FSA secures freezing order against suspected unauthorised schemes

Just though - although what the FSA is doing is 'right' - who pays for it?

I am guessing it gets factored into the overall fees the Financial Services industry pays - which doesn't seem right?

I don't think the non-authorised work the FSA does should be paid for by the industry - as we don't benefit (unless that money 'not invested' in these schemes. get invested into FSA authorised areas) from it.

Am I right or wrong?

The consumer benifits from not getting caught up in bogus schemes like these. A key driver for the FSA is consumer protection.

I am delighted, but it is a shame it has taken so long. I know the law, like the Mills of God, grinds slow but exceedingly small, but these nightmares have been around nearly a decade.

http://web.me.com/jeremyedwards996/findyournumber/Blog/Entries/2011/3/10_Land_Bank_Scams%3B_more_dodgy_dealings.html

http://web.me.com/jeremyedwards996/findyournumber/Blog/Entries/2010/7/15_Land_as_an_Investment.html

Barman - then surely, that should be paid for by the Government then?

If as an individual I choose not to 'pay for advice', go direct to a firm, not do any due diligence on the investment and then kindly get my money back - thats hardly going to promote the idea of consumer education - (as someone else will always pick up the tab?)- which is also a FSA 'key driver'.

As a nation we are basically telling people - go for the get rich quick schemes - and if it doesn't work out - don't worry, the Financial Services industry (who never made any money from it in the first place) - will make good the loss!

As several people on other articles have said - this just can't go on. People have to accept the effect of making their own decisions - otherwise the constant spiral of levy/failed firms/more levy's is going to continue.

The FSA should receive a payment from the Government for Education and protection (on Unauthorised areas) - and MAS should make people aware that if they invest in a unregulated investment - it's on their head.

If someone claims to be FSA authorised - and isn't - and investors lose money - the fraudster should spend the rest of the life repaying the debt.

We are too soft on fraudsters and too soft by not saying to investors in these schemes - 'sorry you made the wrong call, you will lose your money'.

Paul, If you read the article linked in this piece, you'll see the companies involved are being ordered to pay the compensation.

Barman

But that doesn't (necessarily) cover the cost the FSA has incurred - i.e. their investigation time and Court costs.

The various articles refer to other Landbank firms and they only state compensation to the investors is being paid - there is nothing about fines to cover the FSA costs.

Example on Cityshore Commodities -

"ordered it to pay £200,000 in consumer redress"

So - we are paying those costs!

These unauthorised land banking schemes are not covered by the compensation scheme so the customer cannot claim redress from the FSCS or the industry.

The costs of closing them will come out of the general levy and works to the general good of the industry removing rogues which ticks a number of FSA objectives including confidence in the financial services industry as well as consumer protection.

Unauthorised schemes like this tarnish the reputation of the industry as a whole including confidence in investments offered through legitimate advisers and legitimate authorised funds.

Think of it as a charitable donation if that helps!

Also, while the FSA is the lead agent in land-banking cases, they are multi-agency actions under the overall strategic direction of the National Fraud Authority. There are a lot of other actors in these cases that are not direcly funded by the industry.

How about land banking with tax planning being put out by a large accountancy firm in the east midlands... pay 15% for the land and save 100% corp tax....nice!