London Capital and Finance

rr755507

jimjames wrote: »

I've heard a suggestion that someone may have already petitioned to put LCF into administration but they have been given 4 weeks to sort things before that. I've not seen official confirmation of this yet.

Fingers crossed Blackmore are next.

sully1311

And there it is.

Botheredin

Very cynical move and no doubt they will try to blame the FCA

rr755507

Botheredin wrote: »

Very cynical move and no doubt they will try to blame the FCA

I guess it was FCAs fault. If they hadn't prevented LC&F taking new investment the Ponzi scheme could have ran for much longer.

eskbanker

rr755507 wrote: »

Confirmed by LCF
Admin notice
https://www.docdroid.net/giuJlgu/admin.pdf
FAQ
https://www.docdroid.net/yE96JT2/faqs.pdf

For anyone still in denial and perceiving third party document hosting as suspicious, these documents are now published on the LC&F site:

https://www.londoncapitalandfinance.co.uk/noa.pdf
https://www.londoncapitalandfinance.co.uk/faqs.pdf

Botheredin

rr755507 wrote: »

I guess it was FCAs fault. If they hadn't prevented LC&F taking new investment the Ponzi scheme could have ran for much longer.

Then again, if a Ponzi was in being then the blame must lie with the firm / s operating it in the first place.

2. In light of this on 10 December 2018 the FCA deemed it necessary to require LCF to immediately withdraw its financial promotions in relation to the bonds. In order to further protect investors, on 13 December 2018 the FCA imposed certain requirements on LCF including (a) not to dispose of or deal with its assets, save in limited circumstances (b) to cease conducting all regulated activity and (c) not to communicate any financial promotions. These requirements were imposed pursuant to a voluntary application by LCF. The requirement in relation to LCF’s assets was subsequently amended on 18 December to further restrict LCF from dealing in any way with its bank accounts without the prior approval of the FCA.

3. As a result of the above, LCF has been unable to raise further monies from investors.

So if the model is reliant on more new money coming in to keep it afloat and not from the investments made with the original funds then this is a Ponzi?

System

I dont understand how the auditors knew the business model was reliant on new monies coming in ,but still deemed it to be a “going concern”? Surely , that reliance makes it a Ponzi?

Jelli

I wonder what the exist plan was for the top people behind this, because how can money be used in jail? I hope that's not a stupid question.

rr755507

Jelli wrote: »

I wonder what the exist plan was for the top people behind this, because how can money be used in jail? I hope that's not a stupid question.

I agree that LCF, Surge group and the {text removed by MSE Forum Team} solicitors should all be in jail.

But, the problem is fraud can be very difficult to prove, and LCF knew what they were doing so I imagine have covered their tracks. They'll argue that they just made highly speculative investments that didn't pay off etc etc.

System

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/highrisk-bond-marketer-changes-tack-after-fca-halts-scheme-a4053996.html