Cameron Farley, FSA & Grant Thornton

Reaper

Yes, but not sure what you want. We all stated our views as we have a number of times. I was try to avoid posting here so much as I don't think I'm anything I say is going to change your mind. Still, if you want a reply...

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

As I said previously it is not the job of the FSA to ensure the freezing order is successfull. The order is issued by the courts and it tells the owners and their bankers that the money is not to be moved or risk prosecution. I may be wrong but my impression is the FSA is not seizing and taking control of the company as you assume. That was the job of the liquidators much later.

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'.

Here we could not disagree more. What would you say to new investors who signed up after it became apparent that it was a house of cards? They would be understandably angry if they discovered the FSA knew it was a con and left it running. Far from not intervening the FSA should have been more aggressive and intervened much sooner.

wantanswers

Here we could not disagree more. What would you say to new investors who signed up after it became apparent that it was a house of cards? They would be understandably angry if they discovered the FSA knew it was a con and left it running. Far from not intervening the FSA should have been more aggressive and intervened much sooner.

Thanks for that Reaper

That’s precisely where I stand along with a lot of others as more information comes to light.
What would you say (although it will probably make no difference in a court of law). This company was under the FSA Radar apparently from 2005 and probably more so from May 2007 up until July 2008, however me, friends and family invested money only MONTHS before the FSA for whatever reason decided to pull the plug in September 2008 and even then for whatever reason the legs where left INTACT, so hope you can understand our anger.

You could argue well “hard luck” that’s life, but in the real world these people are suffering hardship from MAYBE the Lack of Aggressive Action Much Sooner.

Anyway all might be revealed in the fulfilment of time and for now we do appear to both agree about “intervention much sooner” I only hope the FSA agree to this, however do pigs fly?

wantanswers

Sorry

CAN PIGS FLY?

Reaper

Good to see we have some common ground, though you seem to argue both that the FSA should have acted sooner and they should not have acted at all. You can't have it both ways!

If you go with the FSA being slow to act I agree with you, though I'm afraid I doubt very much that translates into any legal liability for your losses.

wantanswers

Both are different issues as one would not have led to the other if been done with more shall we say “with a common sense approach”, because let’s face it we are not talking here a massive set up but only a small loop of activity and when you delve into it you start and realise as ordinary people how the outcome may have been different in terms of people getting significantly more money back than what they are facing IF “common sense” had prevailed. However probably not to be, life goes on and the FSA will probably not learn and i’m afraid just act as judge, jury and executioner until someone decides enough is enough and crooks will still flurish until found out.

Joe Bloggs will always lose whether it be by the Crook or the Authority that's pretty much a fact.

Anyway it’s good to finish off where we agree and disagree let’s see where all this ends which may not be to long distant know, so keep this forum open and I’ll post my end result favourable or not “it will have an end”.

Cheers.

wantanswers

Hi Reaper
No need to reply i'm just posting guesses.
Bet your glad the FSA's saving your subs.

Just a little bit of interest. Looks like SF is not the only poor trader.

http://www.beta2.info/


Welcome to the Forex World we’ve heard it all before only this one is legal because it’s FSA REGISTERED. Stephen Farley should have taken REGISTRATION tips from this company at least when the FSA liquidated him we might have been entitled to COMPENSATION. (But there again that was never going to happen), that’s becoming clear now!!!!!!!! Why, simple, becoming regulated gives investors access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme funded by levies on firms authorised by the FSA and in the case of CFL that could have ammounted to multi millions. So to save uproar from the funding fraternity the game was played out until 28 july 2008, the date he was told to resubmit his application.

CFL was DOOMED from May 2007, and all INNOCENT PEOPLES MONEY (substantial £millions) which was INVESTED after (AFTER) this date and they know it!!!!!

Ah well we can only dream. :beer: chill.

Reaper

The person you link to is not entitled to any FSCS compensation either even though their company is registered. Companies that are bad at their jobs and lose their clients money are free to do so and the FSA will happily allow Beta2 to continue trading regardless of how much money they lose.

What they are not allowed to do (as CF did) is pretend they are making profits and pay out returns as if they were profitable, secretly burning through their investors capital as they do so.

wantanswers

That’s not an issue and completely understood. The point I suggested was about the registration application which was NEVER going to be, the registration rubbish he went through was just a sham and the people involved including SF and the FSA know it.

wantanswers

Sorry there Reaper i had to dash out.

"Pretend" is that in making money or playing Registrations or both? whilst "secretly" scheming his downfall and hence sacrificing more lambs to the slaughter without any consideration for us "Poor Soles"

wantanswers

Hi Reaper Can you offer me some advice please?

I believe Money Laundering Regulations were introduced after 9/11 and have since been amended.

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) came into force in February 2003, introducing a new anti-money laundering regime.

When the regulations where introduced I think all financial institutions had a responsibility to ensure thorough check’s are carried out. Staff Training was introduced across the board and in many cases I believe Businesses in the regulated sector must appoint a money laundering reporting officer (MLRO). The MLRO’s role is to act as a filter and decide whether to disclose details of matters raised by employees to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The MLRO’s decisions must stand up to scrutiny. The MLRO and employees alike must be fully conversant with the ‘Know Your Customer’ procedures.

Is the UK financial system and for that matter a US organisation such as Gain legally required to carry out these checks, especially where criminal convictions are concerned when someone applies for a business account?