Cameron Farley, FSA & Grant Thornton

wantanswers

Hi Dunstonh
I respect your opinions as I do many others and I note your credentials on this forum which appear to be quite formidable.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Post Count: 35,235
Thanked 15,570 Times in 11,721 Posts

You replied to me,
In your case though you left it to the stewardess rather than the qualified individual;)
Well I am now leaving it to the qualified individual and would be most grateful if you could reply to my question.

Dunstonh you quoted:
If it becomes aware of illegal activity by an unregulated company then it will make an attempt to shut it down and that is within its remit. That is not the same issue over consumer protection from a monetary point of view. If the FSA took no action then in effect they would be making regulation of firms voluntary.

Citation Quote.
In about June 2005, the petitioner made investigations with the respondents in respect of possible unregulated activity.

Have I missed something?

Reaper

Yes, despite reposting it 3 times you forgot the question. You have just strung two quotes together as if your point is self-evident, which it is not.

Dunstonh was saying the FSA is allowed to close down unregulated businesses.
You are saying they had been investigating for some time. So what?

If you want an answer I suggest you ask a question.

wantanswers

Hi Reaper Thanks for your reply on behalf of Dunstonh (or are you he/she?) it’s appreciated, however my question was directed to Dunstonh who I believe is a qualified IFA and may be able to give me some advice or opinion in the matter of HIS statement of fact and the FSA statement of fact, but please bare with me for maybe my crude way of putting it as I am just a man in the street and not qualified in law.


So my simple question would be;

If the FSA in June 2005 made investigations into the company in respect of possible UNREGULATED activity and made no attempt to close that company down at that time then therefore I can only assume they (FSA) were SATISFIED with it’s (the company) UNREGULATED activity?

Because as Dunstonh states:

If it (I presume the FSA) becomes aware of illegal activity by an UNREGULATED company then IT WILL make an attempt to shut it down and that is within its remit. . If the FSA took no action then in effect they would be making regulation of firms voluntary.

dunstonh

If the FSA in June 2005 made investigations into the company in respect of possible UNREGULATED activity and made no attempt to close that company down at that time then therefore I can only assume they were SATISFIED with it’s UNREGULATED activity?

Depends on what the investigation was and how the information was obtained. These things can take time and evidence needs to be obtained. Its almost like a police investigation.

wantanswers

Thanks for that reply Dunstonh it’s what I thought. More questions to be answered but I’ll persevere as I feel it worthwhile on behalf of the people who invested £millions of life savings after June 2005.

I do hope you can understand all I am trying to do is establish the FACTS and HISTORY leading up to the final loss of mine and other’s money’s (apart from what the liquidation recovers) as of 23 September 2008 of which there is possibly many.

Whatever the outcome of the whole issue I will accept my part in it and accept closure, however at the moment and for quite a while now I have accepted that I MAY have invested into a ‘ponzi’ scheme but also I feel BADLY LET DOWN by the way the FSA have contributed to my loss of funds.

Thanks for your help.

dunstonh

but also I feel BADLY LET DOWN by the way the FSA have contributed to my loss of funds.

This is the part the board members have an issue with. The FSA did not contribute to the loss of your funds. They stopped more people from being taken in and when the money stops flowing into a ponzi scheme, the house of cards collapses and its revealed that the money was never there. It was always going to fail at some point. Had the FSA not stepped in, then many more would have lost money when it did eventually collapse. It was a ticking time bomb just waiting to go off.

wantanswers

Mr. Dunstonh

Firstly let me state that I agree ponzi schemes are illegal and must be stopped for the protection of people, however as of this moment in time it is not proven to be a ponzi, it looks likely, however that would not be accepted as the basis of guilt in law.

In the board members opinion the FSA did not contribute to the loss of my funds, MY opinion is they did, however I would probably agree with you it will be difficult to prove in law as the law appears to be the FSA and rarely do they admit mistakes even if they have been made by them because they have the might behind them whereas the man in the street has very little chance because of his financial situation which has been proven on many occasion. I think if we are both honest in that respect we will both agree.

There are many gaps to be filled re this issue, many other companies involved to be contacted, and many answers to be sought.

History which is common knowledge at the moment is as follows:

March 2004….. Cameron Farley Limited Incorporated.
April 2005…… Investigated by the FSA for what reason unknown. (Probably regulation issues)
4 April 2007…… Investigated again by the FSA. Reason unknown.
10 May 2007….. Instructed by the FSA to carry out and cease certain activities.
28 July 2008…… Investigated again by the FSA. Reason unknown.
2 September 2008…. Freezing order obtained.
23 September 2008… £10million Lost on Forex Trades. No answer why and how.

So you see Mr. Dunstonh although the law may see it differently, and probably will there appears to have been numerous opportunities for common sense to have prevailed and if it had then a lot of people could have been saved their financial loss and the grief that has gone with it if the job had been done better. After all we are just ordinary folk we can be conned and MAY have been, however as ordinary people we look upon professionals to do their job and let’s face it the mission statement of the FSA is to Protect People and one would hope they do it responsibly, although a little late in our case I fear.

Anyway just for a little interest I read this interesting article, so you see people are people and mistakes will still be made but maybe people can learn from our experiences and that includes the Regulator.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/news/money-property-and-tax/content.aspx?ID=372630&re=7888&ea=235363&Page=2

wantanswers

If I can also add Mr. Dunstonh a letter was received from the FSA on the 7 September 2009 stating the following facts.

I understand that you are concerned with the actions of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in respect of Cameron Farley in respect of accepting deposits.

Cameron Farley had been accepting deposits without FSA authorisation.

It was, therefore, just and equitable to wind up the company and

Cameron Farley was insolvent.

Now how corny is that statement:
“Cameron Farley had been accepting deposits without FSA authorisation”.

Cameron Farley had never been authorised and they knew it.

Still no mention of guilt re PONZI although I still think it could be likely but opinions don't stand up in Courts of Law.

Reaper you said:

Even if the FSA had successfully frozen everything when they stepped in you still would have lost half your money because the Farleys were paying themselves and those supposedly great returns out of people's capital, not profit.

Well I think my answer to that one is quite obvious it's not rocket science even for me, but I like your term HAD SUCCESSFULLY FROZEN yes please. 50p as opposed to 5p/£ allegedly Oh yes.

Reaper

wantanswers wrote: »

Reaper you said:

Even if the FSA had successfully frozen everything when they stepped in you still would have lost half your money because the Farleys were paying themselves and those supposedly great returns out of people's capital, not profit.

Well I think my answer to that one is quite obvious it's not rocket science even for me, but I like your term HAD SUCCESSFULLY FROZEN yes please. 50p as opposed to 5p/£ allegedly Oh yes.

You are being selective about what you pick up on and filtering out what you don't want to hear.

I'm ducking out of this thread for now until new information comes to light as we are just discussing the same facts and coming to differing conclusions. I'll be back when there are new developments.

Good luck and may the guilty be punished, whoever they are.

wantanswers

Reaper you quote: You are being selective about what you pick up on and filtering out what you don't want to hear.

Yes I am being SELECTIVE on what I pick upon, but NOT filtering out what I want to hear the reason being the FSA, POLICE & LIQUIDATORS on MY and OTHERS behalf are INVESTIGATING Cameron Farley and RIGHTLY so, and my SPECULATION would not be helpful to the INVESTIGATION, however the FSA…..the other party involved….. who are NOT being INVESTIGATED…..and not without CRITICISM in my opinion for their POOR SERVICE and FAILURE in this issue, DO require questions to be asked of them so therefore my platform is to ask them and will no doubt continue for a very long time. Hope that makes sense.

Reaper you quote: I'll be back when there are new developments.

Hope that’s soon, who knows!!!!! It’s gone on far to long.

Thanks for the Good Luck and YES let’s hope ALL guilty are PUNISHED and ANSWERS are FORTHCOMING.