London Capital and Finance

masonic

Malthusian wrote: »

Your interpretation is wrong. The claims against Catalyst and IPM were in respect of their activities in arranging (bringing about) deals in investments. There has never been any attempt to claim they were giving personalised advice which would have fallen apart instantly.

Not a lot. Whether the FSCS changes its mind again (it's not a court of law and FSCS decisions don't set legally binding precedents). Whether broke investors can find the means and the wherewithal to challenge decisions against them in the courts as IPM's did. How good their lawyers are.

So there has been no legal decision on the matter? Just the FSCS deciding itself to open up compensation in cases where its own rules say it can't offer compensation? Ultimately at the expense of consumers who stick to mainstream investments?

Can't see why not, frankly. P2P is regulated now and FOS complaints are free. There's certainly an argument that the P2P firms didn't meet their duty of care if they didn't do proper due diligence (which they didn't as that's not how P2P works) on the financial promotions they passed to you in exchange for a fat commission, and should reasonably have known that the information in them was false. Whether the FOS agrees with it, and where you go from there if they don't, is a whole other matter.

Well the risk is further losses if the firm is driven into insolvency, so one would need to be reasonably confident of an FSCS bail out, or at least ensure one is fully divested from the firm in question before going down that road.

Sledger

jimjames wrote: »

He might have had other things on his mind

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/03/london-capital-finance-arrests-sfo-fraud.html

Come on Jim Elten was not one or even two of the infamouus four arrested but a John Doe pointing his Golding Finger that arrests were imminant. Be intersted to know what his mission was as dont think he was a $$$$$$$$ bondholder. I suppose he is just watching progress and will probaly resurface on this site and post as Ian sandy Sludgewick

nrsql

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Whats to stop HMRC turning round and saying that HL or Fidelity etc ISA's are no longer, in retrospect, ISA's?

It does happen - HMRC does change (sorry, clarify) rules and decide that people have been doing wrong things which they previously approved and they are now liable.

That would be more of a
Whats to stop HMRC turning round and saying that HL or Fidelity etc ISA's in retrospect have never been ISA's?

The answer would be public opinion - ministers would get upset if they thought it would affect their chances of being re-elected.

For LCF look for someone who benefits and organised it all but does not appear as a controller of any of the wrongdoing companies. Maybe someone in a position to do a deal which keeps them out of the limelight at a small cost.

Supercalafragalistic

Some interesting screenshots of messages sent by lcf advisers to potential customers

Sledger

masonic wrote: »

I don't know where to start on this one...

"The mini-bonds offered by LCF were not qualifying ISA investments because they were not a transferable security"
...but other non-transferable securities, such as peer to peer loans are allowed to be held in IF ISAs. The more plausible reason is that investments must be FCA regulated, which the mini-bonds were not.

"Any interest or growth you received from funds invested in the account is savings income and may be liable to tax."
Savings income? It is certainly income, and it is certainly taxable income, but savings income? Is this how HMRC would describe the interest from corporate bonds?

An interesting question is who HMRC will pursue for unpaid tax (i.e. the LCF administrators as LCF should have withheld it, or the individual who may not be in a position to pay it) and how far back they will go.

" Any interest or growth you received from funds invested in the account is savings income and may be liable to tax." But its NOT really interest its a PONZI scheme where quaterly LCF money paid back to you is your own capital "Called" interest which it is not since its drip feeding capital back. If the Bond had matured and you cashed it in then it could be called intest but its really other bondholders capital

Supercalafragalistic

Sledger wrote: »

Come on Jim Elten was not one or even two of the infamouus four arrested but a John Doe pointing his Golding Finger that arrests were imminant. Be intersted to know what his mission was as dont think he was a $$$$$$$$ bondholder. I suppose he is just watching progress and will probaly resurface on this site and post as Ian sandy Sludgewick

Wonder if he was a disgruntled acquaintance...when i say he...or she...or they.

Malthusian

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Some interesting screenshots of messages sent by lcf advisers to potential customers on the following link..i can see why so many people were caught.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2287487818147428/permalink/2307602372802639/?hc_location=ufi

Any chance of a screenshot posted on the thread if it's not confidential? I've already been kicked out of one Facebook group and can't really be bothered to join another.

Malthusian

masonic wrote: »

So there has been no legal decision on the matter?

Not really. The FOS originally refused to look at complaints against IPM, but although that changed after investors banded together and obtained legal advice, if I understand correctly it didn't go to court, I think the FOS just changed its mind.

masonic wrote: »

I don't know where to start on this one...

"The mini-bonds offered by LCF were not qualifying ISA investments because they were not a transferable security"
...but other non-transferable securities, such as peer to peer loans are allowed to be held in IF ISAs. The more plausible reason is that investments must be FCA regulated, which the mini-bonds were not.

No, the ISA rules are very clear, non-transferable securities are ineligible. If they're non-transferable securities then they're not allowed to be held in IFISAs. Hopefully the investments you are talking about are in reality transferable. Don't most P2P platforms allow you to flog your bonds to others via the platform?

Supercalafragalistic

Malthusian wrote: »

Any chance of a screenshot posted on the thread if it's not confidential? I've already been kicked out of one Facebook group and can't really be bothered to join another.

Forgive my ignorance, am not sure how to add a screenshot. When i click on the little photo icon it asks for a url?

masonic

Sledger wrote: »

" Any interest or growth you received from funds invested in the account is savings income and may be liable to tax." But its NOT really interest its a PONZI scheme where quaterly LCF money paid back to you is your own capital "Called" interest which it is not since its drip feeding capital back. If the Bond had matured and you cashed it in then it could be called intest but its really other bondholders capital

Bondholders handed over their capital in exchange for LCF mini-bonds. Surge creamed off 25% and the rest was lent to other companies. Ostensibly returns were paid out of monthly payments made by these other companies. Even if those companies just repaid a fraction of the money lent to them without doing anything with it, the interest paid by LCF to bondholders would be treated as interest for tax purposes.