London Capital and Finance

Reaper

The only snippet I can add is Oracle Limited Incorporation Date was 26 July 2017

jimjames

badger09 wrote: »

however, looks like you have to be a registered user

https://registry.mfsa.com.mt/ROC/index.jsp#editRegistration.do?action=Create&fKey=true

over to you jj - happy sleuthing:)

I've already tried. Application rejected
A Maltese friend has looked and is scared off as the address is one used by companies linked to Panama papers where the journalist investigating was killed by car bomb.

Fast moving stuff though. FCA have published a paper today

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/supervisory-notices/second-supervisory-notice-london-capital-and-finance-plc-2019.pdf

Details of what it means here but in essence it is exactly what many of us were warning about here back in 2015/6/7

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

Reaper

jimjames wrote: »

I've already tried. Application rejected
A Maltese friend has looked and is scared off as the address is one used by companies linked to Panama papers where the journalist investigating was killed by car bomb.

I don't think they need to worry because the Panama Papers company was a completely different firm based on the 2nd floor (not the ground floor)
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/14012304

The Ground floor seems to be largely owned by a "Hot Desking" company which provides temporary desks as and when you need them. So a semi-virtual office with lots of firms at the same address. I assume Oracle has gone for the "Registered Office Address" option at 650 Euros pa.
https://www.yoururbanoffice.com/your-urban-offices/#old-bakery-street-upper

Reaper

jimjames wrote: »

Fast moving stuff though. FCA have published a paper today

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/supervisory-notices/second-supervisory-notice-london-capital-and-finance-plc-2019.pdf

Thanks, it's full of great stuff such as marketing via deceptive 3rd party web sites (LCF claim is they had "little control" over them, but stopping paying them commission would have quickly solved the problem!)

Also multiple breaches on LCFs own website. Nothing too surprising to forum regulars although those with ISAs might be surprised to find they may not just lose their capital but have to pay back tax on any money received too as the supposed ISAs were non-qualifying.

Jelli

Reaper wrote: »

although those with ISAs might be surprised to find they may not just lose their capital but have to pay back tax on any money received too as the supposed ISAs were non-qualifying.

Nightmare On Elm Street. The horror of people being left in poverty then told to clear a debt, all because they trusted a regulated company. I would place the tax liability with the regulator

Much earlier I kind of wondered if the freezing was down to missed tax and the prominence of the site's "regulated by the FCA", and it seems that played a little part.

**

verybigchris

The lack of ISA status could be a blessing in disguise, as it would mean capital losses could now be offset against any CGT liabilities.

coyrls

Jelli wrote: »

Nightmare On Elm Street. The horror of people being left in poverty then told to clear a debt, all because they trusted a regulated company. I would place the tax liability with the regulator

Much earlier I kind of wondered if the freezing was down to missed tax and the prominence of the site's "regulated by the FCA", and it seems that played a little part.

**

What regulator? The bonds were unregulated.

masonic

Jelli wrote: »

Nightmare On Elm Street. The horror of people being left in poverty then told to clear a debt, all because they trusted a regulated company. I would place the tax liability with the regulator

This finding paves the way for HMRC to be made a priority creditor when the companies are wound up (which will surely happen now), so the unpaid tax (which should have been withheld) will be collected before any distribution of capital is made to investors.

You could complain about the FCA and ask for redress. As mentioned earlier in the thread, any such redress would be a fraction of the amount lost representing the extent to which the FCA was considered to be responsible for you investing in the unregulated products (so 50%, 25% 10% etc). It could be zero if sufficient information was provided suggesting the products were in fact unregulated when you took them out. There might be a stronger case for redress if the lending business (which was regulated) is found to be a Ponzi scheme, as it certainly appears.

System

I read a post earlier by a person called property player that said (more or less) that these types of bonds (which i think maybe all of the high paying ones like blackmore etc) are only sold to sophisticate d investors or if youre not sophisticated ( simple?like me ��) they restrict you to a max of 10 per cent of your overall savings. I suppose this is a bit better then ,as peoples savings wont be totally wiped out and theyll have 90 per cent of there overall savings left. Not Good by any means, but at least they are not totally wiped out...(unless you are sophisticated and put all your money in). It just goes to show how blooming tricky the financial world is for your average joe.

I wonder why this stuff doesnt appear in the normal daily newspapers so more people know..

masonic

{text_removed_by_MSE_Forum_Team} wrote:

I read a post earlier by a person called property player that said (more or less) that these types of bonds (which i think maybe all of the high paying ones like blackmore etc) are only sold to sophisticate d investors or if youre not sophisticated ( simple?like me ��) they restrict you to a max of 10 per cent of your overall savings. I suppose this is a bit better then ,as peoples savings wont be totally wiped out and theyll have 90 per cent of there overall savings left. Not Good by any means, but at least they are not totally wiped out...(unless you are sophisticated and put all your money in). It just goes to show how blooming tricky the financial world is for your average joe.

Fine in theory, but in practice people self-certify and no checks are made. One person in this thread stated this was their only investment and they didn't have other savings to speak of.

Investors in these bonds now face the possibility of losing all of their money, and having to pay a tax bill if the coffers come up empty at LCF towers.