matter of serious regret

    Dolphin Trust is now called The German Property Group. Former founder and director Charles Smethurst has left. Hundreds – possibly thousands – of investors (lenders) are now hung out to dry. Dolphin isn’t answering the phone as people are desperate to find out if and when they will get their money back.

    Dolphin has a glossy appearance on the internet but exhibits highly questionable business ethics. Dolphin has become more like a ghostly sea creature than a cute and friendly version of Flipper. So what is it with Dolphin? Why won’t they even talk to their victims who parted with their life savings in return for worthless, unsecured loan notes?

    The company Dolphin Capital 80 projekt GMBH has a strange business etiquette:

    No response to their clients until law suits are filed.

    No follow through with the development of properties purchased.

    Lying about some of the properties supposedly purchased.

    Taking life savings from people and placing them in highly speculative investments.

    20 year old as the managing director. Can someone so young really have what it takes to deal with funds of almost 400 million euro?

    Kontrovers, the documentary.

    A recent German documentary, “Kontrovers” exposed the damning results of a probing investigation into the Dolphin Group. The film details the use of Dolphin’s investors’ (lenders’) money to buy old listed buildings with the promise that these buildings will be restored and converted into flats. An appealing idea, in principle. It would, of course, be great to stop the decay of part of Germany’s heritage. But at what cost and to whom?

    The German documentary Kontrovers on Dolphin

    https://www.br.de/mediathek/video/the-story-mysterious-real-estate-business-by-dolphin-av:5cef45e962ec95001a8db4ee

    The documentary has raised some very interesting points, for us at Pension Life.

    People do fall for these crazy “investment” schemes promising high returns. “Introducers” and “advisers” get paid huge commissions to scam victims into putting their hard-earned savings at risk.

    It really is tragic how easily people get hooked into scams such as Dolphin. People tell us all the time that they would never be so stupid as to fall for something so obviously too good to be true. But still it happens all the time – and the victims are not stupid at all. This documentary demonstrates this clearly as victims report: “I trusted them. I took them into my house and trusted them”.

    The success of scams such as Dolphin has a lot to do with how convincing the “introducers” are. With eye-watering commissions of up to 25% you can understand how hard the introducers work to hone their skills on how to win friends and influence people.

    Complete Ambiguity

    The ambiguity (smoke and mirrors) surrounding Dolphin and what they are actually doing with people’s investment is nothing short of shocking.

    • Dolphin buy derelict buildings with victims’ pension funds without their knowledge
    • Buildings are left to rot. Some plans may have been drawn up to show to potential buyers, but no development progress is ever made. The buildings deteriorate – decreasing the value of the investments/loan notes.
    • Investors/lenders are told their money is invested in particular buildings without Dolphin ever owning them at all. There is even doubt as to whether one building, an ex-military base, was ever for sale.
    • Restoration of ancient, delapidated buildings is a black hole for money and time – the depth of which is impossible to predict.  That’s what makes these investments extremely speculative to the point of almost becoming “philanthropic donations”.

    Illusions facilitated by a conglomerate

    Dolphin seems to be a complex network of inter-connected companies. This seems like the very purposeful establishment of smoke and mirrors to funnel money in various directions. This is clearly stated at the start of the documentary when a contributor states that investors are given loan notes which he claims are a “fantasy product” and “highly speculative”.

    Dolphins Trust Audited Accounts

    Have the audited accounts of Dolphin Trust ever turned up? That is another point worth mentioning in relation to this Dolphin scam. What are they hiding? And why would any self-respecting adviser ever recommend an investment with no audited accounts?
    The money that Dolphin Trust borrowed (unsecured) from hundreds of pension and investment scam victims could well be lost altogether – and it may even turn out to have been nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

    Multi-dimensional Labyrinth

    So we see that the multi dimensional labyrinth that Dolphin has created is a very dangerous place for people to invest (or lend) their money. It now appears to be a scam of enormous proportions and one that victims fell for easily and quickly. It did indeed have all the glossy and magnetic appeal of something that could have been amazing. With the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund scam mostly invested in Dolphin (and now in the process of being wound up and investigated by the Serious Fraud Office) it not hard to see how likely it is that Dolphin will now collapse. And take thousands of distressed victims’ funds with it.

    On 29th May 2019, Dolphin Trust – aka German Property Group – sent out the below email to its “introducers”. These are the flotsam of the financial services world – unregulated, unqualified “chiringuitos” who prey on the unwary in order to flog them risky, illiquid crap like Dolphin – in return for fat commissions. Examples of these spivs include Smart Invest, The Landlord’s Pension, Fortcall Financial, Smart Invest, Best Property Investment, Highground Property Investment, and SLR Wealth (from whom you can also buy a bit of The Resort Group collapsible flats in Cape Verde if you are feeling especially adventurous). But we must not forget Shenton International which is Dolphin’s Singapore “partner” which has also launched a series of mini bonds linked to Dolphin.

    Sadly, it looks inevitable that the Dolphin Trust ship is sinking – and Charles Smethurst has fled.

    EMAIL FROM DOLPHIN TO THE “INTRODUCERS” DATED 29TH MAY 2019: Due to the recent coverage relating to Dolphin Trust (German Property Group) I wanted to issue a statement.

    Firstly, let me say that I am very concerned at the allegations and we obviously take any adverse commentary very seriously. We are in communication with our lawyers regarding any further response that may be provided to the BBC, following our original letter that was sent to them prior to the recent coverage.

    We consider that the inclusion of many of the criticisms are unfair and that the characterisation of the issues and version of events detailed are both inaccurate and misleading.

    Whilst we continue to work to resolve any issues currently affecting a limited number of investors, there are some points which I would like to address in this communication.

    Our recent change of name from Dolphin Trust to German Property Group is not intended to confuse our investors or stakeholders, or to avoid liabilities or any other obligations. We continue to make clear that GPG was formerly known as Dolphin Trust and all obligations under loan agreements remain unchanged.

    It is important to note that Dolphin Trust have paid hundreds of millions of pounds/euros to satisfied investors. Implying that all customers have been misled and that nobody has received their contractual returns is simply false.

    Reference has been made specifically to a list of projects currently owned. I would like to point out that this was not created by Dolphin and is now 3 years old.

    Regarding the progress of development properties, naturally we work hard to move projects forward as expeditiously as possible. However, construction and property developments can be vulnerable to delays caused by various localised factors and the average completion time for a construction redevelopment project in Germany has steadily lengthened over recent years.

    The company is currently involved in real estate investments of 60 properties.

    We are always concerned to hear of any investors or stakeholders with concerns or worries regarding our products. Most of our customers are happy with our offering and performance, and we take any complaints very seriously.

    We also take the security of our investors very seriously. Customer funds are secured on property assets in one of the most stable and conservative real estate markets in the world.

    In cases where there have been difficulties realising capital by the date scheduled or where payment is delayed, this is clearly a matter of significant regret. Whilst we do everything in our power to avoid such problems, issues can arise in development projects and this can cause delays. We are entirely transparent in acknowleding that the risk of delay in payment exists, and this is reflected in our products.

    We are committed to addressing all and any concerns raised by our customers, whether they are made directly to us or through the media.

    If any investors have concerns they need to address, please direct these questions to the customer liaison team on 0191 500 5459 or at clientrelations@dolphin-trust.com

    Regards, Snot

    Poem

    Above the calming waves, you spot a dorsal fin,

    Is it that greedy shark who’s gonna take you in?

    So you dip your toes to test and out pops friendly Flipper,

    He’s so adorable but…

    did you know his snout can also be a killer?

    You listen to his clicking sounds that dull out your senses,

    You write those cheques then wish you hadn’t been so careless,

    As you wave goodbye to Flipper, you feel like all those lemmings,

    The wistful trail of your pension and POOF!

    there goes your whole life savings.

    Pension Life Blog - POOF - there goes your whole life savings - Financial adviser

  • Is your IFA a snake in the grass?

    Every pension scam starts with abuse of trust. A scam only works if the victim trusts the scammer. Sadly, this happens in all walks of life. We’ve all done it: trusted someone who let us down. A friend, colleague, employee, neighbour or even family member.

    Every pension scam starts with trust.  Most victims get scammed because their trust was abused by a rogue IFA.  People who lose part or all of their pension only find out their adviser (or introducer) was a "snake in the grass" after they have lost part or all of their pension.

    Life would come to a complete standstill if we didn’t take a chance and trust people. That is in most people’s nature – we all want to believe that people are good, honest, sincere and trustworthy. And that is what pension scammers trade on – and why so many victims get scammed out of their life savings.

    Pension scammers and rogue IFAs hypnotise their victims with false promises of generous returns and capital protection.

    How do snakes in the grass con their victims?

    There is a fine line between an outright scam and “mere” mis-selling. Whether a criminal offence has taken place is up to law enforcement in the relevant jurisdiction to decide. Fortunately, in Malta there is an Arbiter for financial services, and he can rule on whether mis-selling has taken place – and order that the victim should be paid redress. However, the Arbiter cannot rule on criminal complaints – that is a matter for the police and is a separate issue.

    Pension scammers and rogue IFAs promise healthy returns and capital protection.  But these are all lies to lull their victims into a false sense of security.

    Arbiter’s decision on a victim’s complaint against Hollingsworth International Financial Services Ltd.

    An elderly lady consulted Hollingsworth International Financial Services in Malta about her life savings in 2011. She told Hollingsworth’s employee Paul Tilbrook she wanted her funds invested safely and cautiously. Her savings amounted to over £400,000 and she wanted to move them to a safe pair of hands to make sure her capital was protected. The adviser promised her that her money would not only be protected, but that it would be “actively managed” to ensure diversity and growth.

    Hollingsworth International was found by the Malta Arbiter to have mis-sold structured notes to a victim who wanted low risk investments that would protect her capital.

    What happened in reality is that Paul Tilbrook of Hollingsworth International invested this cautious victim’s funds in high-risk, professional-investor-only structured notes. Forty of them in all. He would have earned between 6% and 10% commission on each of these notes – and it looks like he was “churning” the notes to maximise the amount of commission he could earn from the notes. This is a practice whereby a rogue IFA keeps buying and selling notes – from providers such as Commerbank, Nomura and Royal Bank of Canada – so that every time he buys a new one he earns another chunk of commission.

    Let’s look at the Malta Arbiter’s decision about an adviser at Hollingsworth International who sold an elderly client a sack full of structured notes. The Arbiter upheld the 84-year-old investor’s complaint and ordered the firm to pay redress for her losses.

    The Malta Arbiter decides on complaints against financial services providers - such as Hollingsworth International - who cause their clients damage.

    This was a typical case of mis-selling by an adviser who has put his own profits before his client’s interests.  The client  told the adviser she wanted capital protection and low risk.  The Arbiter noted that:

    MFSA regulations state: the License Holder shall not be regarded as acting honestly, fairly and professionally in accordance with the best interests of a client if it is paid any non-disclosed fee or commission which is a conflict of interest because it could influence the conduct of the adviser”

    This facet of the case (as reported in an earlier decision against Hollingsworth International) was not highlighted – presumably because the investor had not been aware of the undisclosed commissions which would have been paid to the adviser for the structured notes.  On a fund of £400,000, with at least 40 different structured notes over the period, Hollingsworth International would have earned up to 9% commission on each one.

    The adviser’s defence is interesting because they insist it gave no investment advice but merely “assisted” the client by filling out a fact find. 

    It is also worth noting that the firm boasts “partnerships” with Nomura, Royal Bank of Canada and Commerzbank on the home page of the Hollingsworth International website (alongside Old Mutual International and Friends Provident International).  This, despite the fact that the Arbiter has found the firm guilty of mis-selling structured notes provided by these firms in contravention of the Malta regulations.

    It is also notable that the firm considers it did nothing wrong and blames the structured note losses on “market forces” without acknowledging that these high-risk, professional-investor-only instruments were entirely unsuitable for such an investor (cautious and elderly).  Indeed, the defence that the term “professional investor only” merely refers to the documentation, rather than the actual investment, raises the question as to whether this firm understands investment principles at all.

    GJ  vs Hollingsworth International Financial Services Ltd.  15 January 2019

    Summary of Complaint

    Complainant GF, 83 years of age, British Malta resident since 1992. In April 2011, Paul Tilbrook of Hollingsworth International (Malta) compiled a Fact Find. She held investments in equities, bonds and funds in offshore bank accounts. She worried her funds (Isle of Man and Channel Islands) would not be safe and asked PT for something more secure.

    GF informed PT her investment attitude was cautious or medium and was categorised as a Retail Client.

    PT prepared a report outlining recommendations and charges, describing how investments would be allocated between different products. The report stated: “it makes logical sense to move funds to a much more protected structure whilst still retaining your investments’ offshore status”.

    PT wrote “I have deliberately included a range of capital protected structures and funds to provide more diversity. As new opportunities arise, we will suggest these to you and recommend that they become part of your overall investment strategy. Our role is to monitor each fund in the portfolio and recommend changes accordingly. This ‘active management’ principle means that changes can be made quickly and cost effectively.”

    £408,001 and $58,831 were transferred to a new account with Ned Bank Jersey office.  Between 2011 and 2015, GF bought circa 40 structured notes.

    PT stated: “these structured notes are complex instruments deemed to be suitable for your investment needs.”  GF claimed the investments recommended were intended for Professional Clients.

    The market value of GF’s portfolio fluctuated over time. In September 2014, it was around £400,000, but then it fell to £241,329 in 2015.

    The capital loss by December 2015 was £203,387 – 48% of her capital. This widened by June 2016 to 50% of her investment. The loss was based on structured notes which had not yet matured.  (However, some of the losses did later recover somewhat).

    GF stated she was not an experienced investor and that her previous investments were not high risk. She could not understand the Hollingsworth portfolio.  She stated: “When I invested, I did not know it was high risk until my portfolio started going down.”  When she told PT he replied: “Don’t worry, you’ll get your money back.”

    Her portfolio was examined by experts in England and she was told, ‘You might as well have played them at the casino or bet on the horses.’

    GF Sought

    • Declaration that respondent has failed its fiduciary obligations towards GF
    • Declaration that respondent, through gross negligence and recklessness, committed investment mis-selling
    • Order for respondent to compensate and reinstate her to former financial position with interest

    Company Replied

    • Losses suffered were exclusively as a result of factors such as market risk, credit risk or fraud risk, and not the fault of the company.
    • PT never gave investment advice.  He simply assisted GF with the Fact Find and Key Information Documents.
    • The statement: “For Professional Investors Only – not Suitable for Retail” related to the KID (information document) and not the underlying product.
    • It is untrue that complex (structured) products cannot be suitable for Retail Clients. The products offered to the complainant were lower risk than the actual equities and fit within her risk tolerance and investment objectives
    • There were no regulatory obligations to provide copies of the Fact Find or other documents to the complainant.
    • Suitability was satisfied as investment advice is based on highly-subjective professional judgement
    • Claim is unfounded as the company has always acted in a professional manner as is required by the financial services regulatory framework and denies investment mis-selling.
    • Complainant’s losses are not due to the complexity or unsuitability of the structured notes recommended but as a result of Market risk.
    • Compensation including interest should be rejected as the loss was not due to the Company’s negligence or misconduct but solely due to unforeseeable market movements
    • GF’s portfolio was not high risk; it was a balanced but not cautious portfolio.  

    Arbiter’s Conclusion – upholding the complaint:

    The Arbiter decided that the complaint is fair, equitable and reasonable in the circumstances and substantial merits of the case.

    Hollingsworth were unprofessional because the client lost her capital.  Capital protection was of foremost importance.   None of the structured notes recommended were capital protected (in the true meaning of the term).

    The provider failed to follow good industry practices and did not fulfil the reasonable and legitimate expectations of the consumer. The provider wrongly advised the complainant when it mis-sold a pool of 35 structured investment products which were unsuitable to her. The provider’s behaviour was in breach of his contractual obligations towards the complainant.

    The Arbiter has decided that inter alia there was mis-selling of financial products, so the complainant should as much as possible be compensated for her losses including “dealing charges” which were paid by her.  It was clearly evident that the structured products were aimed towards professional or sophisticated investors as clearly labelled on the marketing documentation.

    The Asset Allocation was over-exposed to structured products with limited capital protection aimed at professional/sophisticated investors. There was hardly any “active management”– a promise made by the provider – but rather an investment strategy that remained passive throughout. Indeed, the provider itself confirmed that these products were meant to be held till maturity.

    Hollingsworth International is ordered to pay the complainant the sum of £81,452 (the current loss on matured structured notes) with interest from the date of the decision till the date of payment. The four investments which have not yet matured are to be kept by the complainant without prejudice to any legal remedies she might have at the date of maturity.

  • GENERALI WORLDWIDE – FINANCIAL CRIME FACILITATOR

    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 23rd 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?

  • Keep Calm: Just avoid OMI/Quilter

    Keep Calm: Just avoid OMI/Quilter

    Pension Life Blog - Keep Calm and just avoid OMI/quilter - Peter Kenny Structured products

    OLD MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL HYPOCRISY OVER NEW MALTA REGULATIONS

    OMI’s Peter Kenny advises the industry to “keep calm”.

    He obviously wants to be able to keep flogging these useless, pointless and exorbitantly expensive insurance bonds to thousands of innocent victims.

    With the announcement of new regulations in Malta for QROPS, International Adviser has quoted managing director of OMI (soon to be Quilter) Peter Kenny: “Old Mutual International is encouraging all market participants to help rid the industry of inappropriate structured products“.

    Kenny´s statement, to the untrained eye, may seem logical and thoughtful. However, here at Pension Life we are well educated about OMI´s dirty laundry and routine use of toxic structured notes.

    The statement Peter Kenny made is downright hypocritical. He is clouding the irresponsible and negligent actions OMI have made in the past, and the damage the high-risk structured products have inflicted on pension funds. Kenny hasn´t even mentioned the huge quarterly fees OMI have applied to ever-dwindling pension funds.

    These fees are OMI´s way of clawing back the commissions paid to the scammers. And this is why victims are tied into these insurance bonds for so many years, and why there are such enormous penalties for exiting the bonds.

    Pension Life Blog - Keep clam and avoid OMI/QuilterKenny told International Adviser:

    “The Malta Financial Services Authority’s proposed new regulations are sensible, appropriate measures to be taking.

    Specifically, we welcome greater restrictions on structured notes. Old Mutual International 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.

    Over the years, Old Mutual International has taken action to tighten its criteria, introduced a maximum fee level, and in some cases banned certain types of structured products from certain institutions.

    Not all structured products are bad, and they can be useful for clients who want a degree of capital protection whilst also providing exposure to investment markets or a fixed return. However, many structured products are often very complex in design. Regrettably, some investors and advisers will not always possess the depth of knowledge required to fully understand the risks and rewards associated with investing in such structured products.”

    Doesn´t that sound lovely in theory! However, I´m sure the victims of the CWM pension scam would not agree.

    “Specifically, we welcome greater restrictions on structured notes. Old Mutual International 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.”

    For the last eight years at least, OMI have allowed the use of structured notes. We have seen many examples of victims having 100% of their portfolios invested in structured notes – including the fraudulent Leonteq ones. We have the hundreds of victims of the CWM pension scandal as evidence of this.

    Peter Kenny must surely be aware that OMI were happy to invest the life savings of the CWM victims into structured products which clearly stated at the top of the investment sheets (so as even the most short-sighted OMI employee could not miss it):

    HIGH-RISK AND FOR PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS ONLY

    Pension Life Blog - Keep Calm and just avoid OMI/Quilter - Peter Kenny - Structured ProductsHere at Pension Life, we do hope that even trainees at OMI are aware that pension fund members are retail investors and should be placed into low to medium risk, liquid investments. However, it seems that these details obviously don´t feature in OMI´s training manual.

    Structured products are illiquid and they often lock the fund in for fixed terms – up to 5 years. Added to this is the fact that victims were also locked into ten or eleven-year term OMI´s life assurance policies.  It is absolutely ridiculous to lock people into a product which does nothing to protect the funds and only serves to erode the value of the funds with the exorbitant quarterly charges which inexorably “drag” the fund down.

    “Over the years, Old Mutual International has taken action to tighten its criteria, introduced a maximum fee level, and in some cases banned certain types of structured products from certain institutions.” 

    This is an outright lie and we have hard evidence that even in the past couple of years, OMI has done nothing to tighten its criteria in any of the CWM cases.  In fact, OMI were still accepting fraudulent Leonteq structured notes up until very recently.  Peter Kenny is being dishonest as the reality is that there was no thought or care at all over a very long period.

    One Pension Life member started with a fund of £38,000.  His last valuation showed that it was now worth just £800. When OMI apply their next quarterly fee, the entire fund will be wiped out as OMI simply kept taking their fees based on 11% of the original value (as opposed to the constantly dropping value).  But clearly OMI didn’t care or even show any interest – they made a packet in fees, paid a huge commission to the CWM scammers and sat back and did nothing while the fund dwindled to nothing.

    “Not all structured products are bad, and they can be useful for clients who want a degree of capital protection…”

    I highlight here a “degree of capital protection” – just a degree? Pension funds are normally a person’s life savings.  So what does a “degree” mean? 10%, 50% perhaps 75%? The degree of capital protection in the case of the CWM/OMI scam was 0%.

    “Regrettably, some investors and advisers will not always possess the depth of knowledge required to fully understand the risks and rewards associated with investing in such structured products.”

    Pension Life blog - Keep Calm and Just avoid OMI/Quilter - Peter Kenny - Structured products - Care of DutyRegrettably for the investors who were victims of the  CWM scammers and OMI, they most definitely did not possess the depth of knowledge required to fully understand the risks. They put their faith in the smartly- dressed scammers.  With promises of high returns, the high risk of the investments and high fees to be charged were left unmentioned. OMI were supposed to protect the victims’ interests but failed dismally to lift a finger to help arrest the downward spiral of the funds.  

    OMI just sat there like a lazy, greedy, callous parasite and watched the victims’ retirement savings dwindle.

    Malta´s new regulations have been put into place to protect investors from scammers like CWM and firms like OMI. I think OMI are secretly seething as the changes to the regulations will surely affect their already dropping profits.

    International Adviser also reported on 30 Apr 18:

    “Quilter, formerly Old Mutual Wealth, said its assets under management and administration had fallen in the first quarter of 2018.”

    Here´s hoping they fall further – much further – 2/3rds further like Pension Life members Pete and Val´s did.  Peter Kenny needs to experience a taste of how the victims of the CWM scam felt at finally receiving the news that their pension funds had been left in tatters.

     

  • STM FIDEC’S VARIOUS NEFARIOUS BOOKS

    STM FIDEC’S VARIOUS NEFARIOUS BOOKS

    STM Fidecs' Alan Kentish and David Easton avoided the humiliation of a public court appearance and will now be letting Deloitte inspect their dirty books.

    STM Fidecs has played its “get out of jail free” card, avoided January’s court hearing and agreed to “cooperate” with the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission (GFSC)  – allowing auditors Deloitte to probe STM’s dirty books.

    STM'S VARIOUS NEFARIOUS BOOKS - Pension life - Fraudsters Alan Kentish and David Easton escapes court

    I was more than a little miffed because I was looking forward to a nice day out in Gibraltar.  I had my packed lunch all planned – spam sandwiches, hard-boiled eggs and ripe tomatoes (with a few spares in case I got a chance to lob one or two at Alan Kentish and David Easton).

    Instead, Deloittes are going to “probe” STM’s undoubtedly cooked books.  Fraudsters Alan Kentish and David Easton might try to hide some of the dirtiest stuff.  (And in case some eager defamation lawyer is reading this, “fraudsters” is what Kentish and Easton called themselves on Facebook).

    Deloitte will be digging the dirt on STM Fidecs various pension scams and uncovering exactly what Alan Kentish and David Easton have been up toI will, of course, be more than happy to help Deloittes see the whole picture – rather than just what the Fraudsters want them to see.  I will happily buy a whole shed full of spades as well as several boxes of latex gloves and surgical masks.  However, the most important way in which I can assist them is to give them details of the various scams which the Fraudsters have operated and facilitated.

    The Gibraltar regulator has for some time been trying to expose STM’s various nefarious activities – while Kentish and Easton have doggedly and desperately wriggled and slithered out of reach.  The Deloitte investigation will finally expose the company’s internal compliance failures and conflicts of interest.

    Police investigation into the Cornerstone Friendly Society pension scam facilitated by STM FidecsDeloittes will need to concentrate on at least three main areas: Trafalgar Multi-Asset Fund; Cornerstone Friendly Society and Blackmore Global.  They will also need to liaise closely with the Serious Fraud Office which is investigating the Trafalgar fund scam and the West Yorkshire and Humber Police which is investigating the Cornerstone scam.

    If Deloittes are going to be able to conclude their investigations into STM by the end of March 2018, they will have to ask many probing questions to establish the extent of STM’s “compliance failures” (aka facilitation of financial crime).

    • Why did STM accept business from serial scammer XXXX XXXX’s unlicensed firm Global Partners Limited?

    • Why did STM accept hundreds of transfers from UK residents in whose interests it was NOT to swap their British pension arrangements for an expensive QROPS?

    • Why did STM allow these victims to have funds invested in XXXX XXXX’s own fund – Trafalgar Multi-Asset (a UCIS which is illegal to promote to UK residents)?

    • Did STM not consider it to be a conflict of interest for the “adviser” and fund manager to be one and the same person? Especially a person with a sordid track record of operating pension scams such as Capita Oak, Henley, and Westminster?

    Chief executive Alan Kentish has described the Deloitte “deal” as a workable solution and is jolly pleased to have avoided January’s court hearing.  He has also said that the hearing wasn’t in either STM’s or the GFSC’s interests.

    I suspect both STM and the GFSC knew it was very likely that quite a few STM victims whose pensions are in tatters were likely to turn up and that the hail of ripe tomatoes was likely to make quite a mess of the Supreme Court’s wallpaper.

    Meanwhile, Alan Kentish and another STM Fraudster are still being investigated by the Gibraltar Police Money Laundering Unit.  I just hope they don’t get hauled off to jail before Deloitte get to finish their digging and probing – as that might delay the publication of the report.

    So what has prompted all this recent flurry of action?  In November 2017, the GFSC wrote to STM Fidecs and outlined their concerns.  These included – among other things:

    • Effectiveness and oversight of STM Fidecs’ internal compliance functions
    • High turnover of staff in Compliance Officer and Money Laundering Regulatory Officer roles
    • General suitability and experience of compliance staff
    • Exercise of corporate governance across all of the STM companies
    • Compliance with legal and technical requirements in relation to the operation of client accounts
    • Level and nature of due diligence undertaken when accepting new QROPS business and whether legal and regulatory obligations are/were being met
    • Nature of investments made in relation to QROPS e.g. the Trafalgar Multi-Asset Fund – linked to serious customer detriment and alleged fraud

    I think Deloittes also ought to look into why STM Fidecs’ own staff were bullied into “looking the other way” when they were worried about compliance issues (and then paid off to keep them quiet).

    Finally, STM Fidecs has now announced it will be moving from Gibraltar to the UK.  This move comes after what Alan Kentish has described as “unexpected challenges”.  Kentish remains bullish, however, about the company’s profitability.  However, he still fails to express any concern for the hundreds of STM Fidecs’ victims who will inevitably see heavy losses in their pension funds and will suffer poverty in retirement.  Shame on this callous character.

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

    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.

  • Julian Hanson – why pension scammers must be prosecuted

    Julian Hanson – why pension scammers must be prosecuted

    Pension Life Blog - Why pension scammers such as Julian Hanson must be prosecuted - julian hanson - Barratt and Dalton
    Why pension scammers such as Julian Hanson must be stopped before they burn more victims’ pension funds – such as in the Ark and Barratt and Dalton scams

    Julian Hanson – why pension scammers must be prosecuted.

    And jailed.

    BARRATT AND DALTON PENSION SCAM: The Pensions Regulator has announced that on 23 January 2018, four pension scammers have been ordered to pay back £13.7 million they stole from their victims.

    BARRATT AND DALTON PENSION LIBERATION SCAM:

    245 victims had their pension funds stolen by David Austin, Susan Dalton, Alan Barratt and Julian Hanson. Their company – Friendly Pensions Limited (FPL) – acquired the pension funds using cold calling techniques with promises of ‘tax-free’ payments.

    The Pensions Regulator (TPR)  had asked the High Court to order the defendants to repay the funds they dishonestly misused or misappropriated from the pension schemes – the first time such an order has been obtained.

    But this clearly demonstrates that pension scammers should be prosecuted and jailed quickly before they go on to scam thousands more victims.  Julian Hanson – an integral part of the Barratt and Dalton scamming team – was also an integral part of the Ark scam.

    Julian Hanson acted as an introducer/adviser in the ARK case (also in the hands of Dalriada) in 2010/11.  He scammed over 100 victims out of their pensions – totaling around £5.5 million worth of retirement savings.  Hanson, in common with the many evil scammers creating scam after scam, was happy to push aside the appalling predicament of his Ark victims and stroll on to find new victims for the Barratt and Dalton scam.

    Hanson had promised his Ark victims their pensions would be profitably invested in “high-end London residential property” and would grow sufficiently to discharge the 50% they were allowed to take from their funds.  This, he assured the victims, would NOT be taxable.

    As soon as the Pensions Regulator placed the Ark schemes into the hands of Dalriada Trustees, Julian Hanson should have been prosecuted and prevented from ever scamming pension savers again.  But, sadly, he was left free to continue his evil trade.  Hanson was one of a whole army of scammers peddling the Ark scam:

     

    Pension Life Blog - Why pension scammers such as Julian Hanson must be prosecuted - julian hanson - Barratt and Dalton

    And hereby lies a basic flaw in the system: had Julian Hanson (along with his fellow scammers) been prosecuted and jailed for scamming the Ark victims, in 2011, the subsequent Barratt and Dalton victims might have been saved.  However, it will hopefully be the last one that Julian Hanson is allowed to get away with, as his name will now be synonymous with pension scams.

    The same is true for the other introducers/advisers peddling Ark who remain free to continue their trade:

    Andrew Isles is still a practicing accountant at Isles and Storer

    James Ian Hobson of Silk Financial went on to operate more companies which operated lead generation and cold-calling services for further scams such as Fast Pensions and Trafalgar Multi-Asset Fund

    Stephen Ward went on to scam thousands more victims out of their pensions and into toxic investments as well as illegal liberation in the Evergreen QROPS; Capita Oak, Westminster, Southlands, Headforte, and London Quantum.

    The mastermind behind the Barratt and Dalton scam was apparently David Austin – a former bankrupt with no experience of pension investments.  He invested victims’ pension funds in truffle trees and St. Lucia timeshares, and then laundered the victims’ pension funds through relatives in the UK, Switzerland, and Andorra.  Austin used a number of businesses he had set up in the UK, Cyprus and the Caribbean – including Friendly Pensions Ltd.  Austin’s family clearly had no shame about where their money came from and flaunted their new-found wealth all over social media. Fortunately, this vulgar and heartless bragging made the job of gathering evidence for the High Court much easier for tPR

    Pension Life Blog - Why pension scammers such as Julian Hanson must be prosecuted - julian hanson - Barratt and Dalton TPR had appointed Dalriada Trustees to the case, and with this ruling, they will be able to attempt to recoup the stolen money from the four scammers. Unfortunately it is unclear how much money is actually left to recoup as scammers are notoriously clever at hiding their ill-gotten gains offshore and presenting themselves as “men of straw”.

    Nicola Parish,TPR’s Executive Director of Frontline Regulation, said: “The defendants siphoned off millions of pounds from the schemes on what they falsely claimed were fees and commissions.

    “While Austin was the mastermind, all four took part in stripping the schemes almost bare. This left hardly anything behind from the savings their victims had set aside over decades of work to pay for their retirements.

    “The High Court’s ruling means that Dalriada can now go after the assets and investments of those involved to try to recover at least some of the money that these corrupt people took. This case sends a clear message that we will take tough action against pension scammers.”

    One the investments in the Barratt and Dalton scam was £2 million in an off-plan timeshare development in St Lucia called Freedom Bay. This same development also took millions of pounds’ worth of funds from the victims of the ARK scam.  Freedom Bay is now in administration.

    In this scam, operating between November 2011 and September 2014, 245 people were cold called, promises of a cash lump sum and compliant investments at 5% were promised.

    The reality of what happened to the funds was:

    • More than £10.3 million was transferred to businesses owned or controlled by Mr Austin
    • Just £3.2 million of the funds was invested
    • False documents were made to cover these figures
    • Funds given back to the victims were a % of their actual funds and NOT profits
    • More than £1 million was paid to the “ introducers” or “agents” who conducted the cold calls

    Pension Life Blog - Why pension scammers such as Julian Hanson must be prosecuted - julian hanson - Barratt and Dalton One of the victims, Colin, from South Wales, had become the full-time carer for his partner when he was approached via text message. Promised investments in the now bust St Lucia Developments, a lump sum which he planned to spend on a holiday. Having heard about the pension scams, he tried to contact the scammers with no success.

    Colin, 48, said: “I should have known that it was too good to be true. I should have sought advice and asked more questions, but I didn’t.

    “I had contributed towards my £50,000 pension pot, for which I had worked really hard, and now that has been taken from me.

    “The loss of my pension will have a massive impact on my life. When my children finish school I will be around retirement age. There will be no money to draw down when I turn 55 and no pension savings for later life.

    “I was greedy. I feel stupid for throwing away my financial future for £4,200.”

    Pension Life Blog - Why pension scammers such as Julian Hanson must be prosecuted - julian hanson - Barratt and Dalton A couple, John and Samantha, both fell victim to this scam despite being advised by their pension provider that it could be a scam. They received their lump sum and were told their pension was invested in truffle trees. After reporting the case to the police, they were later informed that their lump sum was from their own funds and HMRC promptly served them with a large tax bill.

    John, 46, said: “As a result of my dealings with Alan Barratt my final salary pension is in a scheme that I don’t understand the status of but which I have been told is a scam.

    “As far as I know, the majority of my pension fund is invested in truffle trees but I doubt whether that is legitimate. My partner appears to have lost her pension too.

    “I deeply regret ever listening to Mr Barratt.”

     Pension Life Blog - Why pension scammers such as Julian Hanson must be prosecuted - julian hanson - Barratt and Dalton Why has cold calling not been banned by the government?

    Why are ‘introducers’ still be used?

    Why are the scammers in the Ark case not under criminal investigation?

    Serial pension scammers like Julian Hanson and all the others need to be stopped now.  New laws need to be introduced so hard working and trusting citizens aren’t left with decimated pension funds and huge tax bills they can’t pay.

  • Say NO to structured notes for pensions!

    Say NO to structured notes for pensions!

    Pension Life warns structured notes are only for PROFESSIONAL investors. Scams often involve structured notes - e.g. the Continental Wealth Management pension scam.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.

    Say no to toxic structured notes peddled by rogue advisers and provided by rogues such as Commerzbank, RBC, Nomura and LeonteqAs 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! 

    Pension Life and regulators warn that structured notes are not suitable for Pension investments, they are unsecured and high risk. If offered as a pension investment it could be a pension scam.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.

     

    Avoid pension scams: pension life highlights the instability of structured notes using a graph. Structured notes are not safe for retail investors with pension funds because of this

    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.

  • Three words about pension scams

    Three words about pension scams

    Three words about pension scams

    Can I have a word please?  In fact – can I have three words?

    free

    loophole

    sophisticated

    Now, these are not just any old words – they are the keys the scammers use to unlock victims’ savings and make huge amounts of money out of destroying innocent people’s retirement income:

    http://www.professionaladviser.com/professional-adviser/feature/2441535/revealed-the-top-three-watchwords-in-pension-liberation-scams

    Let´s look at these words in more detail to see how they become part of the language of fraud:

    “Would you like a free pension review?”  The answer is so often a heart breaking “yes please!”  This leads on to the scammers telling a bunch of lies about how the existing (often final salary) pension is no good and needs to be transferred offshore and invested in store pods, car parks, holiday resorts, care homes, student accommodation, derelict German government buildings and forestry.

    “Would you like a free pension transfer?”  Again, people who don’t understand the question think “free” means “free”.  It doesn’t.  So often, the transfer ends up costing a huge amount in hidden fees and commissions which are not disclosed up front and often only discovered years later.

    “You can access your pension free of tax”.  That old chestnut!  When you are told that by the author of the Tolley´s Pensions Taxation Manual, it is hard to figure out for yourself that it isn’t true.  But it isn’t.  Or, at least, HMRC don’t think it is true and they send you fat tax bills.

    “You can access your pension free of tax because of a legal loophole”.  The scammers claim that because the liberation is a loan (which doesn’t need to be paid back) there will be no tax.  Again, the scammers and HMRC don’t sing from the same hymn sheet and HMRC inevitably demand 55% tax on the “loan”.

    Scammers try to fool victims into thinking they are regulated.  One loophole often used is to become a tied agent of an offshore firm which is regulated to create the illusion that the scammer’s firm is regulated.  Only too late do the victims realise this is not the case; there is no regulation in force and therefore no safety net when the inevitable happens and the pension fund is worthless.

    In both knitting and crotchet, loopholes are an essential part of creating a jumper because they are used (and exploited) to put the next stitch in; the next row; the next part of the pattern.  And this is how the world of the pension and investment scammers works.  And the jumper gets bigger and bigger as every day the scammers find more ways to trick, con, deceive, defraud and scam thousands of victims out of their savings.

    The scammers frequently trick victims into agreeing they are “sophisticated” investors in order to invest in high-risk, illiquid assets and UCIS (unregulated collective investment schemes).  The victims often think the use of the word sophisticated is a compliment and they don’t realise this is just one of the many weapons in the scammer’s arsenal to help market the toxic wares.

    The scammers’ business models become increasingly sophisticated as the industry and regulators struggle to keep up with their methods of scamming.  The scammers got very rich selling other people’s funds for enormous commissions.  Now they sell their own funds and conceal what the assets of the funds are.  But, of course, the underlying investments are the same old same old toxic rubbish.

    The scammers use very sophisticated terminology to bamboozle the victims into believing the investments are desirable: “highly diversified and non-correlated investment portfolio providing maximum growth”; “asset classes have not only attracted the attention of the fund managers but also many astute investors”; “state of the art markets (such as store pods)”.

    In fact, this whole stinking mess can be summed up by the phrase: “no such thing as a  free sophisticated loophole”.

    Often scammer aren´t even qualified to give any financial advice, make sure you know what qualifications they need to advice you on your pension transfer.

    Click here to make sure you know what questions to ask when transferring your pension.

    Trolley’s Pension Scam Guide

  • KJK Investments and G Loans Pension Liberation Scam

    KJK Investments and G Loans Pension Liberation Scam

    HOW THE KJK INVESTMENTS AND G LOANS PENSION LIBERATION SCAM WORKED

    Members were told their pensions would be transferred into a SIPP managed by Corporate and Professional SIPP providers and a separate loan would be arranged through G Loans which was certified to be non-taxable by Optimum Tax Solutions.  Now the victims are facing 55% tax charges from HMRC which Pension Life is in the process of appealing.

    KJK Investments Ltd and G Loans Ltd, both based in the north west of England, received £11.9 million worth of transfers and made cash loans to victims using their pension funds to purchase shares in one of the companies. The funds were also used to make a series of loans and to pay huge commissions, fees and salaries to the people behind the liberation scam.

    KJK Investments and G Loans were wound up by the High Court after an investigation by the Insolvency Service. The court said that the scheme lacked any bona fide commercial basis and those running the operation had deliberately misled clients.  The victims are unlikely to ever get back their original investments.

    The intervention by the Insolvency Service happened shortly after the Capita Oak and Henley schemes were wound up.  It was noted that the G Loans structure was typical of some early clumsy scams when pension liberation started to flourish in 2010 and 2011.  The use of “loans” and ambitious targets for returns on investments being used, allegedly, to repay the loans was a frequent ploy by the scammers.  However, later models were careful to cloak the liberations in layers of smoke and mirrors.

    The Insolvency Service carried out a thorough investigation of the KJK Investments/G Loans pension liberation scam and discovered the companies had scammed victims into obtaining a loan from G Loans Ltd and using their pension funds to buy KJK Investments shares.  Victims were promised these investments go up in value by 6% a year, and that this would allow them to repay the loan from the proceeds of their pension when they retired.  The loans were usually about 50% of the value of the KJK Investments shares purchased by each victim.

    The reality was that the victims were borrowing from their own pensions.  It looks like after the half they borrowed, most of what was left was paid out to the scammers in fees.  The KJK Investments and G Loans Pension Liberation Scam has ruined many lives and caused untold misery.

  • Windsor Pensions Pension Liberation Scam

    Windsor Pensions Pension Liberation Scam

    THE WAY THE WINDSOR PENSIONS PENSION LIBERATION SCAM WORKED

    Members were persuaded to transfer their pension into a QROPS and with a hefty transfer fee of at least 10%.  The rest was liberated with no attempt to even try to clock the transaction in a “loan” vehicle.  In fact, the transfers never went anywhere near the actual QROPS but into a bank account with the same name as the QROPS.  This was clear fraud.

    IDENTITY OF THE MAIN PLAYER IN THE WINDSOR PENSIONS PENSION LIBERATION SCAM

    Steve Pimlott of Windsor Pensions

    http://www.windsorpensions.com/

    HMRC is now sending out the tax demands to the victims and these are being appealed.  It is not known how many people were involved, but according to HMRC it is a lot.  When asked about the possibility of a tax liability, Pimlott’s response has been:

    “I cannot give you tax advice. If you cash out, it’s possible that HMRC will send you a tax bill. We assisted approximately 5,000 people who took that route and I would estimate that 200-300 did receive a tax bill. The rest to my knowledge did not. Of those that did, many just ignored it because they were resident in a different country and had no assets left in the UK.” 

     

  • Westminster Pension Scam – R. P. Medplant

    Westminster Pension Scam – R. P. Medplant

    HOW THE WESTMINSTER PENSION SCAM WORKED

    The Westminster pension scam was administered by Stephen Ward among others. Same sponsoring employer as Capita Oak i.e. R. P. Medplant Ltd. Cyprus.  Same transfer administration spreadsheet using the same colours, spelling mistakes, names etc.  The trustee of the Westminster pension scam was Thames Trustees.

    The trustee of the Westminster pension scam was Thames Trustees.  The scheme was established in December 2012. Victims were convinced to move their existing pension funds into the scheme with the promise of a cash payment of 50% of the value of the transfer. Victims were told these would be “loans” which would never have to be repaid.

    In total, 79 members transferred a total of £3,333,665 into the Westminster pension scam.  The Insolvency Service, who would up Thames Trustees, investigated the scam and decided the company had operated with a lack of transparency and a lack of commercial probity:

    • The directors of the company had no knowledge of the activities of the company and/or investments made on behalf of the Scheme.
    • Those in actual control of the company gave conflicting explanations about their roles. They received significant commission payments which were deducted from the funds transferred into the Scheme by clients, without the prior knowledge or consent of those clients.
    • The investments made with the Scheme funds were not made for a true commercial purpose; there were significant discrepancies in the documentation associated with the investments; some of the investments were in an unregulated collective investment scheme suitable only for sophisticated investors able to understand and bear the high risks involved, and not suitable for the clients recruited by the company; some investments were in an unsuccessful land development in Florida. The investigation found no meaningful evidence to suggest that there was any value whatsoever in the investments undertaken by or on behalf of the Scheme.

    Colin Cronin, Investigation Supervisor with the Insolvency Service, reported that:

    “The structure of this pension liberation scheme was deliberately opaque and the lack of transparency was added to by the failure of those in control of the company to fully cooperate with the investigation.

    The operation of the scheme was highly prejudicial to the clients who were required to invest their pension funds into it in order to obtain the early release of part of those funds. The balance of funds were not legitimately invested as clients were led to believe. These proceedings show that the Insolvency Service will take firm action against companies which mislead the public in this way.”

    The petition to wind-up Thames Trustees Ltd was presented under s124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 on 3 May 2016. The company was wound up on 11 July 2016 and the Official Receiver was appointed as liquidator.

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

    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?

  • 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.