Citywire printed articles sponsored by:
View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/article/a410615
High Court orders unlawful deposit-takers to pay FSA £115m
by Alex Steger on Jun 29, 2010 at 12:44
Three people been ordered to pay £115 million to the Financial Services Authority by the High Court for unlawfulling accepting deposits without FSA authorisation.
John Anderson, Kenneth Peacock and Kautilya Nandan Pruthi were ordered to pay the fine for their activities under their trading styles Business Consulting International, John Anderson Consulting and Kenneth Peacock Consulting.
The FSA said it will be seeking to enforce the judgment and return money that can be retrieved to investors.
Pruthi was ordered to pay £89,798,938, Anderson £13,197,076.15, and Peacock £11,645,052.99.
Margaret Cole (pictured), director of enforcement and financial crime at the FSA, said: ‘As the Judge commented in his ruling the FSA took quick and decisive action against Pruthi, Anderson and Peacock and was entirely justified in intervening, using the full force of the legislation, to bring the scheme to a speedy conclusion and prevent further consumers being cheated.’
Markets
News sponsored by:
Today's top headlines
- Ofqual criticises CII level four diploma over gaps and easy questions
- FSA: Platforms can't reward IFAs for assets after RDR
- SimplyBiz's Ken Davy to launch restricted national
- FSA warns over advisers failing to consider cost of fund switches
- Concept hopes to fill client knowledge gap with ISA handbook
3 comments so far. Why not have your say?
Anonymous 1 needed this 'off the record'
Jun 29, 2010 at 13:50
This is the sort of thing the FSA was meant for, excellent £ saved/protected per £ spent. Compare this to the prescriptive petty over regulation of the retail market where the £ spend is many times the actual benefit to consumers.
Indeed FSA have removed most access to investment advice/protection already and will almost completely remove it from all except the wealthy with the introduction of RDR.
FSA - a vision lost in a Stalinist mist
report thisGreen Eyed Monster
Jun 29, 2010 at 17:21
This is all very confusing!.
If the £115m is a fine it should go into the FSA coffers to a) replenish whatever cost the FSA incurred in bringing the action, and b) reducing charges to regulated firms.
How can a fine be used to repay to investors who invested in an unregulated business? In another release the same lady extols the virtue of protection for investors using firms regulated by the FSA. So now it appears that users of non regulated firms can also receive compensation?
report thisTerry B
Mar 21, 2012 at 10:59
Seems fairly straightforward to me:
1. Individuals trade illegally without authorisation - which is an offence
2. FSA are prosecuting authority for this sort of crime
3. FSA do their job ..and prosecute through the courts
4. Courts do their thing and pass judgement, part of which is an order for recovery of money/assets illegally gained.
5. FSA are body to retrieve such assets (in much the same way that Police seize assets that are proceeds of crime).
6. FSA attempt to retrieve such assets as can be found so that funds can be returned to cheated investors
Therefore: this is neither a fine by FSA OR compensation from a fund (a la FSCS) and it may well be that relatively little of the assets will be recovered.
PS ...I don't work for the FSA....and they get lots wrong (in my opinion) ...but in this case its a good job.
report thisleave a comment
Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.