London Capital and Finance

Botheredin

jimjames wrote: »

The FT have now named 2 of the 4 people arrested by the SFO. Curious that they don't name the other 2 people

https://www.ft.com/content/e44379a6-4b31-11e9-8b7f-d49067e0f50d?desktop=true&segmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a#myft:notification:instant-email:content

Goes to a pay wall. Just search London Capital and Finance, click news / most recent and it is accessible

Botheredin

This is interesting also. Apologies if it has ben posted before by any member:
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20130627a86

Reaper

Regarding Surge/RPDigitalservices although everybody expects the SFO to start wading in have they actually done anything illegal?

* They charged LCF excessive fees - but that alone is not illegal unless it was part of a wider arrangement.
* They used deceptive ads - but they were signed off by regulated firm LCF so doesn't that shift the blame to LCF?
* Their staff told lies on the phone to prospective investors on behalf of LCF - is there any proof of this that would stand up in court?

I hope there is something that will stick but nothing springs to mind.

jimjames

A few people seem to have thought that Martin Lewis was promoting these bonds. Looks like there was some scope for confusion with some adverts alongside his video clips

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/03/lcf-martin-lewis-advert-moneysaving.html

Malthusian

Reaper wrote: »

* They used deceptive ads - but they were signed off by regulated firm LCF so doesn't that shift the blame to LCF?

There was no Section 21 sign off on the RP Digital Services pages. Unless LCF takes responsibility for them, the top-isa-rates and best-interest-rates websites fall into the category of unauthorised financial promotions.

That's a crime punishable by a fine and a compulsory networking opportunity in a white-collar prison not exceeding two years.

* Their staff told lies on the phone to prospective investors on behalf of LCF - is there any proof of this that would stand up in court?

Up to 11,000 consistent and reliable witness statements are compelling evidence that would stand up in court if the SFO can be bothered to collect them.

Reaper

Malthusian wrote: »

There was no Section 21 sign off on the RP Digital Services pages.

Not according to a "spokesman for Careless, RPD and Surge Group"who told the the Sunday Times "RPD used both online and traditional marketing strategies, including newspaper ads. All business that the company drew in had been signed off by LCF, which was regulated"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/money/failed-london-capital-finance-isa-netted-60m-for-captain-careless-6pcwkh5wv

Though no such disclaimer was shown on their adverts.

Supercalafragalistic

Reaper wrote: »

Regarding Surge/RPDigitalservices although everybody expects the SFO to start wading in have they actually done anything illegal?

* They charged LCF excessive fees - but that alone is not illegal unless it was part of a wider arrangement.
* They used deceptive ads - but they were signed off by regulated firm LCF so doesn't that shift the blame to LCF?
* Their staff told lies on the phone to prospective investors on behalf of LCF - is there any proof of this that would stand up in court?

I hope there is something that will stick but nothing springs to mind.

Alarmingly i have just read on bondholder group that surge are asking for some payment from lcf via the administrators....jeez,

Malthusian

Reaper wrote: »

Not according to a "spokesman for Careless, RPD and Surge Group"who told the the Sunday Times "RPD used both online and traditional marketing strategies, including newspaper ads. All business that the company drew in had been signed off by LCF, which was regulated"

I should have been more specific. By "section 21 sign off" I meant a boilerplate statement that the websites had been signed off by an FCA-authorised firm. Not the act of approving the websites itself.

I don't believe there is an explicit requirement to state in a financial promotion that it has been authorised and who by - but it is extremely unusual not to.

Especially if you are an unauthorised firm issuing promotions that have been authorised by another. Without a section 21 statement to show that the promotions are legal, it looks to all the world as if you are committing a criminal act. If of course they know the first thing about financial services regulation.

AnotherJoe

jimjames wrote: »

A few people seem to have thought that Martin Lewis was promoting these bonds. Looks like there was some scope for confusion with some adverts alongside his video clips

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/03/lcf-martin-lewis-advert-moneysaving.html

No different to the mugs who [STRIKE]saw[/STRIKE] acted on adverts using ML and also Dragons Den members for Bitcoin.

Reed_Richards

AnotherJoe wrote: »

No different to the mugs who saw adverts using ML and also Dragons Den members for Bitcoin.

I saw one of those on Facebook. But I think the mugs were just the small minority who believed them.