Cameron Farley, FSA & Grant Thornton

wantanswers

Thanks for that explanation dunstonh it’s very comprehensive but like everything else in life we all have our field of expertise yours seems to be very good in the business your in, unfortunately however lesser qualified people get on the plane and leave it to the experts to fly it.
You replied to Ponzi Scheme (what you invested in). Is that your opinion or do you know it as fact?

dunstonh

unfortunately however lesser qualified people get on the plane and leave it to the experts to fly it.

In your case though you left it to the stewardess rather than the qualified individual

That is why scammers and con merchants are successful. They target people who dont know better.

There is another rule that applies to IFAs giving advice. It comes under MIFID and says that advisers should not recommend investments that the person is incapable of having sufficient understanding of. That rule doesnt apply to conmen.

You replied to Ponzi Scheme (what you invested in). Is that your opinion or do you know it as fact?

It looks like it. Unregulated scheme that appears to be dependent on people putting new money into it to survive.

wantanswers

No I put my trust in these people.

Enjoy Can't wait for the pair shaped window.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPJDt3aZS4g

PS audis are quite impressive.

agsnu

wantanswers wrote: »

No I put my trust in these people.

It's all very well putting your faith in regulators, but you're going to have to take some responsibility for throwing your money at an unregulated scam artist. Madoff's investors aren't getting a bailout either.

wantanswers

Extract from FSA Citation 16 October 2009.

That the petitioner has had reason to be concerned about the activities of the
Respondents including the information given by them in response to the petitioner. In about June 2005, the petitioner made investigations with the respondents in respect of possible unregulated activity.

QUOTE: It's all very well putting your faith in regulators.

We are the FSA
We were designed designed to put a stop to excess.
We were designed to be the eyes and ears of the city.
Prevent people being ripped off!!!!!!!!

QUOTE: Scam Artist.

Can you enlighten me please, you MAY be correct in your assumption but as yet it has not been proven in a COURT OF LAW, unless that is you can confirm otherwise?


On 28 July 2008 the Financial Services Authority (FSA) appointed investigators under section 168(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the Act). The reason for the appointment was that there were circumstances suggesting that the Company may have been engaged in activities in breach of section 19 of the Act.

Cameron Farley was subject to a freezing order 2 September 2008 no losses had been determined or indicated to clients at that time. Estimated losses (£10million) were incurred between 2 September 2008 and allegedly 23 September 2008. Grant Thornton was appointed as Provisional Liquidators on 21 October 2008. The Provisional Liquidators report was dated 19 December 2008.

It MAY have been another PONZI (not yet proven in a COURT OF LAW) scheme, but the FSA froze the company's assets on 2 Sept 2008. An estimated £10million was allegedly lost in Forex trades between 2nd and 23rd September?

It is the intention to investigate why money went missing under the FSA/COURT CONTROL and along the way IF further details can be added they will be.

wantanswers

Dunstonh you quoted:

If it becomes aware of illegal activity by an unregulated company then it will make an attempt to shut it down and that is within its remit. That is not the same issue over consumer protection from a monetary point of view. If the FSA took no action then in effect they would be making regulation of firms voluntary.


Citation Quote.
In about June 2005, the petitioner made investigations with the respondents in respect of possible unregulated activity.

Have I missed something?

Reaper

wantanswers wrote: »

It MAY have been another PONZI (not yet proven in a COURT OF LAW) scheme, but the FSA froze the company's assets on 2 Sept 2008. An estimated £10million was allegedly lost in Forex trades between 2nd and 23rd September?

It is the intention to investigate why money went missing under the FSA/COURT CONTROL and along the way IF further details can be added they will be.

I'm still find it odd how quick you are to blame the FSA and how slow you are to accept CF was a Ponzi scheme or indeed that they did anything wrong at all.

CF were not making any money from their currency trading but were still paying out big returns and the Farelys were taking a lot of money out of the business for themselves. Even if the FSA had successfully frozen everything when they stepped in you still would have lost half your money because the Farleys were paying themselves and those supposedly great returns out of people's capital, not profit.

I would quote you the exact figures but I see that the Farley's have had the liquidators report removed from the web site I previosuly quoted even though it is a public document. Now it just says "Removed at the request of EH2 Capital" (their new company). It was pretty incriminating.

The second point you are not grasping is that when the FSA get a court imposed freezing order they do not take on responsibility to ensure it is successfull. Instead anybody who breaches it or knowingly assists a breach is liable. This is the big weakness in your hope of legal action.

You might have more chance saying they were slow to act but even if there is fault proved it will not necessarily translate into a financial liability to pay you any money. You will need a solicitor to tell what the odds are but I predict they won't be good.

I think you are still in denial and need to face up to the fact you were scammed by CF. They lost your money, not the FSA.

turbobob

Yes the liquidators report posted in the beginning as good as said it was a Ponzi scheme. The main point was that the money was pooled into the company bank account and the "investment returns" were being paid out of this. There was no evidence of any investments that were producing the returns required to pay the amounts promised (9.5% a year or whatever it was). That is basically how a ponzi scheme works. It can go on for years and years as long as new money keeps coming in and not too many people decide to withdraw at the same time..

Rollinghome

wantanswers wrote: »

Ponzi Scheme?

Grant Thornton’s report states that the liquidators "could not identify any trades by the company which could reasonably be expected to produce the rate of return which the company promised. It appears from investigations that investors’ money was pooled into the company bank account and investors who received payments from the company were repaid from this pooled money."

That's how a Ponzi scheme works. The profits are ficticious and the return to existing 'investors' is simply paid from the money paid in by new 'investors' - until all the money has gone and there's nothing left to pay anyone.

As a kid coming home from school I used to see fly posts offering a 20% return on money in a new "unmissable investment". The new Gaming Act had just been enacted legalising UK casinos for the first time and they claimed they had a guaranteed method of winning at roulette to produce those returns. I couldn't believe that anyone would be taken in... but they were in their thousands. There was nothing original in what Madoff was doing.

wantanswers

Dunstonh you quoted:

If it becomes aware of illegal activity by an unregulated company then it will make an attempt to shut it down and that is within its remit. That is not the same issue over consumer protection from a monetary point of view. If the FSA took no action then in effect they would be making regulation of firms voluntary.


Citation Quote.
In about June 2005, the petitioner made investigations with the respondents in respect of possible unregulated activity.

Have I missed something?