Cameron Farley, FSA & Grant Thornton

happyrichard

I'm a late joiner to this thread, but as far as I can see, you've been done over. This should act as a wake up call to others. Wishing you the best.

wantanswers

Civil and Criminal Enforcement


Please bare in mind I am not a legal person just an ordinary Joe bloggs caught up in this fiasco along with about 1500 people. I’m prepared to ask questions which I hope you and your professional team can give opinions, although I do appreciate investigations are ongoing.

It would appear the FSA have powers of Enforcement in the Civil and Criminal Courts.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/doing/regulated/law/focus/courts.shtml

Allegedly outside the Court 5 June 2009 an FSA representative stated:
""""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.
Surely having that evidence it would be sufficient grounds for reprimanding Stephen Farley for breaching the Freezing order?

However if it was a slip of the tongue by that representative and they do not have that evidence and subsequently now have to rely on the Fraud Squad to find the evidence, what position does that put the FSA in?

wantanswers

Just to add to the confusion surrounding these trades the liquidators report suggests 51 trades were conducted on the 23 September 2008 and to add further confusion I believe it was reported on a forum that GT were contacted regarding these trades for an explanation with the reply “if you read those sections very carefully they are written very specifically and there is slight differences which will provide the answer to your question”. Asked if an outright answer could be given “NO” was the reply.
To date I have read those sections repeatedly but can’t find the answer, however I can only presume GT also have the evidence which adds to the confusion.
On one hand the FSA representative allegedly states SF made 2 trades, whilst GT allegedly say look for the answer in the report and decline to give an outright answer!!!!!

This is peoples lives they are playing with.

wantanswers

Furthermore an article has been identified on the internet (copied to file) stating the money had been lost on two normal trades. The date of this article coincides with the above dates.

However once again could the poster of this article (not FSA) have given this information to the FSA prior to the court hearing and with the FSA accepting it without proof????

In summary:
FSA representative allegedly states SF lost on two trades.
GT allegedly states the answers are in the liquidators reports, however 51 trades were made.
The internet post STATES two trades were made.
The police will maybe find out the truth.

wantanswers

Looks like the above has come to a quick end?

Can the FSA post on their site, answers for investors. They have on previous occasions re other company?

What is the FSA?

Why are you investigating Cameron Farley Ltd.

What action have you taken?

Did you have enough evidence to take the action that you did?

How many complaints have you received from Cameron Farley investors?

Was Cameron Farley only technically in breach of the Act as he did not have the correct licence?

Were you more concerned with closing down Cameron Farley than protecting the investors? Why not allow the business to continue while this apparent breach was sorted out?

Was your action unreasonable?

Cameron Farley was paying (allegedly) interest on time and as agreed – why did you intervene

Do you care that investors are now in real financial difficulty having lost their money?

Was there no other way that you could have dealt with Cameron Farley?

Have you over-reacted and now caused the situation you tried to avoid?

What is happening now (civil and criminal)?

Can you keep investors fully informed of details of the investigations?

Rollinghome

wantanswers wrote: »

Cameron Farley was paying (allegedly) interest on time and as agreed – why did you intervene

Obviously someone who still doesn't understand how a Ponzi scheme works. Maybe they should read Dicken's "Little Dorrit"?

wantanswers

It's a question. Why did you intervene? Sorry for missing the ? mark, obviously your brain can't fathom that out.

Hope you understand.

Reaper

Sorry wantanswers but Rollinghome is right - it is a dumb question.

All of your questions are biased toward the view that the FSA should have left them alone to carry on trading because they were doing fine until the FSA intervened. This is simply not true. From what I remember (because the accounts are not available online any more) at the time the FSA intervened Cameron Farely had lost approximately half of the investors money. To allow them to carry on draining investors money away day by day would be irresponsible.

The only question the FSA needs to answer is the exact opposite of all yours - why did it take them so long to shut it down?

I also find it surprising that all your anger is directed at the FSA and not Cameron Farely. One day you will have to face up to who actually lost your money. And no, before you say it - the FSA did not lose the last 50% by imposing a freezing order. That was the Farelys too.

wantanswers

Cameron Farley was paying (allegedly) interest on time and as agreed – why did you intervene?
Why did the FSA intervene? Anyone know?

The only question the FSA needs to answer is the exact opposite of all yours - why did it take them so long to shut it down?
Interesting question.

I also find it surprising that all your anger is directed at the FSA and not Cameron Farely. One day you will have to face up to who actually lost your money. And no, before you say it - the FSA did not lose the last 50% by imposing a freezing order. That was the Farelys too.

Well according to a current online statement and the FSA representatives statement he did lose that last 50% (sorry placed those trades). However my lack of understanding in this case says I should wait for proof before judging. Because if I state HE DID I might get involved in slander/liable issues?

Just for the record all the answers to the above questions have already been published by the FSA in a similar case, just thought they might want to give us the same consideration?

wantanswers

Sorry wantanswers but Rollinghome is right - it is a dumb question.

Oh and I should also point out Reaper those questions were written by the FSA.


The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today published these questions and answers to assist investors of xxxxx.
We have recently received several enquiries from members of the xxxxx, and many of those enquiries are similar. This statement should answer these questions and concerns, and summarises the position that the investigation has reached at xxxx.

You said it!!!!