London Capital and Finance
Comments
-
{Text removed by MSE Forum Team}
I expect the outcome for those responsible will depend on who it is they have defrauded.0 -
It ought to be possible to make the case that LCF was not run in the best interests of its creditors, so the veil of limited liability should be lifted. However, this would require the administrators to pursue such a course of action, which could be costly and ultimately fruitless (these guys will anticipate such a move and have probably already taken steps to transfer and dispose of their personal assets).David_Evans wrote: »Well it looks to me as if the buck stops with the LCF directors, in person. No hiding behind any limited company paperwork.
If I was an investor, I'd be wanting to have a face-to-face chat with them and see what they've got to say.
A court would be unlikely to grant a freezing injunction over the assets of the directors, since the administrators have publicly stated that there does not appear to be any shortfall in assets with which to cover creditors' capital.0 -
[QUOTE={Text removed by MSE Forum Team}There's some brilliant work going on here. MSE, BondReview and Damn-Lies please keep it up.
Has anyone else noticed the changes of company names and directors of the LCF borrowing companies recently? Strange that!
My analysis says, most of the LCF money when to companies where the director was {Edited by Forum Team}. Some of the companies have {Edited by Forum Team}{Edited by Forum Team}) as director now.
And who is {Edited by Forum Team}? He seems to be the new front man for {Edited by Forum Team}'s horsing activites 37 year old New Zealander, previously a trainer at {Edited by Forum Team}, {Edited by Forum Team}e
Does this mean they are making further attempts to obfuscate where the money went? ProbablyHiding the assets to prevent a recovery? Probably
Somebody reassure me... someone is going to jail for this, right?[/QUOTE] If any law enforcement bothers to get off their backsides and look at it then maybe. Otherwise, unlikely0 -
{Personal details removed by MSE Forum Team}0
-
{text removed by MSE Forum Team}
I recall the case of a rather enterprising fellow, let's call him Mr B. Mr B. was very entrepreneurial. He was in the shipping industry. He spotted a gap in the market and borrowed a lot of money at high interest rates to exploit it. He had an impressive CV, and he always repaid his loans in full. Until one day he didn't. He proved rather difficult to get in touch with after that. It transpired he had quietly sold the assets upon which the loans were secured. The P2P platform who intermediated his loans took swift and decisive action. High Court proceedings were issued and an emergency injunction swiftly granted. Eventually a judgement of default was entered and a petition to wind up the company could be made. This was about 9 months into proceedings.
Fast forward one year and Mr B. was still at large, during which time he managed to sell his house that was part-paid for using cash taken from his business. Fast forward another 6 months and he has still not been held accountable for his actions, though a court date has been set.
So 2 and a half years of effort, and significant expenditure, produced no results.0 -
Botheredin wrote: »Is it a co-incidence that the same names appear, here and there, in companies connected to LCF and the fund of £236m that no one really knows what has happened to?
I don't think this one takes a Poirot...0 -
:rotfl::rotfl:londoninvestor wrote: »I don't think this one takes a Poirot...0
-
In all seriousness, why aren't the law rowing in? Why aren't the FCA triggering an effective enforcement?londoninvestor wrote: »I don't think this one takes a Poirot...0 -
The FCA was tipped off about LCF, and two years later took action to protect consumers. It has essentially shut down the operation, so its job is done.Botheredin wrote: »In all seriousness, why aren't the law rowing in? Why aren't the FCA triggering an effective enforcement?
As for the police, at the moment a group of people on an internet forum have unearthed some things that appear highly suspicious. But contrast that with the officially appointed Joint Administrators who have given public reassurance that everything is above board.
Perhaps bondholders should be reporting their cases to ActionFraud, although I understand there is little chance of cases being taken further, with thefts of £10m sometimes being considered too small to bother with. Of course, since there is a public radio interview intimating that the money was legitimately lent and the 'hope' is that it will be repaid according to the terms of the agreement, I doubt any such report would be taken seriously at this stage.0 -
The FCA was tipped off about LCF, and two years later took action to protect consumers. It has essentially shut down the operation, so its job is done.
As for the police, at the moment a group of people on an internet forum have unearthed some things that appear highly suspicious. But contrast that with the officially appointed Joint Administrators who have given public reassurance that everything is above board.
Perhaps bondholders should be reporting their cases to ActionFraud, although I understand there is little chance of cases being taken further, with thefts of £10m sometimes being considered too small to bother with. Of course, since there is a public radio interview intimating that the money was legitimately lent and the 'hope' is that it will be repaid according to the terms of the agreement, I doubt any such report would be taken seriously at this stage.
Sad state of affairs. Thank you anyway0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards