Five
men jailed for using offshore financial advisers to attract investments in supposed commercial property loans
Time and time again the media tell us of the latest financial fraud. The
astonishing schemes perpetrated by the likes of Bernie Madoff; they all have an
uncanny ability to take in not only individual investors but also some of the
most high profile professionals.
The story is always the same: investment returns
unavailable elsewhere or safe schemes promising inflated returns; too good to
be true.
Mainstream UK investments with well known
institutions are now so intensively regulated that fund managers have to abide
by an investment strategy and the placement of funds is overseen by a custodian,
typically a bank. Funds are also held in nominee accounts so if the institution
fails investors’ money should not be at risk. So whilst not removing investment
risk at least you can be sure your money will not end up in someone’s pocket
paying for a luxury lifestyle.
UK Independent Financial Advisers (IFAs) are responsible for conducting appropriate
checks on investments to ensure suitability for their clients.
The UK also has the Financial Services Compensation
Scheme (FSCS) which is going to be a huge relief to investors who have found recently
that the counterparty risk of their particular investment was held by Lehman
Brothers.
The latest court case sees a firm operating under
the name Prudential Commercial Investments (“PCI”). The scheme was a fraud from
inception; around £1.93 million was defrauded from 56 from investors.
PCI's investors were predominantly British ex-pats retired or living abroad. They
believed on the basis of advice from their local financial advisers that their
funds would be channelled into a lending scheme for commercial property buyers
in the UK secured by mortgages and would reap high returns.
Instead the fraudsters diverted investors' funds to
offshore accounts for their personal benefit. Two of the defendants pleaded
guilty. Verdicts on the other three were returned at Worcester Crown Court
yesterday and HHJ McCreath, Recorder of Worcester, passed sentenced on all
five.
The PCI operation
The PCI group of companies has no connection with the well
known Prudential Assurance Company, although a number of the victims thought
that the companies were linked. PCI Ltd was incorporated in Belize, PCI Inc in
the Seychelles and PCI Admin in the UK.
The Seychelles Company was the one used for marketing and its bank account
received the investors' monies. No promotion was undertaken by PCI directly
with investors; instead PCI approached local financial advisers operating in
the ex-pat investment sector. Many of the financial advisers had their own
established client base and PCI relied on them to pull in the business.
The PCI website, its business and sales literature intended to impress financial
advisers and investors alike that PCI and its commercial loans business was a
safe and attractive investment opportunity.
PCI offered the financial advisers a commission incentive of between 4%-6% and
relied substantially on the trust that investors had in their financial
advisers to advise them on their financial affairs. PCI made up that it had a
five-year trading track record, that it worked with well-known and reputable
service providers and that it had a portfolio of some US$20 million.
Those financial advisers who agreed to promote the PCI scheme might at best be
unwitting pawns in this designed fraud but as reasonably competent professionals
should have been able to see through the glossy brochures and lack of
accountability. Not all financial advisers approached were persuaded by the PCI
sales pitch but some were taken in and ultimately some were brought down when
the fraud was discovered and lost the trust of their clients.
There is no doubt that the financial advisory firms
are at fault. The relationship with a client is a professional arrangement.
Schemes promoted by financial advisers wherever they may be resident require
the ability to conduct a full due diligence on the investments.
For many UK authorised and regulated independent financial
advisers (IFAs) the Financial Services Authority feels like an over burdening authority
but compared with many sunnier jurisdictions the FSA provides welcome security to investors using financial services products recommended by UK IFAs.
The PCI scheme was heavily promoted offshore where
either no regulation exists or is so light-touch that it has little power or value
to protect the consumer.
Investigation and Proceedings.
The scheme operated between March 2003 and March 2004 and came to an end when
West Mercia Police received a tip-off that the scheme was too good to be true.
The scale of the damage could have been much greater had the operation not been
interrupted by the prompt intervention of West Mercia Police's Economic Crime
Unit. The investigation commenced in March 2004 and the defendants were charged
in June 2008 with prison sentences
Confiscation of assets is to be sought. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) will ask the Court to compensate the victims of the PCI investment scheme from
any assets that are recovered from the convicted.
Conclusion
Living and being resident offshore brings many
advantages but in the complex world of financial products it may be worth
looking back to the UK for sound secure advice. There are some highly
professional firms offshore and many highlight the capabilities and UK
qualifications of their staff. So why don’t they remain UK FSA authorised and
regulated and provide services offshore?
The answer may well be that these companies regard the regulatory burden on both
the company and the products as too onerous. The transparency requirement
of UK advice and products has not managed to even cross the English Channel, and thus fraudulent products can creep through into the offerings of offshore advisers.
The UK is not perfect but at least if something
goes wrong there is an established procedure to seek and attain redress. Caveat emptor has never been so important when
dealing with offshore financial services products.