London Capital and Finance

Botheredin

AnotherJoe wrote: »

On that page



Question ; Does that not mean its actually not eligible to be a ISA or did i misunderstand the recent HMRC decsion that LC&F ISAs, werent.

None of this stuff is eligible to be an ISA or any other regulated product.

1. A bunch of cowboys work out a model
2. A front man puts up a website offering incredible returns
3. Shysters in the background work out a deal with:
4. A "Marketing" company
5. Adverts are put out
6. People respond to those adverts
7. "Marketing" company takes 20-25%
8. "Marketing" company then splits the 20-25% with introducers
9. 80-75% of remaining funds lent to cowboy owned companies that have no value who have same directors.
10. 5-9 individuals, all of whom have questionable pasts, walk away with a quarter of a billion pounds or more.

Simples.

ffacoffipawb

Botheredin wrote: »

None of this stuff is eligible to be an ISA or any other regulated product.

1. A bunch of cowboys work out a model
2. A front man puts up a website offering incredible returns
3. Shysters in the background work out a deal with:
4. A "Marketing" company
5. Adverts are put out
6. People respond to those adverts
7. "Marketing" company takes 20-25%
8. "Marketing" company then splits the 20-25% with introducers
9. 80-75% of remaining funds lent to cowboy owned companies that have no value who have same directors.
10. 5-9 individuals, all of whom have questionable pasts, walk away with a quarter of a billion pounds or more.

Simples.

Facebook are culpable in allowing this rubbish to advertise on people's timelines. Disgraceful.

Sledger

masonic wrote: »

Yes, there are two, IMO, quite different positions surrounding the deception: The first position was around the portrayal of the product as equivalent to a savings account, even going so far as to suggest FSCS protection applied. The second being an understanding that there was risk, and the theoretical possibility of losing money, but that the risk was so well mitigated by assets held in security so as to make it negligible.

I think it is fair to point out that there were signs to indicate this was not a savings account or equivalent.

It's the latter position for which I have most sympathy. There was someone who started posting here soon after the FCA first started imposing restrictions on LCF, who stated she understood the risks, but was still of the belief the "assets" were actually things that could be sold for more than the value of the money lent, which was a reasonable belief to have held. At that point we were all still struggling to identify any of the borrowers, let alone what assets could possibly have been taken as security. Of course, we later found the key to identifying borrowers and this revealed the "assets" were all hope value and little of substance.

I asked the Q back in 2016 and my failing is should have searched Companies House as to How I man Sedgewick in GST could have had 120 Yeras experience as claimed in LCF literature
5) if GST Trustee have a 100% of borrowers assets for a 75% loan ( and as you stated its more like 50% borrowed) so where is this "significant risk" as stated in the application process?
"I accept that the investments to which the promotions will relate may expose me to a significant risk of losing all of the money or other property invested. I am aware that it is open to me to seek advice from an authorised person who specialises in advising on non-mainstream pooled investments. "
LCF Scott Allen Rresponse
The ‘significant risk’ part of the sentence was put in there by the compliance team at Sentient Capital. Sentient are responsible for the bonds being approved as a financial promotion for the purposes of section 21 of the financial services and market act of 2000. This wording is quite standard and is used in bonds with both high and low risk.

Sledger

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

As well as Blackmore Bonds here is another clone

https://invest.bassetgold.co.uk/our-bonds/ifisa-2?utm_campaign=ISA&utm_medium=FB-Ads&utm_source=facebook&utm_term=Look&utm_bg_campaign=Facebook_Look&utm_bg_product=ISA&utm_landing_page=ifisa-2

B&G Finance recently formed One woman band Ms. Dinah Benzaquen solicitor. and loves West Ham

AnotherJoe

Botheredin wrote: »

None of this stuff is eligible to be an ISA or any other regulated product.

1. A bunch of cowboys work out a model
2. A front man puts up a website offering incredible returns
3. Shysters in the background work out a deal with:
4. A "Marketing" company
5. Adverts are put out
6. People respond to those adverts
7. "Marketing" company takes 20-25%
8. "Marketing" company then splits the 20-25% with introducers
9. 80-75% of remaining funds lent to cowboy owned companies that have no value who have same directors.
10. 5-9 individuals, all of whom have questionable pasts, walk away with a quarter of a billion pounds or more.

Simples.

11. FCA , Advertising Standards, SFO, and CPS completely ignore all this until its years too late.

jimjames

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.
.

That's exactly the problem. The fees were not just commission but for full account servicing & management as I understand it. They could have a claim that it was a justifiable fee for the services.

Reaper wrote: »

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

Probably. Their comparison sites might be misleading but the sales were signed off by LCF.

Reaper wrote: »

* 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?

Again if LCF provide the sales material then the people on the phones are just repeating what they're told. The LCF sales brochure was filled with lies so giving a false script is no different

The rest of the outfit on the LCF side is probably more clearly fraudulent with non trading companies and sales of worthless land for millions.

Reaper

Yes that's my feeling. It looks like LCF directors may be in trouble but although I personally believe Surge is equally guilty I get the horrible feeling Surge/RP will walk away with their ill gotten gains completely unscathed.

masonic

Reaper wrote: »

Yes that's my feeling. It looks like LCF directors may be in trouble but although I personally believe Surge is equally guilty I get the horrible feeling Surge/RP will walk away with their ill gotten gains completely unscathed.

Potentially this is all part of the master plan - create a "clean" conduit to siphon off the money while authorities are busy taking down the dirty companies and investigating those set up to take the fall. No doubt the latter will be paid handsomely for their part in the matter in the fullness of time.

Supercalafragalistic

Reaper wrote: »

Yes that's my feeling. It looks like LCF directors may be in trouble but although I personally believe Surge is equally guilty I get the horrible feeling Surge/RP will walk away with their ill gotten gains completely unscathed.

Yes, it will be interesting if blackmore bonds go under, to see how they distance themselves from that too.
Such a shame.
As someone said on another site, if you bought a dodgy Panasonic tv from currys, you would complain to currys, not panasonic, so how come as the retailer, do surge get away with it?

masonic

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

Yes, it will be interesting if blackmore bonds go under, to see how they distance themselves from that too.
Such a shame.
As someone said on another site, if you bought a dodgy Panasonic tv from currys, you would complain to currys, not panasonic, so how come as the retailer, do surge get away with it?

If Currys outsourced its customer service helpline and sales operations to a third party and you bought a dodgy Panasonic TV over the phone, your transaction and complaint would still be with Currys.