London Capital and Finance

ffacoffipawb

Reaper wrote: »

I wonder if the MP invested his own money in an LCF bond, and if not why not?

Doubtful

He is probably considerably richer than us.
Also, I doubt he is that stupid.

Supercalafragalistic

Dance with the Devil and you get pricked by the horns

rr755507

CalvinHobs wrote: »

However, if it was me, once I knew how LCF/Surge had operated, I would not sleep easy at night. Even if I had done nothing illegal, it would not sit right with me. Then again, I'm not an MP - just an ordinary punter.

It seems he is sleeping just fine:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6896367/Tory-MP-Johnny-Mercer-hits-claims-linked-scandal-London-Capital-Finance.html

Supercalafragalistic

rr755507 wrote: »

It seems he is sleeping just fine:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6896367/Tory-MP-Johnny-Mercer-hits-claims-linked-scandal-London-Capital-Finance.html

Someone wise i.m.o has said this:
Mercer hasn't technically done any thing wrong. However, you have to ask why on earth he needs to take up this post. He already has an important job that should occupy 100% of his time. His salary for working less than 5 hours a week is greater than his MP's salary. If he wants to support veterans, all good and well, but you can hardly be surprised at people thinking you're greedy if you expect £350 per hour rather than doing it for nothing. He's marked his card by not distancing himself from Careless and standing down from the role and that will work badly for him if there is further scrutiny of Careless. What it shows of course is that Mercer and his kind are cut from the same cloth as Careless and the LCF crew and, arguably, those who regulate and legislate the incresingly discredited finance and investment industry. They are part of an establishment elite that will silently collude with each other to keep us and others at arm's length.

Sledger

Can any body clarify the FCA power on Money laundering. They knock on the door of Standard charter and say we are just doing a routine money laundering check and come up with this. On 10 Dec2018 they knocked on LCF door where we were led to believe they were using their powers on fraud and they appear to have done nothing allowing further millions to go where. What am I missing??? What authority to they have to set such fines and money laundering fines should go to victims of money laundering and that would have prompted them to pursue LCF. https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-fines-standard-chartered-bank-102-2-million-poor-aml-controls

Supercalafragalistic

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/revealed-lcf-agent-still-pulling-in-big-fees-from-highrisk-bonds-a4115246.html

eskbanker

Sledger wrote: »

What am I missing???

Something that in any way connects an AML investigation into a bank with this thread about LC&F?

Malthusian

Sledger wrote: »

On 10 Dec2018 they knocked on LCF door where we were led to believe they were using their powers on fraud

No, on 10 December the FCA was investigating potential misselling. Misselling is a regulatory breach, not fraud.

and they appear to have done nothing allowing further millions to go where.

The FCA froze LCF's accounts on 30 December. The "millions" disappeared long before the FCA entered the building.

What am I missing??? What authority to they have to set such fines and money laundering fines should go to victims of money laundering and that would have prompted them to pursue LCF.

An example of the money laundered via Standard Chartered includes "opening an account with 3 million UAE Dirham in cash in a suitcase (just over £500,000)". Do you really expect the FCA to open an investigation to find out where the money in that suitcase came from, and compensate whoever it was stolen from, which could be literally anyone anywhere in the world? And do the same for all the other dodgy money that Standard Chartered waved through?

GDB2222

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

General Question. Has Surge broken any of the rules of FSMA 2000?

What sort of answer do you expect to such a vague question?

Supposing they have broken every rule there is, and they return say half of the money they received (the rest having been spent on reasonable business expenses), have you worked out whether that will make a significant difference to your losses? Well, I suppose that 10% would make a bit of a difference.

It's actually worse for you if the FCA fines Surge for regulatory breaches, as that's money that can't come back to you.

Malthusian

It wasn't a vague question at all.

Supercalafragalistic wrote: »

General Question. Has Surge broken any of the rules of FSMA 2000?

The answer to this excellent and well-defined question is yes. The top-isa-rates and best-interest-rates websites were unauthorised financial promotions, being inducements to engage in investment activity which were published by a firm not on the FCA register and with no declaration that the promotions were authorised by another FCA-authorised firm. They were therefore a breach of Section 21 of the FSMA 2000.

There are other potential breaches but that one is indisputable and in black and white.