London Capital and Finance

masonic

David_Evans wrote: »

That is true.
It wasn't so much that kind of crimes - more other types of criminals (eg drugs) being customers.
Probably because his garage only took cash, not cards.
Today it's easy to google people you deal with.

My point is that these kind of people would not be interested in excuses or 'limited liability' rules etc.

It is unlikely that any drug traffickers would be interested in a mere 8%pa return.

jimjames

masonic wrote: »

It is unlikely that any drug traffickers would be interested in a mere 8%pa return.

But I suspect they would be very interested in the ability to launder £236 million of cash through a network of companies with a legitimate origin for that money

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

But I suspect they would be very interested in the ability to launder £236 million of cash through a network of companies with a legitimate origin for that money

I hadn't thought of that angle. Let's hope it doesn't transpire that LCF was involved in money laundering, because that could taint all of the clean money flowing in from bondholders and tie everything up in red tape for years.

David_Evans

Jelli wrote: »

It's just some vulnerable investors have put absolutely everything in, and if they don't get it back they might not carry on (going by personal stories on Facebook). I don't think those suited dodgy people give that a second thought when buying super cars. They probably don't have to, as they don't share the same streets, roads or shops. It seems if you want to be an untouchable crim then become educated.

FCA could of saved the general public £200m+ if they acted on the 2015 warning. Everyone seems to have invested from then.

I think it's more about having the money to bribe the right people - rather than any education.

David_Evans

masonic wrote: »

It is unlikely that any drug traffickers would be interested in a mere 8%pa return.

I agree.
But every dodgy criminal probably has a few people connected to him (family etc) who might invest.

Maybe I'm just more cautious about this than most people?
I'd be a useless scammer - way too scared of any repercussions.

David_Evans

masonic wrote: »

I hadn't thought of that angle. Let's hope it doesn't transpire that LCF was involved in money laundering, because that could taint all of the clean money flowing in from bondholders and tie everything up in red tape for years.

Well aren't the LCF directors probably now money laundering anyway, by hiding their own assets?

masonic

David_Evans wrote: »

Well aren't the LCF directors probably now money laundering anyway, by hiding their own assets?

Money laundering is the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money. There isn't currently any reason to think the money the LCF directors acquired was obtained illegally. Every appearance is that they knew exactly what they could get away with without breaking any laws. All they have done as far as we're aware is breach a regulatory obligation or two, which is not a criminal matter.

It is also not illegal to gift assets to your heirs or dispose of them in other ways, unless a freezing injunction is in force. I doubt S&W have taken such steps as they have publicly stated the lending business is above board.

jimjames

Spotted that London Group LLP which has a loan from LCF according to charge at CH but has never filed accounts has been listed for compulsory strike off presumably as accounts overdue. This is ultimate owner of some companies loaned money by LCF.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC416429/filing-history

Strike off active as of 12 Feb 2019

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

Spotted that London Group LLP which has a loan from LCF according to charge at CH but has never filed accounts has been listed for compulsory strike off presumably as accounts overdue. This is ultimate owner of some companies loaned money by LCF.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC416429/filing-history

Strike off active as of 12 Feb 2019

Another company whose registered office is {text removed by MSE Forum Team}. Perhaps someone from Global Security Trustees could have a word if they bump into them in the foyer.

jimjames

masonic wrote: »

Another company whose registered office is {text removed by MSE Forum Team}. Perhaps someone from Global Security Trustees could have a word if they bump into them in the foyer.

There will be a lot of milling around in that foyer. I guess it also helps the administrators that they won't have to travel far or speak to 12 different people.

It also appears the so-called asset backed security may not be worth much. LCF applied fixed & floating charges to a company after another fixed charge already existed so it might not be first in line if they need to call them in. Charge created by same solicitor at the same {text removed by MSE Forum Team} offices where both companies and GST were registered to

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/01/london-capital-finance-does-asset.html

GST are also listed as third in line so they might not even get the crumbs but as S&W administrators pointed out the security trustee is of little benefit. It begs the question why the security trustee would be listed as the holder of a charge on one company?

I wonder if the bondholders of LCF realised that they were lending money to a company that used as security a contract for "buying & selling plots of land called el Cupey" on a contract dated 7/3/2012 between a company Inversiones 51588 SRL registered in Dominican Republic and various individuals. (P29 of LCF charge)

Asset backed security? Maybe not