1. Susan
    March 18, 2020 @ 5:36 pm

    absolutely shocking disgusting and enlightening! These people will soon be getting exactly what they deserve. I hope the victims do too!


  2. Bob
    March 20, 2020 @ 9:39 am

    How will the recent BBC Radio reports effect your ‘operation
    Looks like you may be enjoying some post Corona Isolation your self


  3. George
    March 20, 2020 @ 9:50 am

    We’re you guys instrumental in bringing this to trail ?
    If so can you help and explain how – can not see you or any mention of you on the court papers


  4. Chris Johnston
    March 20, 2020 @ 12:01 pm

    Well done Angie for bringing this to trial. Fingers crossed the punishment fits the crime. We need to see more of this happening.


    • bob
      March 20, 2020 @ 3:01 pm

      Nothing on any of the paperwork says Angie or PensionLife have or had any involvement in this courtcase – did a blog about it …. #
      Please listen to the BBC Radio Report which explains what Angie and her team have been doing …. her ‘members’ complain that she has taken money and done …. nothing.


      • Trial
        March 23, 2020 @ 6:45 am

        The case came to trial by itself did it?


        • Bob
          March 23, 2020 @ 3:58 pm

          Clearly NOT because of Angie Brooks eat al


          • Mags
            March 24, 2020 @ 2:10 pm

            Bob, where is the paperwork available to see to see if her name is mentioned on the court papers

          • Angie
            March 24, 2020 @ 2:13 pm

            The paperwork doesn’t mention my name because I am neither a claimant nor a defendant in the case. However, my lawyer – Antonio Bertomeu – wrote to the BBC: CONTESTACIÓN CUESTIONARIO BBC RADIO YOU AND YOURS, ANGIE BROOKS
            Inbox x


            Tue, 17 Mar, 09:18 (2 days ago)
            SAVE AS TEMPLATE

            to natalie.donovan

            BERTOMEU abogados


            En Moraira, martes, 17 de marzo de 2020

            Dear Natalie
            I am the lawyer leading the criminal complaint against several financial companies for the alleged falsification of documents and fraud committed on the savings of British citizens residing in Spain.
            The defendants are companies run by British nationals based in Spain, and who, taking advantage of my clients’ good faith and lack of financial knowledge, convinced them to transfer their life savings to supposedly safe offshore territories, which they claimed were compliant with British regulations.
            The Courts of Denia have admitted the complaint and are investigating the circumstances of the alleged fraud. The costs of the proceedings are being borne by Miss Brooks and not by the clients I represent. The first half of the defendants were cross-examined by the judge’s lawyer on 24th and 25th February; the second half are due to be cross examined on 7th April. I am sure you will appreciate that neither Miss Brooks nor I can answer any of your questions until after the latter date since this might prejudice these proceedings and the claimants’ interests.
            As you will understand, professional secrecy and the data protection law oblige me not to reveal details of people or facts, but I can tell you in advance that I represent 17 British citizens who have lost GBP 2,548,177 in total between them.
            I can also tell you about that:
            1. Angie Brooks’ work has been essential in bringing together those who have been harmed and in proposing common action. It is impossible for each of them to go to court individually, because these supposedly financial companies have not only ruined them financially, but have also brought them to their knees healthwise, mentally and emotionally.
            2. I am surprised at the inaction of the British authorities, which I have always admired for their diligence and speed. It is as if all this were not of interest to either the public authorities or the British courts.
            3. Finally, I am struck by the questionnaire that was sent to Miss Brooks. I consider the BBC to be a serious and reliable medium, but from what I have read it seems that you are more interested in discrediting Miss Brooks than in finding out what has happened to your fellow countrymen who have lost most of their life savings, through the actions of unscrupulous people, who have taken advantage of them.
            Furthermore, I understand that you have received confidential data that has been illegally obtained by third parties as a result of theft and violation of the secrecy of communications. You must not use any such information or data and are hereby formally warned of this. Otherwise, you will be violating data protection laws and providing undue support to people who have improperly and illegally obtained this information. By doing this, you will be assisting the defendants and disadvantaging the complainants.
            I look forward to your comments, and I can tell you that as soon as it is legally possible, I will be happy to give you all the details of the huge fraud that has taken place in this ongoing matter. And of another case that we are about to present to the courts, also involving financial fraud. I invite you to monitor them seriously and continuously, so that with your help and support we can ensure that your fellow citizens are protected from falling into similar traps in the future.
            In the meantime, please be informed that Miss Brooks was very keen to be interviewed, but I have advised her this is not legally possible under the present circumstances.
            Yours sincerely

            Antonio Bertomeu Valles
            Head Office: Calatayud 39, Moraira
            or Marques de Campo, 66, 11-D, Denia
            Alicante España
            Mobile & WhatsApp
            0034 966490207
            0034 639026449

          • Bob the Troll
            March 25, 2020 @ 6:36 am

            Seems to be a lot of trolls on here that have no idea what they are talking about.

            I find it interesting that the BBC only made a passing reference to the letter from the lawyer and ignored the fact that data was stolen. The lawyer also makes it clear that this will help the defendants in the case and yet, without further investigation, the BBC went to press.

            On one of the Facebook forums, someone is openly declaring that she was responsible for the data theft that seems to have been given to a competing organisation that has, among its board, a member of the House of Lords that regularly appears on the BBC to pursue a personal agenda. That organisation is now emailing everyone on the stolen email list and copying in all the other victims’ email addresses on the same email who may well want to keep their identities private for fear of friends and family finding out what happened to them.

            Bet the Beeb won’t report that!

            Perhaps the anti-regulator blogs on here have upset some in high places?

  5. Serves you right
    March 21, 2020 @ 8:10 am

    Hi Angela, I see that you were on BBC radio the other day. It seems that they are insinuating that you are no better than the crooks you doth protest too much about!

    Looks like they have seen through your bullying tactics…. Anyway I’m not just on to gloat, I think you should have stayed on the right path and stuck to taking on the crooks instead of living in their pockets. Finally what goes around comes around and just so you know, I was not one of your crooks but someone you did offend none the less.


    • Chris Johnston
      March 22, 2020 @ 6:37 pm

      This is a private criminal prosecution, initiated by lawyers acting for Pension Life.

      I’m pretty sure Angie had something to do with it!

      I have listened to the BBC program, and take a different view.

      She charges very little for her service, and it’s up to her how she decides to fund Pension Life.

      She doesn’t do nothing. This is an important case, which paves the way for similarly affected victims to pursue IFAs through the criminal courts.

      Her work in naming and shaming the scammers is second to none. I don’t feel sorry for these scumbags one bit. They deserve it.


      • George
        March 23, 2020 @ 4:07 pm

        Crikey – you are very badly informed
        Not calculating the extorted from IFAs and their firms and the back handlers collected from other institutions as the BBC clearly identifies – min membership is 300 a year
        Angie , the Barrister, claims over a 100 active members – we can estimated approaching 400,000 K per year

        Which Lawyers are prosecuting the CWM case – I am confident if we call them – as with all her previous claims- they will be surprised and shocked to hear that Angie is claiming this as hers


        • Laughing at an imbecile
          March 24, 2020 @ 2:21 pm

          All the other firms you refer to will find that she has reposted all the blogs she took down.

          Did you manage to get GCSE maths with those calculations?

          Yeah, the court case was arranged by itself and no one instructed the lawyers 🙂


        • Chris Johnston
          March 25, 2020 @ 12:13 am

          George, thank you for your reply.

          I’d love to get into with you, but I’m very sorry, I really have no idea what you are on about.

          Please feel free to reach out again, once you have worked out where you want to go with this.


  6. Brad
    March 21, 2020 @ 2:05 pm

    Don’t let the naysayers get you down Angie, you’re doing terrific work!


    • Mags
      March 27, 2020 @ 11:21 am

      Great work doing what exactly?? Show me ANYTHING she may have won on behalf of her many clients and I may agree with you.


  7. Outed as a fraudster
    March 21, 2020 @ 2:08 pm

    It’s so sad to see this garbage. You have manufactured rubbish and mixed grains of truth with massive lies in order to line your own pockets through blackmail and extortion. Shame on you wicked women.


  8. Tom
    March 21, 2020 @ 2:28 pm

    This vile woman has got what’s coming to her. She has been masquerading as a barrister and tax adviser. She knows little about financial services and has no license to do what she does in Spain. So sorry for the victims who were conned by her double standards.


    • Mags
      March 24, 2020 @ 3:05 pm

      I would like to know exactly who through joining Pension Life, Angela Brooks has successfully helped?
      I have tried to find one case that she has been successful with but I have not found one.


      • Chris Johnston
        March 25, 2020 @ 10:13 pm

        Mags, any settlements would presumably be accompanied by a confidentiality agreement, so good luck with your research.


        • Susan
          March 27, 2020 @ 11:24 am

          Sorry to dissapoint you Chris but she has not won anything with or without a confidentiality agreement!


  9. Tim
    March 22, 2020 @ 11:40 am

    Ignore these trolls Angie. We know you are doing great work.


    • bob
      March 23, 2020 @ 1:37 pm

      Great work lining your pockkets with your members subscriptions ….. are you suggesting that the ‘PensionLife victims’ on the BBC interview, paying 1500 and 750 per year are lying?
      Are you suggesting that MOMENTUM Penions, the trustees are lying ….
      I have first hand information and evidence that ANGIE is not interested in the welfare of her members or their financial well being … happy ot take their money tho … she has been offered a number of options for her Members – relieving and improving their finances without charges or fees – did not take or offer this ‘help’ to the victims – because that would have cut off her revenue stream – happy to provide evedence at any time to any persons, lawyers or journalist.
      the BBC interview confirms this, unsure how any one can interpret anything else, that ANGIE BROOKS is a running her own SCAM – and that she lies to the press and her ‘members’ – look forward to hearing of your ‘arrest’ and courtcase.


  10. Anne
    March 24, 2020 @ 12:39 pm

    Yet another example of the BBC reporting misleading information as usual. Pay no attention Angie. Keep fighting the good fight!


  11. Jean-Baptiste Colbert
    March 24, 2020 @ 1:55 pm

    The BBC do not as in, do not go to broadcast without running everything by their legal teams. I for one, therefore am confident that what they say is true. There are things afoot ‘mischievious’ , if clever enough an email say ‘@‘ will become apparent at ‘proton’ such as a ‘mail’ source. Interesting as there may be a bigger case against her. She is already subject to a court in junction which is in play, for the defamation she has used against others and thinks she can do with impunity. She believes she is untouchable due to living in Spain. I think she me be just as responsible for her actions as those living in the U.K.


    • Angie
      March 24, 2020 @ 2:11 pm

      Fat Oik? Are you talking about you or me?


  12. Peter Smith
    March 24, 2020 @ 2:44 pm

    For those of you supporting Angela Brooks, please show us one single piece of evidence where she has got any money back, for anyone, despite years and years of charging victims to join Pension Life? You don´t think that she only represents CWM victims, do you? What about all of the disappointed ARK victims? What about looking at the Blackmore Bond public page? Get your heads out of the sand, and read through years and years of her non-action, rather naively believing someone that you don´t even know otherwise you´ll sadly fall for yet another scam.


    • Joe
      March 24, 2020 @ 5:25 pm

      Are fees declared to the taxman in Spain or UK? Can’t find any accounts on the filing history of ACA Pension Life Limited on Beta Companies House in the UK. Where’d the money go?


  13. Laughing Joe
    March 25, 2020 @ 2:32 pm

    Want to find out about her for real? Listen to the BBC report..scroll forward to 19 minutes and be prepared to smile!



  14. Pierre
    March 25, 2020 @ 4:16 pm

    Initially Angela Brooks was attacking Alan Gorringe ( Registered as the Financial Director of CWM ) & Darren Kirby, the sole Licence Holder and the only person authorised to invest CWM clients money.

    Some of you may be wondering why Alan Gorringe, who had control via power of attorney on all bank accounts, does not appear on the list of those accused.

    Let me enlighten you, he has a deal with Brooks to be excluded from any prosecution in exchange for information.

    Sounds Familiar?


    • Pierre has a vested interest
      March 26, 2020 @ 7:08 am

      Which of the CWM scammers are you Pierre? Seems a lot of people are determined to undermine the court case here.


      • bob
        March 28, 2020 @ 11:10 am

        Yes ….


        • Angie
          March 28, 2020 @ 12:01 pm

          I am happy to approve all posts – good, bad or ugly. But I am not prepared to approve any more anonymous ones. Criticism – or disagreement – is fine. Just be honest about who you are. Please resubmit all your posts with your real name and email address and I will approve them.


    • Mags
      March 26, 2020 @ 4:26 pm

      Something is definitely amiss here. Alan Gorringe was my advisor and I thought that he was a major player in the CWM scam. Angie Brooks, please can you please explain why he is not a defendant in the court case that you say you are funding?? I find it very strange that he is not and it does not seem I am alone here.


      • Angie
        March 26, 2020 @ 4:55 pm

        The (somewhat complex) answer is that the list of defendants is an INITIAL list to establish the core of the crimes committed. When we submitted the complaint originally, we had to strike a sensible balance between making the case too complex for the judge to understand and risking her throwing it out because it was too difficult and obscure to understand. You must remember that there is no such thing as a trust in Spain, so Spanish law neither recognises nor understands trusts, trustees or the British version of pensions. It is not up to me or our solicitor to decide who the eventual list of defendants should be. It is up to the judge. As the case progresses, there will inevitably be a much longer list of defendants – and this will be as a result of testimony by both defendants and complainants, plus further evidence which is introduced along the way. The judge has already asked other parties not included in the initial list of defendants to provide evidence – and there may be a decision to include these parties as defendants. If there are people who look like obvious contenders for being on the list of defendants, it is for a good reason (neither frivolous nor partisan) and any decisions taken about who the first batch of defendants were was taken for sound legal reasons and in the interests of not just the lead complainants, but all the hundreds following behind them.


  15. Susan
    March 26, 2020 @ 6:07 pm

    Why do you think its ok to make awful comments about people. Some of them have done nothing wrong and you are slandering them. A professional person would not do this. Can you publish your qualifications and licenses on this blog to reassure the victims.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *