Cameron Farley, FSA & Grant Thornton

wantanswers

Nothing really, in our case it only took them 15 months plus to sort it out and thats given that the company may have gone through the special care bit to make sure they put it right and more people invest millions whilst they dither.

Regarding Toronto Dominion that's the shareholders problem i think nice little earner for the regulator though. Do you get a share of it?

Can you give me your thoughts on this one?

You didnt invest with the FSA. You invested with Cameron Farley. So, any losses incurred are due to their activities. That is not an assumption but a fact.

I can’t argue with fact but my concern is my money wasn’t with Cameron Farley after the 2 September 2008 but held in a frozen pot somewhere?

Reaper

I couldn't resist looking to see what was new and I've gone and let myself be sucked back in. I'll wean myself off soon I hope.

wantanswers wrote: »

my concern is my money wasn’t with Cameron Farley after the 2 September 2008 but held in a frozen pot somewhere?

I think this may be the root cause of your misunderstanding. The FSA did not remove all the money from Cameron Farley and put it in their own bank account. The money stays where it is and they tell the banks etc that they are not to accept instructions from CF any more, only the FSA and liquidators.

The problem is:
1) They have less control over foreign institutions, such as Gain Capital where the trades took place.
2) There may still be ways for CF to avoid the clampdown by the bank.

There was an important case which is a good example of this, and which I think you may have even referred to earlier:
http://www.practicallaw.com/8-203-1897

In that case the freezing order got passed to the bank branched involved but the guy got round it by contacting head office instead. Custom & Excise who got the freezing order were NOT to blame (by your reasoning they would be :rolleyes:). The court case established even the bank was not liable.

Freezing orders are not perfect. I know in your mind the FSA had "taken control" of the account and therefore any losses after that date are their responsibility but that is simply not true. And yes before you ask I know that for a fact.

wantanswers

Thanks for all that Reaper but no my mind doesn’t say the FSA had taken control after the freezing order it say’s they obtained the freezing order I wan’t to know who was responsible for it’s safekeeping after the order? So if you know for a FACT that it is not the FSA, WHO!!! is responsible please? State it?

You also said, I hadn't read it thoroughly enough to pick up on the fact that the trades were done after the freezing order. That is certainly something that needs to be explained as if it were not for that mind bogglingly bad bit of trading investors would have got most of their money back.

So please can you and your FSA colleagues explain it (say as fact backed up with details that SF traded it, I’ll send you my e mail address if you like, if you haven’t already got it) and stop messing us about?

Post the answer and I promise to leave you alone.

wantanswers

As I said above Reaper / Dunstonh whoever you are, get together with you FSA budies and have the bottle to put the fact to it instead of letting us having to decipher liquidators reports then a lot of us will move on.

Quote from poster.

If on the other hand, the FSA did not lock down the Gain capital platform, and Stephen Farley accessed the platform from his home and placed the trades without their knowledge, then being negligent on the FSA’s behalf might not be so clear.

Now that should be easy for you should'nt it?

RayWolfe

Like I said.

RayWolfe wrote: »

I'm beginning to suspect that Mr Wantanswers is, or has been driven, more than slightly mad by this incident.
Black does not mean white no matter how much it is asserted.

What is the point of you guys trying to be logical with this geezer? Nothing is going to change his mind because he is incapable of accepting responsibility for what he did.
Sad but true.

Reaper

RayWolfe wrote: »

What is the point of you guys trying to be logical with this geezer?

I beginning to think you are right. Apparently I'm now a member of the FSA because I'm not saying what he wants to hear.

I'll make one last attempt to explain...

Imagine WantAnswers owes Reaper £10,000 and I suspect that WantAnswers is going to empty his bank account and emigrate.
I go to the court and successfully obtain a freezing order on WantAnswer's bank account to prevent him absconding with the money. However he notices the bank have failed to close his online access, removes all the money and disappears.

So the question is who is responsible:
A) Reaper
The courts
C) The bank
D) WantAnswers

The correct answer is D. For some bizzare reason you seem to think it is A. That I have become responsible because I got a freezing order that failed to work.

If you can't see the nonsense in that there is really no point in continuing.

Yes somebody has to explain exactly what happened and there needs to be a prosecution but that doesn't mean you will get your money back.

A separate issue is whether the FSA were negligent in their painfully slow investigation of Cameron Farely meaning money was being invested longer than it should have been. You might stand more chance on that one but my feeling is that even there you will have an uphill struggle to convert their inefficiency into financial liability.

wantanswers

Thanks again Reaper apologies for being a pain:

Yes somebody has to explain exactly what happened and there needs to be a prosecution but that doesn't mean you will get your money back.

A separate issue is whether the FSA were negligent in their painfully slow investigation of Cameron Farely meaning money was being invested longer than it should have been. You might stand more chance on that one but my feeling is that even there you will have an uphill struggle to convert their inefficiency into financial liability.

Agree that’s understood by me.

This part isn’t.

It is generally believed if someone breaks a restraining order placed on them it could result in a prosecution being in contempt of court. If SF made the trades as stated after 2 September then surely he should be prosecuted or maybe publicly reprimanded? Now my mind says that happened after the 2 September and does not form part of the initial investigation, is a separate issue, therefore it should not be a problem to publish the answer that I believe people are seeking.

So my Question: Can you politely find out via your connections whether he did or did not make those trades? Or is there a reason why we can’t be told? What I have been told is the answer is in THE WORDING of the liquidators report but I’m slow as deciphering things as you may have guessed.

Ps I like the way you all keep appearing especially Ray who keeps darting in and out with his words of wisdom. I like Turbobob though. Must be keeping your ratings up it’s better than Coronation Street with me being branded Norris.

Revenue, Revenue!!!!!

Also if I can add Reaper On the 2 September SF was removed via the Courts from the Company so if he traded afterwards why isn't he in jail NOW?

Reaper

Sorry to disappoint you but I have no connections with the FSA or anybody else involved and had never even heard of Cameron Farley before this thread started.

wantanswers wrote: »

It is generally believed if someone breaks a restraining order placed on them it could result in a prosecution being in contempt of court. If SF made the trades as stated after 2 September then surely he should be prosecuted or maybe publicly reprimanded?

Glad you accept that, as that is what I have been trying to get across. The person who did the trades is the only one responsible. While it has not been proved that the Farleys were responsible for the late trades I would be astonished if anybody else was involved simply due to them being the only ones with a motive.

Yes if they did it they should be prosecuted and forced to pay back the money if they have it, which I doubt very much. I seem to remember they paid themselves about £1.3m out of the business but that wouldn't go far spread between everybody who is owed money.

The legal machine moves like an arthritic snail. It may also be that it is hard to prove who did the trades. For example what if the money was moved online (I have no idea if it was), lots of people knew the password, and the IP address used was hidden behind a proxy in Iran.

wantanswers

Well thanks for all that so I’m no further forward really as I knew most of it anyway just thought you might have had connections and they might have been generous and spared a thought for us and divulged a bit more before there xmas party and festivities.

Not being proved eh say’s a lot doesn’t it looks like we’ve been let down by all.

Re your comment £1.3 I think that is a bit petty to highlight it so although NOT RELEVANT I’ll add similar.

MP expenses.
Fred Goodwin.
Company Directors.
IFA’s

All I would presume live the GOOD LIFE at our expense.

Anyway I digress, got a few of positives from this experience, however one negative I can state, its connected to a dog and similar to brown stuff.

Thanks to turbobob for his help.

Bye and thanks, I won’t post again.

wantanswers

Sorry to break my promise Reaper. Info only.

While it has not been proved that the Farleys were responsible for the late trades I would be astonished if anybody else was involved simply due to them being the only ones with a motive.


Yes if they did it they should be prosecuted.

It may also be that it is hard to prove who did the trades.

Come across this information.

Out of court conversation 5 June 2009 with FSA and GT representatives.

Stephen Farley placed and lost two trades totalling 17million (not sure whether £ or $) AFTER, and I repeat AFTER, the injunction was placed. How he did this I am not sure but that is what the FSA representative has stated.

No Smoke without fire would you agree. I was always under the impression if you state it you must be able to back up your statement especially in circumstances of this nature.

Allegedly.

Happy New Year.