MCO Capital loan

geomacl

Scrofulous wrote: »

If you wanted to launder money into the UK (and I am not suggesting that is what has happened in this case) this approach would be a very ingenious way of doing it. You wouldn't sell the "debt" off to a collection agency though (too much scrutiny from unhappy customers), you would simply write it off in your accounts. The amazing thing is the OFT would just let you carry on doing it for as long as you want, or so it seems.

Welcome Scrofulous - a very interesting perspective you present - I wonder??????:eek:

GomerPyle

Requirements and fitness to hold a CCA Licence

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/credit_licences/oft147.pdf

The company itself has admitted its own shortcomings in stating the level of fraud it is experiencing which is wholly unprecedented for even a much larger institution and the OFT has the power to remove its licence immediately.

As has already been pointed out, the Licence is in a different name to that mentioned on the website. A technical offence, but an offence nonetheless.

I’m corrected by the OFT

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/credit_licences/oft147.pdf

It’s actually a criminal offence the OFT state here.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/credit-licensing/credit-licence/applying#named4

“If you trade under more than one name, they must all be specified in the licence.”

The name Mobile Credit Online Capital Limited doesn’t appear on the website and it’s alternative names don’t appear on the licence.

I must also point out that the company describes its activities as being cheque cashing services which is not correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer

Know your customer (KYC) is the due diligence and bank regulation that financial institutions and other regulated companies must perform to identify their clients and ascertain relevant information pertinent to doing financial business with them.

Know your customer policies are becoming increasingly important globally to prevent identity theft fraud, money laundering and terrorist financing.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/aml/guidance#named4

http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/aml/guidance

As of 15 December 2007 the Money Laundering Regulations (the Regulations) came into force across the UK. The purpose of the regulations is to detect, deter and disrupt financial crime and terrorist financing by reducing the possibility of legitimate businesses being used for money laundering.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/aml/guidance#named4

Do I need to register with the OFT? (this is the anti-money laundering register and is separate to CCA registration)

The OFT requires all its supervised businesses to register before the 31 January 2010. The following types of business are supervised by the OFT and will need to register:

* Consumer Credit Financial Institutions (CCFIs) - businesses carrying on consumer credit lending activity who are neither authorised by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) nor money service businesses supervised by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Those businesses which only provide credit by introducing the borrower to a third party financial institution (ie credit brokerage) will not need to register.

Failure to register could lead to the OFT imposing a civil penalty or taking a prosecution if the supervised business continues to be carried on while the business is unregistered - see Interim penalty policy (pdf 128kb). Prosecution could result in a sentence of up to two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

We do not know if the company has completed anti-money laundering registration, but in view of the swingeing penalties if it hasn’t, let’s presume it has, which then leads us on to the company’s legal and statutory obligations, of which it must be aware (having registered), and which are fundamental to the nation’s financial stability and security - I am being serious.

MCO Capital should be familiar with this document

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft954.pdf

This document strikes fear and terror in the hearts of UK banks as it not only demands strict observance but also evidence of policies established, training, procedures and implementation, all of which must be documented in detail and be available for scrutiny.

Section 6 deals with the KYC aspect and identification of customers, and I presume requires something more than asking someone over the internet to provide a name and address.

Para 6.19 - enhanced due diligence required where the client is not seen face to face.

6.20 also - documents supplied ? Isn’t this a hint ?

Sections 6.26 and 6.27 put the mockers on it. ID must be seen whether in original form or electronic and a record kept.

Note also that there is no amount specification to provide a limit under which these regulations don’t apply. It applies to any and all amounts.

It’s hardly worth looking more deeply into MCO Capitals KYC compliance.

Now let’s look at their website

We provide you help for the sudden everyday cash needs. Our easy-to-use service has been designed to make the lending as easy as possible for you - no paperwork or faxes are needed and you can apply while sitting on your couch.

Fill in the WEB application, the application process only takes 10 minutes.*
The loan will be paid straight to your bank account.

I stress again that there is no limit of amount to what transaction these regulations apply. As demonstrated in this case, it can become a huge figure if repeated multiple times and a terrorist can do a lot of damage with a small amount of money.


What can you say ?

Eaglemar

GomerPyle wrote: »

I wouldn't give the debt collection agency any credit for purchasing a debt book that was nothing but hot air. At the very least they aren't showing themselves to be very competent in dealing with a new company who have admitted that theyre clueless by owning up to such a level of fraud, which isn't to say I'm not highly sceptical of the published story. It makes as much sense as their business plan.

This is an outrageous oversight by a company of that size and swallowing the loss should represent some reminder to them of their responsibilities for their own self-protection, if not that of the public at large.

I'll review the KYC requirements that MCO Capital are legally obliged to perform on applicants to see how far out they are in fulfilling in their statutory obligations. The laws were enacted to protect the citizens of the UK for a very good reason and I, for one, will gladly remind my MP that they aren't a joke.

If I get a demand - I'm going to court. Luckily (or unluckily) due to ill health it's unlikely I'll ever need credit again, so I could care a jot about my credit record and I could reduce a court to hysterical laughter in describing the activities of this 'ship of fools'.

"Repay a loan I've never received ? - please elucidate on that novel financial concept"

Not everyone is in my position, but any that can go to court, I recommend they do, as the costs to the company would ensure they never attempt this again. Anyone know an expensiv barrister for hire ? :j

I'm reasonably sure I'd win the case even if I slept through the proceedings. The debt collection agency's reaction is known as waking up to reality.

Apologies for being whimsical myself but this is an outrageously ridiculous situation. We can only hope that the concept of of a mobile phone payments system is for ever associated with this debacle and sinks along with it.

Now for KYC homework.

I was of the exact same opinion as yourself GomerPyle, and in fact ignored the first letter I received. It was only after the 2nd letter and following the advice of AF and people on here that I registered the fraud with AF.
It wasnt until I got a third letter a week later from IJ that I contacted IJ just to make sure I didnt get any unwanted visitors to my doorstep. Not that they would have been able to do much other than "do one" when the boys in blue would have been summoned.
I feel its unfortunate for those who have spent a quite a few pounds contacting MCO in the first place via recorded delivery letters, all because of the worry over this. Letters that MCO never responded to.
And then the mixed information from the authorities saying contact MCO, then not to contact them, then to contact again. When the authorities are supposed to be there to protect us, and laws in place as well, both of which havent worked. Its a double blow to us as consumers and members of the public.

GomerPyle

It's surprising that Intrum Justitia Ltd haven't run screaming from this affair at the earliest opportunity as nothing is more important to a corporation than it's good name and reputation, and the longer it's associated with this headcase the more corrosive it will be to it.

Even if there is some recoverable debt in among the dross, I doubt pursuing it will be worth the adverse publicity.

Robie_Nudd

GomerPyle wrote: »

This situation flabbergasts me, and I' m not using the word for comic effect.

From what has been revealed, it's suggested that 9,000 individual fraudsters have used their own personal bank accounts and gone to the trouble of scouring the electoral rolls of the country to find a 'doppelganger' and then managed to persuade a loan company to send them money. Apart from the fact that the barmiest of fraudsters wouldn't be daft enough to leave a trail to their identity in that way, to suggest that 9,000 people individually, or even as an organised fraud, would do this, is not credible.

The fact is that banks are legally obiged to perform KYC checks on customers wanting to open a bank account, so fraudsters are unlikely to have use of such a vast number of bank acoounts, and if they do banks face swingeing punitive action by the regulators.

Using the UK's debt recovery laws to remedy a situation created by what was always a business proposition that wouldn't have lasted a second in the Dragons' Den'. It's utterly laughable, if not for the victims - and to suggest that ID theft can be performed purely by knowing someone's name and address is ridiculous. KYC rules are there, not only to protect the public, but also the institution supposed to be scrupulously administering them.

I would hazard a guess that these 'debts' (and I use the term loosely) were on sold to a separate debt recovery company for a proportion of their book value. Of course the buyer would have been unaware that the manner in which the loans were taken made their real value - zero, but they ought to have checked. It's commercially prudent.

Possibly Gomer didn't read my initial post. The sourcing of the information is being investigated; it certainly didn't come from scouring electoral registers/telephone directories. I assure him that 9,000 bank separate bank accounts is perfectly credible in this instance - the use of on-line accounts being a major factor - there are clearly not 9,000 separate fraudsters! Perhaps one needs to ask what was seen in verification to open the core accounts?

Chris55_2

I'm just trying to get my head around this.

9,000 separate fraudulently opened Bank Accounts?

How many loans have MCO made in the UK in total?

How many of these loans were defaulted and sold on?

I assume the authorities have requested details of these 9,000 accounts that were paid into. Were these used just once, then closed? Were these with different banks?

Surely in these cases it's a question of "following the money". As has been said before these days you can't just open a Bank Account without producing a whole stack of documentation... so where did the money go? They don't pay out cash, they pay into a Bank Account?

GomerPyle

It's possible that I didn't read your initial post Robie Nudd but I have a specialist lifetime knowledge of UK banking and I can assure you that UK banks take KYC legislation very seriously, and any that don't will soon have their operation shut down. Having an online account doesn't mitigate the statutory obligations placed upon those institutions who open the account.

Chris66 is quite correct in his comment, and the suggestion that 9,000 fraudulent accounts have been set up is suggestive of a major organised attack on the UK banking system if true. Existing legislation makes it impossible.

MCO cannot claim that they operate an automated loan procedure as they are legally obliged to have signed the AML Register confirming their strict adherence to KYC procedures. I have to wonder, if they have provided 9,000 fraudulent loans then how many un-fraudulent ones have they provided in the short time they have been in existence ? 50,000 or 100.000 perhaps ?

Considering this comment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11655200

Incorrect interest
Money Box has also discovered that the Annual Percentage Rates quoted on the Help Loan website are highly inaccurate.
It states if someone borrowed £50 over 14 days, the APR is 1,877%. In fact it should be 132,965,598.
The Office of Fair Trading has confirmed this and says this will be part of its wider investigation into the company.

...... in spite of lacking legal qualification I would contend that any legal process against customers for repayment of its non-fraudulent loans would be unsuccessful if challenged. The set up, process and execution were so poor.

If a bank makes an error of a point of one per cent in interest calculation there'd be a major drama, but to make an error in excess of 132,000,000 per cent is beyond human comprehension.

Chris55 is correct in suggesting 'follow the money'. That path always leads to the truth. It is a statutory requirement that scrupulous records are kept, so there'll be no problem there.

GomerPyle

Now I'm ruthlessly Googling Finnish language news articles. :j

Perhaps I could demonstrate to our regulatory bodies how to do it. :rotfl:

Known as pikavippiyritystä in Finland they have been having a torrid time with the regulatory authorities there. On a cursory look I believe a blanket ban is being mooted.

I'll come back with more information now I've located a list of 78 of them. Let's pray they haven't all set up business in the UK or our regulatory bodies, fraud police and banking system could sink under the load.

alan_se

Elaine1965 wrote: »

All the websites of these sharks are the same. Written using asp.net so they are an absolute doddle to hack. This bank account features frequently: IBAN FI37 1112 3000 3823 22.

It would seem the 6 euro texts then receive an "approval" but no money is ever received quickly. They blame "the banks" for the delay which "can be up to ten days". So the emergency stopgap loan is received after 10 days with repayment due in 15. There is then contact from Intrum in Holland demanding repayment. There have been complaints about MVC bv in Rotterdam who are really MVC Investment Oy from Helsinki. They own vippiasema.fi as well as ex.extraatje.com, tz.vliegendgeld.com, beetjemeer.com, instantlening.com, which all have the same asp.net coding as the others. It could be the Intrum letters scam has been tested elsewhere before!

The helploan and balanceloan sites are asp.net and hosted in Finland with Codepoli Ltd on the same servers as the Dutch and Finnish sites. There are 61 sites hosted on that IP address with glorious names such as cash-it-up.com.

Many complaints have been made to AFM, the Dutch equivalent of our FSA about these people. Perhaps our lot could get together with their counterparts in Holland to put a stop to this.

They are coming! Stop them now before it gets worse. Remember, they are preying on the most vulnerable people in society and the way things are going, their market can only grow.

Just discovered Sweden, HTO Finansiering AB

and Denmark,
PDV Investment Aps
Sluseholmen 2-4
2450 Copenhagen SV
Tlf. +45 4356 0301

That's it. I've done my bit.

Hi GomerPyle,

Thanks for your help. In case you've not had the chance to trawl this thread a poster called Elaine1965 dug up some highly related info about a month back - have a look at her posts. I've copied the last one above, but she's also listed 76 similar websites to helploan/balanceloan in various countries - they are all the same format.

This is clearly a major loan operation, seemingly now moving out of its home areas and testing out the UK. It'll be interesting to know if they bothered with any financial statutory stuff elsewhere in Europe (assuming it's similar), or just deliberately ignored it like they have probably done here - working on the 'action first, apologise later' principle. Then run a merry dance around the authorities until you've made enough money and move on.

I remain utterly confused about all of this. Despite probably being set up by a European-wide payday loan outfit (or at least two sharks with some websites) was the new MCO operation in the UK simply caught out by a different bunch of web-savvy fraudsters ? (And it never happened before in Finland etc?).

Or are they all in it together and were simply testing out a UK money laundering system ? If so, what for, and why draw attention to yourself so easily ?

Too many questions. I hope DS Stokes at the City of London Police isn't working on his own ...

Alan

GeorgeEliot

Inspired by Gomer and Elaine's research, I found out that the director of MCO has had TV journalists after him in Finland, and some of his loan companies are being investigated by the police.

Tuomo Maki runs more than 10 small loans businesses in Finland. The two largest turn over millions of euros. However, Maki's earned income in 2008 was a mere 18000 euros. 10 years ago he had capital income of 1.5 million, but in recent years he has had no income from capital. (Info from Finnish national broadcasting co. via Google Translate)

The journalist would have liked to ask where the profits went, but could not reach Maki for interview.

A machine translation (that turns Tuomo Maki into Tom Hill) says, "Police are investigating the Consumer Agency's request, three different pikavippiyhtiötä usury. All have the same CEO, Tom Hill. Hill are pending against the prosecution of criminal breach of the Companies."

Then there's the Estonian link.
"...many Tuomo Mäki-led firms in Estonia is a sister company, whose name is identical or almost identical to the Finnish company. Shell companies and holding companies in the network is complex."

I'm too new to post links so you'll need to put HTTP and a colon and 2 forward slashes in front of the urls showing where I got this stuff.

ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/arkisto/mot_pikavippiparonit/kasikirjoitus

translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fohjelmat.yle.fi%2Fmot%2Farkisto%2Fmot_pikavippiparonit%2Fkasikirjoitus&sl=fi&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

(Search notes: Tuomo Mäki's name also appears as Mäkeä or Mäen, depending on grammatical context. Google usually translates his name as Tom Hill. And cheers to Gomer for finding the search term pikavippiyritystä.)

Googling suggests the Finnish small loans sector is linked with gambling, violence, political corruption and more. The Finnish parliament seems to have legislated to stop people getting small loans during the night - possibly because of an issue with young people and gambling.