Cameron Farley, FSA & Grant Thornton

Reaper

turbobob wrote: »

The liquidators state that GAIN Capital was US based. Could a UK court impose a freezing order on a US institution? I don't know. Note however that GAIN Capital does have a UK arm which is regulated by the FSA - http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmBasicDetails.do?sid=62171
http://www.forex.com/uk/index.html

If you look back at post 34 you will see I already answered this:

A freezing order does not, however, bind third parties outside the jurisdiction (for example a foreign branch of a bank with a presence in England).

It's pretty clear if there is a breach only the person who did it is responsible. Others are only liable if they knowingly assisted. The FSA is therefore not liable.

Several times it has also been stated that the money was lost because of the FSA. This is rubbish though not an unusual allegation where Ponzi schemes are involved. As far as investors were concered everything was going wonderfully well until the authorities intervened at which point they lost it all. But that was all an illusion. The payouts being made came from new investors money, not profits. It was unsustainable.

The FSA may have been slow acting, but I can see nothing they can be held liable for.

ritchieboy

This whole matter is so confusing. Has anyone else recieved a letter from the police with ref to CF? I also had an e-mail forwarded to me with regard to WM Proserve and a Trust agreement for Fiona Farley to pay into and asking for me to give GT permission to forward my details etc to.

If anyone hasn't had it I will gladly e-mail it.

wantanswers

Hi Reaper you quoted:

It's pretty clear if there is a breach only the person who did it is responsible. Others are only liable if they knowingly assisted. The FSA is therefore not liable.

The problem here is there is NO clear facts as to who did it that's the issue.

Reaper

I think you can be pretty sure the FSA did not suddenly get it into its head to take a wild gamble for no particular reason.

Nobody other than Cameron Farely employees (and the Farleys in particular) had any motive. To the Farelys on the other hand it was like flipping a coin. If it comes up heads everybody gets their money back and the chances of them being successfully prosecuted are reduced. If it comes up tails well... its not their money that gets lost.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this was money left on account trading away because nobody stopped it. On 23rd September 51 trades totaling £127.5m were deliberately made on Euro/Dollars with no Stop Loss protection, which carried on losing until there was not enough money left in the account at which point Gain Capital automatically ended it.

I doubt very much they would have had to be in the office to make the trades, just have the passwords.

Some people seem to still doubt the Farelys are guilty of anything. They are.

wantanswers

Pretty sure and fact are two different meanings. Unlikely yes but for me fact is all I can go off and even as of today it is not a fact. With regards to your other comment with due respect it has been covered a thousand times so pretty pointless starting up again.

You may be correct about some people doubting whether Farley is guilty but that is their opinion and you and I can’t change that. On that score I just wait for the investigation to conclude, court cases to be heard (if any) and verdicts passed. Then and only then can I say GUILTY or NOT GUILTY? However I will add I will always have my personal thoughts.

luvpump

Wow, about 1 1/2 yrs ago a friend of a freind told me exactly the same about this company, I came pretty close to investing 10k ! The "gains" seemed astonishing, sorry to hear your story tho , just goes to show, if it sounds too good to be true !....well sadly you know the rest ..

wantanswers

Life would be boring without it. But I take your point. Off to more secure things now.

wantanswers

Shy bairns get nowt..

http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/news/money-property-and-tax/content.aspx?ID=371768&re=7813&ea=235363

wantanswers

Reaper You quoted:-

“””””I think you can be pretty sure the FSA did not suddenly get it into its head to take a wild gamble for no particular reason””””””

I would agree with you but I’m also pretty sure GORDON BROWN never got it into his head to say he would repay £500 to decorate his SUMMMER HOUSE on TAXPAYERS MONEY if the public had not COMPLAINED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6777390/MPs-expenses-Gordon-Brown-repays-500-for-summerhouse.html


Thanks for looking.

Reaper

wantanswers wrote: »

“””””I think you can be pretty sure the FSA did not suddenly get it into its head to take a wild gamble for no particular reason””””””

I would agree with you but I’m also pretty sure GORDON BROWN never got it into his head to say he would repay £500 to decorate his SUMMMER HOUSE on TAXPAYERS MONEY if the public had not COMPLAINED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Er... those are 2 totally unrelated facts.
1) Did the FSA suddenly decide to gamble and lose all the remaining assets of Cameron Farely for no particular reason?
2) Gordon Brown spent £500 painting his house, then paid the money back because he thought it might look bad.

That's like saying:
1) Why are pears are pear shaped?
because:
2) my favourite colour is blue

If it comes to court I hope you manage to put together a better legal case than that!