Cameron Farley, FSA & Grant Thornton

dunstonh

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.

So, again, Farley is responsible for breaching the injunction. Not the FSA.

wantanswers

So say the FSA allegedly. Interesting why it's taking so long to do anything about breaching the injunction?
After all one would assume you get the same answers whether behind bars or not.

wantanswers

Villains. (In my opinion of course but I’m biased) but I don’t believe I’m alone in thinking it.

The regulators

Equally unapologetic and just as in need of a better PR machine were the regulators.
The FSA, Ofwat, Ofgem and Ofcom failed to protect the little guy.
Offering much but giving little the regulators proved once again how vulnerable they are to the business lobby. Instead of protecting our interests as we look forward towards an increasingly austere future where the only real certainty is that taxes will rise.
FSA chair Adair Turner had few places to hide given the mounting evidence that the City regulator should have done more during the boom and subsequent bust.

With the government set to cut back spending these watchdogs and regulators are in the firing line.
Hopefully that might press them to make a more concerted effort to do the job properly in 2010. (to late for me and many like me though, even the banks don't appear to get it right)


http://www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/practices/12540.pdf

skateyuk

I have to say that I have read with interest all comments from both sides. Those who do not believe the FSA are to blame must understand that most ex CF clients, like me, believe the FSA did the correct thing by locking down the accounts. Unfortunately, they did not carry out the most basic of procedures and called Gain to shut down the account pending investigation. That wasn’t a difficult thing to do was it?

Perhaps they could not do this since it's US based, but I believe if they had contacted Gain and sent through contact details and evidence as to who they were, then I have no doubt that they could have locked the platform down and I would now be receiving 45 - 50% instead of just 5%. Its already been noted that they were aware of this platform when they originally went into CF to investigate the company and for me this is the only area where clients may have a case on negligence. If they have standard procedures to follow, and they weren't followed to the letter then there may be a crack in the amour.

If locking down the gain capital platform was not part of the due process under these circumstances, then I believe the FSA will not be liable for those losses since they would have been carried out (I believe) by SF himself via the web accessed platform. There is speculation that SF warned the FSA that these trades were in place and until we get clarification on this then we simply do not know.

The FSA don’t just barge into businesses with no method of operation, they have to have standard procedures laid out which covers circumstances just as this. Cameron Farley isn’t the only Forex trading company and they won’t be the last, so I for one would love to know what their procedures are for this very case scenario.

Difficult though it is I can accept losing my money to a fraudster because that was my decision and obviously I was taken in by it, my choice my loss and I hope justice prevails in the criminal courts. However, the FSA were aware of this bloke so I for one would like to know what correspondence went on between these parties because they were also aware of his criminal record.

wantanswers

Like you also I accept my decision and hope justice prevails in the criminal courts and also deep down I probably accept that because the FSA are pretty much above the law we stand little chance of justice against them even if they have been negligent in their handling of this issue.

However, like all things in life it’s difficult to move on until you do get answers and I hope we do from all Parties (FSA, Banks, Police, Audit Companies, Task Managers, Teams of Experts, Irwin Mitchell, Solicitors etc) all involved I believe, in some case as far back as 2005.

wantanswers

Happy New Year All

I'm still trying.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Cameron-Farley/


Hope the message gets out it's a free country I think.

Reaper

The petition is to prevent the FSA from freezing assets?

You are saying:
1) The freezing of Cameron Farelys assets caused the subsequent losses.
2) Non FSA registered business should be able to carry on trading and should be free to remove all the client money and run as soon as they feel the FSA breathing down their necks.

Just because the freezing failed to stop further losses in this case does not mean freezing of assets should be stopped. If there was a way to register opposition to such a daft proposal I would sign up to it.

dunstonh

wantanswers wrote: »

Happy New Year All

I'm still trying.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Cameron-Farley/


Hope the message gets out it's a free country I think.

Are you going to post a petition to say the police should allow criminals to get away with crimes? That is effectively what you are saying with that petition.

wantanswers

I signed the petition because if the FSA can not be trusted or are not capable of taking FULL control of a company's assets which is precisely what their remit was, and what they STATED they had done, then they should not be entitled to do a half job of it. If they had taken full control I would not be opposing their powers to do this, but since they only took half control but left all the most important stuff, i.e. the MONEY, totally and utterly at risk from theft or loss, then what on earth is the point in them having these powers? Certainly not to help me. In this case all their powers did was scare the fox without removing his legs, resulting in all money being lost very fast, in fact on a handful of quick suicidal Forex trades allegedly stated by the FSA representative.

1. Either the FSA should have the power to do this, and in doing so, they should DO THE JOB COMPLETELY and THOROUGHLY.

or

2. THEY LEAVE IT ALONE and let us face whatever damage comes, it can't have been worse than what happened under the FSA's 'seizure of the company'.

Regarding the police and criminals. The police do a fantastic job it’s the others around them that let them down or should I say “allow criminals to get away with crime” and if I can add if the police had been in control of the freezing order the outcome would have been much favourable I believe.

Just for info.
Another issue, which a lot of people got caught up in, what, a ball’s up that is turning into. But that’s another issue.


http://www.fmlc.org/papers/Issue141Report.pdf

wantanswers

Hello DunsonH & Reaper
Anybody out there?