adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,905
Likes: 4,136
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 4, 2022 11:00:51 GMT
Mousey - fantastic stuff - roll on Friday!
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 6,606
|
Post by Mousey on Oct 5, 2022 11:21:34 GMT
Asked if he'd like to apologise Mr Luxmore replied "No, Thank you" and closed the door.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Oct 5, 2022 13:04:53 GMT
How people like this keep their kneecaps is a mystery to me, how they are not in jail even more so.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,905
Likes: 4,136
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 5, 2022 19:06:37 GMT
what an arrogant bar steward ! Looks to me as if this was a con from the word go ...sooner or later he will pay for this - don't mess with karma!
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Oct 6, 2022 16:44:51 GMT
So for really simple people , what does this court case mean ?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 6,606
|
Post by Mousey on Oct 7, 2022 12:41:43 GMT
PART 2 OF FUNDINGSECURE SERIES PUBLISHED
This part will examine the ‘London Claim’, looking at the allegations made against former director Richard Luxmore, including the claim he created false and fraudulent Loans on the platform to induce members of the public to invest over £4.2m in properties that didn’t exist. Mr Luxmore denies that allegation.
***
FundingSecure were an FCA-regulated online peer-to-peer lending platform incorporated in 2012.
By October 2019 FundingSecure had fallen into significant financial difficulties as a result of costly litigation and Edward Avery-Gee, Jonathan Avery-Gee and Daniel Richardson from CG Recovery were appointed as joint administrators.
Some 470 loans with a balance of approximately £80m remained outstanding to the members of the public who had crowdfunded loans on the platform.
This series will be an unapologetically detailed look at the nuanced claims that ultimately caused the platform to collapse.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,905
Likes: 4,136
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 8, 2022 16:53:02 GMT
Just seen this - brilliant explanation which cuts through the wheat and deliberate chaff which the defendants are clearly using to try and confuse the public etc as to what actually happened - I think the litigants have done a really good job (unlike the FCA)
Surprised RL never invited you in for a cup of tea - absolutely no manners and I would have thought he would have liked to explain why he was innocent...
I guess the directors etc never expected it would end like this and that we investors would simply lose our money and that would be that!
This whole thing is worse than an episode of Minder!
Can't wait for the next update...
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 2,777
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 8, 2022 19:47:40 GMT
Just seen this - brilliant explanation which cuts through the wheat and deliberate chaff which the defendants are clearly using to try and confuse the public etc as to what actually happened - I think the litigants have done a really good job (unlike the FCA) Surprised RL never invited you in for a cup of tea - absolutely no manners and I would have thought he would have liked to explain why he was innocent... I guess the directors etc never expected it would end like this and that we investors would simply lose our money and that would be that! This whole thing is worse than an episode of Minder! Can't wait for the next update... I don't know what whose b*stards thought we would do. I lost a grand in that Reading "loan" alone.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,666
Likes: 2,459
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 9, 2022 13:56:40 GMT
Mousey - could you clarify a few things for me please? As I understand it, these are Civil hearings not Criminal. Is that correct? If so: - What is the claimants purpose of bringing the case? (eg: if the case goes against the defendants, how will those defendants be affected?)
- To your knowledge, has a Criminal case been brought against a losing defendant of a Civil case due to the nature and weight of evidence against that defendant as a result of it being presented in that Civil case?
Reason for asking is to clarify the likely outcome against the defendants once this case has been heard and a decision reached.Additionally, I'm conscious of the recent outcome of a Criminal case brought against a fraudster and note a good number of similarities in victim impact between that case and the alleged wrongdoings of Luxmore, including- Several thousand victims lost pensions and life savings to the fraud
- While he recognised that it was genuine scheme at the outset ... the judge said the business model was “fundamentally flawed” and run under ... “disastrous and dishonest stewardship”
I hope that the SFO are aware and watching Luxmore with interest. It's just a shame that convicted fraudster case revolved around sums in the hundreds of millions, whereas Luxmore's alleged wrongdoings are in connection with something less than 5% of that figure.
But perhaps the SFO can be held to their word when the stated (my emphasis): “Those who are trusted with investors’ money have a fundamental duty to safeguard the interests of those investors. As today’s sentencing shows, we will not tolerate those who abuse that trust, show contempt for their victims and the law, and squander other people’s money for their own gain.”
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 6,606
|
Post by Mousey on Oct 9, 2022 15:53:28 GMT
Mousey - could you clarify a few things for me please? As I understand it, these are Civil hearings not Criminal. Is that correct? If so: - What is the claimants purpose of bringing the case? (eg: if the case goes against the defendants, how will those defendants be affected?)
- To your knowledge, has a Criminal case been brought against a losing defendant of a Civil case due to the nature and weight of evidence against that defendant as a result of it being presented in that Civil case?
Reason for asking is to clarify the likely outcome against the defendants once this case has been heard and a decision reached.Additionally, I'm conscious of the recent outcome of a Criminal case brought against a fraudster and note a good number of similarities in victim impact between that case and the alleged wrongdoings of Luxmore, including- Several thousand victims lost pensions and life savings to the fraud
- While he recognised that it was genuine scheme at the outset ... the judge said the business model was “fundamentally flawed” and run under ... “disastrous and dishonest stewardship”
I hope that the SFO are aware and watching Luxmore with interest. It's just a shame that convicted fraudster case revolved around sums in the hundreds of millions, whereas Luxmore's alleged wrongdoings are in connection with something less than 5% of that figure.
But perhaps the SFO can be held to their word when the stated (my emphasis): “Those who are trusted with investors’ money have a fundamental duty to safeguard the interests of those investors. As today’s sentencing shows, we will not tolerate those who abuse that trust, show contempt for their victims and the law, and squander other people’s money for their own gain.”
Well yes this is a civil claim... but as I make clear in the video the claims against Mr Luxmore were settled (ie ceased) by means of a confidential Tomlin order. See paragraph 15 - www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/1053.htmlI'm not going to comment on the viability or merits of a criminal prosecution. You may find this page of interest though- www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/services/department/dispute-resolution/civil-fraud-and-investigations/fraud-civil-vs-criminal-faqs
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,905
Likes: 4,136
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 9, 2022 16:29:35 GMT
Gone through the latest update - this is as fascinating as it is worrying
This in simple terms is how I understand what is happening here - please say if I am incorrect
in a nutshell
FS (via litigants) are suing RL and basically front men of and including Mark C*******n
RL is stating these "naughty" loans were company practice but FS are stating this is not the case and down to RL - interesting!
So in essence - was RL a rogue director or were FS all in it? Place your bets - I know where my money is going!
Also CD (not good reports from people have met him) was a director at exactly the same time as RK - these 2 were also co-directors at a holiday company which they both joined on the same date in 2011 - thus I think we can assume they knew each other before RK joined FS and they both knew about questions being raised by the FCA etc
CD has also confirmed that the other defendants were indeed front men of MC. Carl - don't expect a Christmas card from MC !
So I guess the next question is why did RK advance £1.5m when he was (I think) aware of such loan practise within FS - just what was in it for him?
This hopefully will become clear in the London Counter Claim where MC claimed he was stitched-up - don't all cry!
As I said it strikes me there are is than one scammer operation going on here and I wonder if we have scammers scamming the scammers!
thanks again to Mousey - fantastic stuff
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 6,606
|
Post by Mousey on Oct 9, 2022 16:43:51 GMT
Gone through the latest update - this is as fascinating as it is worrying This in simple terms is how I understand what is happening here - please say if I am incorrect in a nutshell FS (via litigants) are suing RL and basically front men of and including Mark Clarkson Yes RL is stating these "naughty" loans were company practice but FS are stating this is not the case and down to RL - interesting! YesSo in essence - was RL a rogue director or were FS all in it? Place your bets - I know where my money is going!Well the only director implicated was RLAlso CD (not good reports from people have met him) was a director at exactly the same time as RK - these 2 were also co-directors at a holiday company which they both joined on the same date in 2011 - thus I think we can assume they knew each other before RK joined FS and they both knew about questions being raised by the FCA etc CD has also confirmed that the other defendants were indeed front men of MC. Carl - don't expect a Christmas card from MC ! So I guess the next question is why did RK advance £1.5m when he was (I think) aware of such loan practise within FS - just what was in it for him?That is the £15m questionThis hopefully will become clear in the London Counter Claim where MC claimed he was stitched-up - don't all cry! As I said it strikes me there are is than one scammer operation going on here and I wonder if we have scammers scamming the scammers! thanks again to Mousey - fantastic stuff
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,905
Likes: 4,136
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 9, 2022 18:40:32 GMT
Mousey - do you think is it possible the other directors knew what RL was up to and looked the other way and are leaving him to take the blame?
Or is it likely we will never know?
As I see it RL is definitely nailed...but surely the other directors had a moral and legal duty to check the company was being run properly?
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,161
Likes: 4,846
|
Post by ozboy on Oct 9, 2022 20:50:36 GMT
I have said it before, I met with the original three Directors in their "Board" Room several years ago, including Noman Akram, remember him? It is my very considered opinion that Noman found out/realised what his co-Directors were like, and getting up to, so he swiftly departed. There's a handful of very serious Big Hitters in this FS Merde Storm and I can't see any of them taking all this being utterly rinsed by a couple of dodgy Directors carp lying down, anyone know what they might be up to? PM me if you prefer .........
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,161
Likes: 4,846
|
Post by ozboy on Oct 9, 2022 21:37:20 GMT
Just seen this - brilliant explanation which cuts through the wheat and deliberate chaff which the defendants are clearly using to try and confuse the public etc as to what actually happened - I think the litigants have done a really good job (unlike the FCA) Surprised RL never invited you in for a cup of tea - absolutely no manners and I would have thought he would have liked to explain why he was innocent... I guess the directors etc never expected it would end like this and that we investors would simply lose our money and that would be that! This whole thing is worse than an episode of Minder! Can't wait for the next update... I don't know what whose b*stards thought we would do. I lost a grand in that Reading "loan" alone. They thought we'd do nothing and took advantage of that, because P2P Investor Lenders are on their own & disunited, and the Platforms know it. My new word ............. Farseholes.
|
|