Предлагали ли Вам когда-нибудь принять участие в инвестициях в паевой инвестиционный фонд США, которые фиксируют доходность на вложенные инвестиции выше 100% / в год? Слышали ли Вы когда-нибудь о Программах частного размещения капитала, PPP программах, трейдинге или другом ” народном” названии, смысл которого должен был ассоциироваться с высокой доходностью инвестиций? Интересовались ли Вы сами когда-нибудь данными программами? Если интересовались, то правда ли, что обычно Вы сталкивались с бесконечной чередой брокеров, которые представлялись представителями такой программы? Обращаясь к ним, Вы не чуствовали себя достаточно защищенными и боялись предоставлять им конфиденциальную информацию? Вы никогда не получали подтверждения прошлой доходности программ? Прямых контактов ? Срок до начала участия в программе был непредсказуем? Если до начала подготовки документов брокер утверждал, что средства будут “блокированы”, а в действительности это оказывалось не так? Если Вы так и не смогли принять участие в данной программе, т.к. брокеры не смогли договориться между собой, а трейдеру Вы так и не были представлены? Если Вы имели хотя бы одну из этих проблем, то скорее всего Вам будет интересна данная публикация.
Программы доверительного управления капитала (США) - это программы, реализуемые профессиональными участниками финансового рынка США, аккумулирующие пул капитала в закрытых паевых инвестиционных фондах, сформированных на конкурсной основе из частных или инвестиций юридических лиц, который находясь во временном доверительном оперативном управлении профессиональных участников финансового рынка (трейдеров) от имени и за счет выгодоприобретателя может быть инвестирован в различные по форме, структуре и времени оккупаемости финансовые инструменты с целью извлечения максимальной прибыли из текущей рыночной конъюнктуры. В российском законодательстве альтернативой подобной модели является следующая: “По договору доверительного управления имуществом одна сторона (учредитель управления) передает другой стороне (доверительному управляющему) на определенный срок имущество в доверительное управление, а другая сторона обязуется осуществлять управление этим имуществом в интересах учредителя управления или указанного им лица (выгодоприобретателя). Передача имущества в доверительное управление не влечет перехода права собственности на него к доверительному управляющему. Осуществляя доверительное управление имуществом, доверительный управляющий вправе совершать в отношении этого имущества в соответствии с договором доверительного управления любые юридические и фактические действия в интересах выгодоприобретателя.”ст.53 ГК РФ.
Объектами доверительного управления являются:
-денежные средства на счетах частных или юридических лиц;
-финансовые обязательства, ценные бумаги, права требования и т.д.
“Имущество, переданное в доверительное управление, обособляется от другого имущества учредителя управления, а также от имущества доверительного управляющего. Это имущество отражается у доверительного управляющего на отдельном балансе, и по нему ведется самостоятельный учет. Для расчетов по деятельности, связанной с доверительным управлением, открывается отдельный банковский счет. 2. Обращение взыскания по долгам учредителя управления на имущество, переданное им в доверительное управление, не допускается, за исключением несостоятельности (банкротства) этого лица. При банкротстве учредителя управления доверительное управление этим имуществом прекращается и оно включается в конкурсную массу.”ст.1018ГК РФ. ” Доверительный управляющий представляет учредителю управления и выгодоприобретателю отчет о своей деятельности в сроки и в порядке, которые установлены договором доверительного управления имуществом.” п.4 ст.1019 ГК РФ.
Для участия в Закрытых паевых инвестиционных фондах США допускаются квалифицированные клиенты, соответствующие 2-м основным критериям:
-наличие ежегодного дохода (обычно за 1-2 предшествующих участию в программе года), превышающий установленный минимальный уровень для участия в программах (для граждан США и не граждан США минимум будет отличаться);
-наличие денежных средств, превышающий установленный минимальный уровень для участия в программах (для граждан США и не граждан США минимум будет отличаться), которые свободны от прав требований третьих лиц, получены честным путем, не связаным с деятельностью, на которые законодательством США, Европы официально наложены запреты (преступная деятельность, торговля оружием, наркотиками, людьми и т.д.). Наличие денежных средств подтверждается в документарной форме, согласно требованиям для квалификации.
Договор доверительного управления в основном заключается на срок не менее 1 года и более. Для участия в Программах, клиенты должны пройти преквалификацию.
Объективно-разумная высокая доходность от участия в закрытом паевом инвестиционном фонде обеспечивается возможностью профессиональных участников рынка аккумулировать достаточные ресурсы для размещения их в финансовые инструменты на различных финансовых рынках и получать значительный доход из-за разницы в формате, структуре, доходности, цены покупки/продажи данных финансовых инструментов одновременно на любом финансовом рынке. Для обеспечения высокой доходности программ используются строгие правила организации отбора участников, процедуры, оформления минимально необходимого пакета документов для преквалификации, а также обязательное участие федеральных финансовых, страховых институтов, нивелирующие высокие риски программы.
Программы, реализуемые закрытыми паевыми инвестиционными фондами, являются строго регулируемыми. Перечень официальных регулирующих организаций. В Европы также реализуются собственные альтернативные закрытые паевые инвестиционные фонды, также строго регулируемые федеральным законодательством Европы.
Для участия в Программах не допускаются:
- ”блокированные”, “зарезирвированные”, “средства находящиеся под административным контролем” или другие денежные средства или финансовые инструменты, имеющих ограничения в управлении и обременения прав требований со стороны третьих лиц, обременные залогом.
- финансовые инструменты, выпущенные в лизинг и на основании договора о долевом сотрудничестве вследствие ограничения в управлении и обременения прав требований со стороны третьих лиц , обременные залоговыми обязательствами.
Органы, контролирующие работу финансовых Программ США и Европы.
1. NFA = National Futures Association
Website: www.nfa.futures.org/
Chicago Headquarters New York Office
300 S. Riverside Plaza, #1800 120 Broadway, #1125
Chicago, IL 60606-6615 New York, NY 10271
Phone: (312) 781-1300 Phone: (212) 608-8660
E-mail: information@nfa.futures.org
2. CFTC = Commodity and Futures Trading Commission
Website: http://www.cftc.gov/
CFTC Headquarters
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581 Phone: 202-418-5000 Fax: 202-418-5521 E-mail: questions@cftc.gov
3. SEC = U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Website: http://www.sec.gov/
SEC Headquarters
100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549
Phone: (202) 942-8088
Contact form: https://tts.sec.gov/oiea/QuestionsAndComments.html
E-mail: publicinfo@sec.gov
Additional Notes: Please refer to Exhibit A & B annexed hereto, relating to blocked funds; attached as “SEC Release No 7679
(Blocked Funds) & SEC Release No 7705 (Blocked Funds)”, which can also be found on the SEC website at the following links
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-7679.htm and http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-7705.htm respectively.
4. FSA = Financial Services Authority
Website: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/
FSA Headquarters
25 The North Colonnade,
Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS
Phone: (+44) 20 7066 1000
E-mail: consumer.queries@fsa.gov.uk
Additional Notes: Please refer to Exhibit C annexed hereto, relating to blocked funds; which can also be sourced on the FSA
Website at the following link: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/Library/Communication/PR/2001/034.shtml
Законодательные акты, регулирующие правила финансового работы США и Европы (выдержки).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Securities Act of 1933
Release No.7679 / May 11, 1999 Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-9895 In the Matter of David V. Francis, II
Respondent ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES
ACT OF 1933, MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS
I. The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be instituted pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 (”Securities Act”) against David V. Francis, II (hereinafter, “Francis” or “Respondent”). In anticipation of the institution of this proceeding, Francis has submitted an Offer of Settlement (”Offer”) which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purposes of this proceeding and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission or in which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings contained herein, except that he admits that the Commission has jurisdiction over him and over the subject matter of this proceeding, Respondent consents to the issuance of this Order Instituting Public Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (”Order”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that proceedings against Respondent be, and hereby are, instituted.
II. The Commission makes the following findings: 1A. From June through July 1998, David V. Francis, II, 34, lived in Bowling Green, Kentucky, and operated a business called “World Export and Trade.” B. In October 1993, a group of U.S. regulatory agencies, including the Commission and various federal banking agencies, jointly issued an investor alert warning of fraudulent offerings involving non-existent prime bank instruments. At various times from May 1997 through July 1998, Francis and others offered to members of the public a series of putative investment programs that claimed to generate incredibly high rates of return — up to 200% a month — on multi-million dollar investments through the trading on overseas markets of mysterious bank financial instruments issued by or through certain “world prime banks.” These offerings were made to an undercover investigator (the “Arizona investigator”) working for the Arizona Corporation Commission (the ”ACC”), first through a website offering prime-bank-guaranteed ”investment options,” then later through personal solicitations by Francis and others. Ultimately, no investor funds were raised through these solicitations. In fact, the programs offered were bogus. Neither prime bank guarantees, the secret market for bank debenture trading, nor the debentures themselves, existed. Each and every material aspect of these offerings was false and misleading and, consequently, Francis violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act by soliciting investments in one of these offerings.
C. At the conclusion of its investigation, on July 15, 1998, the ACC issued a temporary cease-and-desist order against Francis barring him from, among other things, offering or selling unregistered securities within or from the state of Arizona and engaging in the fraudulent offering or sale of securities within or from the state of Arizona. The order was made permanent with respect to Francis by consent, effective November 23, 1998. Under the terms of the settlement, Francis was required to pay a penalty of $2,500.
D. The Arizona investigator was put in touch by Robert J. Stahl, the creator of the website offering the prime bank investments, with an individual who passed him on to Elizabeth A. Boyd, a business associate of Francis’s. On June 10, 1998, Boyd offered the Arizona investigator the opportunity to participate in a “blocked funds” program. This program would require the investor to maintain funds in a specific account for at least 90 days and would allegedly pay to the investor an 80% net return every ten banking days. In furtherance of this offering, Boyd referred the Arizona investigator to Francis. Francis relayed to the Arizona investigator documents and information on the blocked funds program that had been provided by the program’s “facilitator,” retired clothing store manager Bobby L. Rodgers. Between mid-June and early-July 1998, the Arizona investigator spoke with Francis and/or Boyd on several occasions about the blocked funds program. Francis informed the investigator that the gross returns of up to 200% every ten banking days would be generated on invested funds through the trading of “medium term bank debentures” in London, England. All descriptions of the blocked funds program, including its structure and rates of return, were based on information received by Francis from Rodgers, who was to receive half of all gross returns generated from the purported trading of the bank instruments.
E. The program offered by Francis did not exist, nor were there markets for the trading of the type of illusory debt instruments it described. Francis did not have access to any program similar to the type he offered to the Arizona investigator in direct solicitations. Moreover, Francis did not have the ability to generate the returns he promised. Francis had no reasonable basis for the information contained in his solicitations or for the high rates of return he offered. Francis failed to make any significant efforts to verify any of the information he disseminated about the existence of the prime bank program, its structure or legality, or the achievability of the projected rates of return.
F. Section 17(a) of the Securities Act prohibits fraud in the offer or sale of securities. Prime bank instruments are securities; Francis offered a prime bank program that was an investment contract under the three-part test set out in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 298-99 (1946), and was, therefore, a security. SEC v. Lauer, 864 F. Supp. 784, 794 (N.D. Ill. 1994), aff’d, 52 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, Francis cannot escape liability under the securities laws by arguing that the security did not exist. See id. at 792.
G. Francis violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act by acting with scienter in misrepresenting or omitting material facts in connection with the offer of securities. Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 690, 695-97 (1980). Scienter is not required for violations of Section 17(a)(3). Francis knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the so-called bank debentures and ”blocked funds program” did not exist and could not have yielded the high, riskless rates of return promised by him. Francis failed to verify whether any factual basis existed for his representations concerning the existence, viability or profitability of a program based on transactions involving bank debenture trading.
III.Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that Respondent violated Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act.
IV. Based on the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to accept the Offer submitted by the Respondent and to impose the sanctions specified therein.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Francis shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violation and any future violation of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act. By the Commission. Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary
FOOTNOTES
1 The findings herein are made pursuant to the Respondent’s Offer and are not binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-7679.htm
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Securities Act of 1933
Release No. 7705 / July 26, 1999 Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-9896 In the Matter of Elizabeth A. Boyd,
Respondent. ORDER MAKING FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS
I. In connection with a public administrative proceeding instituted against her on May 11, 1999, pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 (”Securities Act”), Elizabeth A. Boyd (”Boyd,” or “Respondent”) has submitted an Offer of Settlement (”Offer”) to the Securities and Exchange Commission (”Commission”), which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of this proceeding and any other proceeding brought by or on behalf of the Commission or in which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings contained herein, except as to jurisdiction which is admitted, Boyd consents to the entry of the findings and remedial sanctions set forth below.
II. On the basis of this Order and the Offer submitted by Boyd, the Commission makes the following findings. 1
A. From April 1998 through July 1998, Elizabeth A. Boyd, age 55, resided in Oakville, Ontario, Canada and Fort Myers, Florida, and operated a commodities import-export and financial consulting business known as ”North-South Marketing USA” from her residences. Boyd is a retired accountant.
B. At various times from March 1997 through July 1998, Boyd and others offered to members of the public a series of putative investment programs that claimed to generate incredibly high rates of return — up to 200% a month — on multi-million dollar investments through the trading on overseas markets of mysterious bank financial instruments issued by or through certain “world prime banks.” These offerings were made to an undercover investigator (the “Arizona investigator”) working for the Arizona Corporation Commission (the “ACC”), first through a website offering prime-bank-guaranteed “investment options,” then later through personal solicitations by Boyd and others. Boyd’s participation in the offerings began in April 1998. Ultimately, no investor funds were raised through these contacts or solicitations. In fact, the programs offered were bogus. Neither prime bank guarantees nor the secret market for bank debenture trading, nor the debentures themselves, existed. Each and every material aspect of these offerings was false and misleading and, consequently, Boyd violated the antifraud provision of the Securities Act by soliciting investments in certain of these offerings.
C. At the conclusion of its investigation, On July 15, 1998, the ACC issued a temporary cease-and-desist order against Boyd barring her from, among other things, offering or selling unregistered securities within or from the state of Arizona and engaging in the fraudulent offering or sale of securities within or from the state of Arizona. The order was made permanent with respect to Boyd by consent, effective November 23, 1998. Under the terms of her settlement, Boyd was required to pay an administrative penalty of $2,500.
D. In April 1998, the Arizona investigator first contacted Robert J. Stahl, the creator of a website offering prime bank investments, regarding the investments described on the website. In late April 1998, Stahl put the Arizona investigator in contact with a friend, who had the Arizona investigator contact Boyd for more information on prime bank investments. Between late April and mid-June 1998, the Arizona investigator dealt with Boyd regarding a so-called “106 program” that Stahl had initially described to him in personal solicitations. Boyd confirmed that, pursuant to this program, a world prime bank would provide a guarantee for the investor’s principal plus 6%, and that additional returns of 20% would be generated for the investor every 2-3 weeks as the result of the offshore trading of prime bank debt instruments. Boyd telecopied to the Arizona investigator documents regarding the program, including documents explaining its structure, sample transactional documents, and a bogus document entitled ”ICC 500 & 600: An Introduction to Bank Debenture Trading Programs,” which purported to be an ICC publication on the history and structure of such programs. The ICC has denied writing or publishing this document.
E. On June 10, 1998, Boyd offered the Arizona investigator the opportunity to participate in a second type of prime bank investment — a “blocked funds” program. This program would require the investor to maintain funds in a specific account for at least 90 days and would allegedly pay to the investor an 80% net return every ten banking days. In furtherance of this offering, Boyd referred the Arizona investigator to her business contact, David V. Francis, II of Bowling Green, Kentucky. Between mid-June and early-July 1998, the Arizona investigator spoke with Boyd and/or Francis on several occasions about the blocked funds program. Francis and Boyd relayed to the Arizona investigator documents and information on the blocked funds program that had been provided to Francis by the program’s promoter, Bobby L. Rodgers of Germantown, Tennessee.
F. The various programs offered by Boyd did not exist, nor were there prime bank guarantees or any markets for the trading of the type of illusory debt instruments that were part of the programs. Boyd did not have access to any program similar to the type she offered to the Arizona investigator in direct solicitations. Moreover, Boyd did not have the ability to generate the returns she promised. Boyd had no reasonable basis for the information contained in her contacts or solicitations, or for the high rates of return she offered. Boyd failed to make any significant effort to verify any of the information she disseminated about the existence of the prime bank programs, their structure or legality, or the achievability of the projected rates of return. G. Section 17(a) of the Securities Act prohibits fraud in the offer or sale of securities. Prime bank instruments are securities; Boyd offered prime bank programs that were investment contracts under the three-part test set out in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 298-99 (1946), and were, therefore, securities. SEC v. Lauer, 864 F. Supp. 784, 794 (N.D. Ill. 1994), aff’d, 52 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, Boyd cannot escape liability under the securities laws by arguing that the securities did not exist. See id. at 792.
H. Boyd violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act by acting with scienter in misrepresenting or omitting material facts in connection with the offer of securities. Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 690, 695-97 (1980). Scienter may be established by a showing of knowledge or recklessness. Boyd also violated Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, which does not require proof of scienter and prohibits conduct which would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a purchaser. Boyd knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the so-called “prime bank” guarantees, bank debentures, and ”106 program” did not exist and could not have yielded the high, riskless rates of return promised by her. Boyd failed to verify whether any factual basis existed for her representations concerning the existence, viability or profitability of programs based on transactions involving prime bank guarantees and bank debenture trading. This conduct satisfies the scienter requirement of Section 17(a)(1).
III. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that Respondent violated Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act.
IV. Based on the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to accept the Offer submitted by the Respondent and to impose the sanctions specified therein.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Boyd shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violation and any future violation of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act. For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority. Jonathan G. Katz Secretary
FOOTNOTES
1 The findings herein are not binding on anyone other than the Respondent. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/33-7705.htm
FSA/PN/034/2001 22/03/2001
The Financial Services Authority today warned consumers to steer clear of investment schemes offering unrealistic returns at no risk. The warning follows the regulators announcement that it has obtained a High Court judgment against: Mr Michael Dinmore, NCI International Limited, Mr Roelof Hofman, and D&R Consulting Group Limited; for contraventions of the Financial Services Act 1986.
In October 1999 Mr Dinmore and/or his company NCI International Limited introduced nine UK investors to a “program” being operated by a US company known as Sterling Enhancement Group Inc, (SEG). The SEG scheme was described variously as a “High Yield Program”, a “reserved funds program” and a “bank debenture trading program”. The scheme was promoted on the basis that it could offer returns usually in excess of 75% per annum with no risk to clients money. Clients introduced by Mr Dinmore made payments totalling approximately US$650,000 into the scheme. Investors were told that their funds would be held at a reputable US bank in an account over which the investor had sole control. However, the complex documentation which investors actually signed contained clauses allowing SEG to hold the money in its own name and giving SEG absolute power to deal with the assets. The investors did not receive any of the returns expected from the SEG scheme. Numerous excuses were given for the various delays. Eventually the Defendants became involved in the transfer of investors money into a second scheme.
>In early 2000 Mr Dinmore, initially using the trading name D&R Consulting Group and then through a company registered in that name, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, arranged for investors funds to be removed from the (non-performing) SEG scheme and invested in a High Yield Program or a Capital Enhancement Program said to involve the trading of US Treasury Bills worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Investors funds would be pooled and then paid over to a company called Abbeypool Investments Limited for onward investment in the new ‘program’. It was claimed that returns of up to 100% per week were possible in the Abbeypool scheme.
The FSA launched High Court proceedings in June 2000 alleging that all four defendants had been conducting investment business in the UK in breach of section 3 of the Act, that Mr Dinmore, Mr Hofman and D & R Consulting Group Limited had made misleading statements, promises or forecasts in breach of section 47 of the Act, and that investment advertisements had been issued in breach of s.57 of the Act. Part of the FSA’s case was that the terms of the schemes were so far fetched that it was unlikely that any such US investment programme existed at all. Interim injunctions were granted by the Court at that time. Mr Justice McCombe held that there was no evidence to suggest that either of the schemes, with the attributes claimed for them, had any real existence other than as statements on pieces of paper. The Court declared that both Mr Dinmore and Mr Hofman had made misleading statements, promises or forecasts in order to induce investors to pay money into the schemes; that Mr Dinmore had been engaging in investment business in breach of section 3 of the Financial Services Act; and that the documentary and contractual material constituted investment advertisements and were distributed to UK investors in breach of the Act. The judge found that the claims made about the Abbeypool scheme were “utterly fantastic and unrealisable”. The judge went on to liken the scheme to the case of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Grant in which Mr Justice Neuberger had said of that particular scheme: “I am firmly of the view that although it purported to be an investment scheme of some sort, it was nothing more than a sham designed to defraud the badly advised, the ignorant and the greedy of their money.” FSA warns against too-good-to-be-true investments So far as the FSA is aware, no returns have been paid from either of the schemes and none of the nine UK investors introduced by Mr Dinmore have received any of their money back.
The promotion of the two schemes featured many of the elements and phrases which are commonly found in these sort of investment offers, many of which are found to be fraudulent. Investors should be cautious about investment offers using these phrases, which include:
Unrealistic rates of return, in this case from 75% to 400% per month, with no risk to client funds;
References to High Yield Investment Programmes, ‘Blocked’ or ‘Reserved’ Funds Programmes and Bank Debenture
Trading Programmes;
Supposed involvement of “top AAA-rated banks” lending funds to “the IMF and the World Bank”;
Suggestions that the schemes involve highly leveraged trading involving tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars;
Unnecessary complexity in documentation and confusing explanations which obscure the true nature of the transaction;
Assurances that investors money can generate a huge profit even though it stays in a designated bank account and never leaves the clients control;
Numerous excuses for delays in payment of returns or repayment of capital.
The case highlights the need for consumers to check out with the FSA whether someone they consider an investment advisor is actually authorised to give them such advice. Simply call the FSAs consumer helpline on during office hours, or check the website at any time at www.fsa.gov.uk and click on the central register link.
Dan Waters, FSA Director of Enforcement, told investors: If you deal with authorised people and firms then the FSA is here to help protect your interests. Authorised people and firms have to comply with the FSAs requirements that help protect you, and you have access to complaints and compensation arrangements if anything should go wrong. But if you take financial advice from someone who is not authorised, or put money with an unauthorised firm, then you have no access to the appropriate compensation scheme.
Notes for editors Mr Dinmore was, until April 2000, an appointed representative of a reputable financial services company. The activities complained of by the FSA fell outside any authorisation Mr Dinmore had by virtue of that appointment and it is not suggested by the FSA that Mr Dinmores activities were carried on with the companys knowledge or consent. NCI was Mr Dinmore’s company. Mr Hofman, a Canadian national, became a director of D&R Consulting Group Ltd along with Mr Dinmore.
1. The FSA applied for summary judgment against the Defendants on the grounds that they had no realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim. The application was heard by Mr Justice McCombe at the High Court in the Strand over a three day period. Mr Dinmore attended in person and, representing both himself and the companies, opposed the making of the order. Mr Hoffman had been served with the court papers in Canada and he did file evidence in opposition to the application, however he did not attend and was not represented.
2. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining Mr Dinmore, NCI international Limited and D&R Consulting Group from contravening sections 3, 47 and 57 of the Act. In respect of Mr Hoffman, the judge found that he had breached section 47 by making misleading statements, and granted an injunction accordingly. However with regard to the other claims brought against him by the FSA the Court ruled that it was not possible to say at this stage that Mr Hofman had no prospect of defending those claims.
3. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; promoting public understanding of the financial system; the protection of consumers; and fighting financial crime.
|
 |
F.A.Q. | Библиотека | Публикации new | Процедура | Дефиниции | Руководство new | Стать клиентом | Заказать |
