Diasgraceful business: Are the UK insolvency rules too weak?

[Steffan]

The article on the BBC highligting the latest insolvency fraud on investors

'Fine wine investors lose millions as companies go under' see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17703269

Caused me to asj=k the question once again, Are the Insolvency rules in the UK too weak.

Because once again hundreds of millions of pounds have been snaffled by the fraudsters and thousands of investors will be fleeced once again.

I have been advising against such nonsense investments all along becuase of the risks that I know are associated with such capers.

Do not not put your money in, repeat DO NOT PUT YOUR MONEY IN: being the standby of anyone with experience of the capacity of some fraudsters to act dishonestly and make sure that nothing ever touches them.

I have `seen so many small businessmen fleeced by con artists pretending to be big investors and so much misery and heartache as a result. It will be the same group of associated crooks who specialise in these shams and make a very good living from it.

I think once again, these cases demonstrate that the rules need changing. Anyone got an opinion?

[Haggleburyfinius]

How would you change them Steffan?

The problem is that for every company like this that goes under there must be many more who do so for legitimate reasons.

[Hoofy]

What always baffles me is that the saying "a fool and his money are easily parted" is apparent here, yet the fool managed to earn significant amounts of the money he parted with. How?

[powerstroke]

Hoofy said:

What always baffles me is that the saying "a fool and his money are easily parted" is apparent here, yet the fool managed to earn significant amounts of the money he parted with. How?

Inheritance maybe or they found a way to fleece people even more stupid than themselves , mosty I think these investment scams work because people are greedy
and dont follow the "if it sounds to good to be true it most likely is!!!" moto..

[turbobloke]

Hoofy said:

What always baffles me is that the saying "a fool and his money are easily parted" is apparent here, yet the fool managed to earn significant amounts of the money he parted with. How?

In the main case covered by the article, it was a wife spending part of an inheritance when her husband died so not earned at leats in the usual sense. Not that this makes your point any less valid in general terms.

[Steffan]

Hoofy said:

What always baffles me is that the saying "a fool and his money are easily parted" is apparent here, yet the fool managed to earn significant amounts of the money he parted with. How?

Quite simple really. Some people are very fortunate and in the right place at the right time. Some people inherit money indeed that is a majot source of wealth in the UK. Many wealthy individuals are not very bright. Just wealthy.

It never fails to amaze me how individuals believe scams. Look on PH for the evidence of the miscreants. Investors are gullible. Hence the ease of frauds.

[powerstroke]

Haggleburyfinius said:

How would you change them Steffan?

The problem is that for every company like this that goes under there must be many more who do so for legitimate reasons.

God knows !!! but there are so many career bankrupts about, those wkers that set up limited companys run them into the ground or swap debts to them fold them and start again
debt free taking supplyiers banks and the taxman for a ride!!! I guess these investment scams are the same MO.....

[Mojooo]

These investment types of scams are very common, they also have share scams, land scams and so on - often they will be targetted at people - maybe liek the woman in the article - who is retired and maybe is more prone to this sort of thing. I would imagine they were persistent til she cracked and once she had invested a little they used various tricks to make her think it was a good investment whilst investing even more.

[12gauge]

I don't think it makes much difference. People like Grant Bovey are associated with scores of business failures. Yet people still do business with him, despite his failures being common knowledge.

If people want to trade with these spivs, let them. Its their shirt.

[anonymous-user]

With regard to limited companies and insolvency there seems to be 'no rules' ! I work in construction sales and some of these fellas operate what is tantamount to legal fraud...

[Hoofy]

<reads the replies>

<pauses>

http://youtu.be/YKUOB8MN4Kc

[Steffan]

powerstroke said:

Haggleburyfinius said:

How would you change them Steffan?

The problem is that for every company like this that goes under there must be many more who do so for legitimate reasons.

God knows !!! but there are so many career bankrupts about, those wkers that set up limited companys run them into the ground or swap debts to them fold them and start again
debt free taking supplyiers banks and the taxman for a ride!!! I guess these investment scams are the same MO.....

That is essentially my point.

When I first started working in insolvency when I was working with the Official Receivers office, I chanced upon an dear old lady who was bankrupt. The Official Receiver was giving her a serious grilling which I thought was most inappropriate until I found out that she had already been bankrupt five times. The little old lady was an act: she was in fact an out and out charlatan. The Official Receiver was quite right in his examination.

This is the real problem. Our laws are ineffective against career criminals who repeatedly defraud investors and businessmen knowing that the chances of effective prosecution are very very slim.

I dislike state interference in business but I think a better balance has to be found between the willingness to take risk in reasonable expectation of success and profit being encouraged and reckless abuse of our laws with the sole intention of defrauding massive sums from other innocent parties being allowed to go free..

That is why I think there needs to be an end to the sort of frauds displayed in the BBC article. I doubt whether there was ever a real business behind many of these scams. We need much more effective laws aimed at preventing such abuse.

[WhoseGeneration]

Steffan said:

The article on the BBC highligting the latest insolvency fraud on investors

'Fine wine investors lose millions as companies go under' see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17703269

Caused me to asj=k the question once again, Are the Insolvency rules in the UK too weak.

Because once again hundreds of millions of pounds have been snaffled by the fraudsters and thousands of investors will be fleeced once again.

I have been advising against such nonsense investments all along becuase of the risks that I know are associated with such capers.

Do not not put your money in, repeat DO NOT PUT YOUR MONEY IN: being the standby of anyone with experience of the capacity of some fraudsters to act dishonestly and make sure that nothing ever touches them.

I have `seen so many small businessmen fleeced by con artists pretending to be big investors and so much misery and heartache as a result. It will be the same group of associated crooks who specialise in these shams and make a very good living from it.

I think once again, these cases demonstrate that the rules need changing. Anyone got an opinion?

Fine wines, classic cars, stamps, penny shares, round and round it goes.
The rules will never be able to stop the uninformed or ignorant from being fleeced.
Sure, the rules should be improved, perhaps allowing Judges a more flexible interpretation, with, possibly, true experts as Co Judges.
Then, Steffan, there's a new business opportunity for you, "Recognising potential con artists".
Your lifetime and wealth of experience would make it easy for you.
I'm not entirely joking btw.

[Ozzie Osmond]

WhoseGeneration said:

Fine wines, classic cars, stamps, penny shares, round and round it goes.
The rules will never be able to stop the uninformed or ignorant from being fleeced.
Sure, the rules should be improved, perhaps allowing Judges a more flexible interpretation, with, possibly, true experts as Co Judges.

Absolutely right.

After all, at the end of the day how much is it really worth paying for a bottle of wine over dinner? These scams should be easy to spot, yet greed just blinds people to the reality.

By the way, IMO this is completely different from an Icelandic bank offering an extra 0.1% interest all backed by the UK government. The sucker there was the government, not the punters.

[WhoseGeneration]

Ozzie Osmond said:

By the way, IMO this is completely different from an Icelandic bank offering an extra 0.1% interest all backed by the UK government. The sucker there was the government, not the punters.

Remind me how the UK Government provided a guaranty to deposits in Icelandic banks.

[Steffan]

WhoseGeneration said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

By the way, IMO this is completely different from an Icelandic bank offering an extra 0.1% interest all backed by the UK government. The sucker there was the government, not the punters.

Remind me how the UK Government provided a guaranty to deposits in Icelandic banks.

Very interesting to hear from Ozzie and Whosegeneration. With the banking crisis it is difficult not to think that the UK government, Bank of England, FSA and Treasury were at least as much to blame as the Banks. The madness of the banks created the mess. The weakness and incompetence of the Supervisors and Regulators and Politicians who were complicit throughout the growth of this disaster were undoubtedly just as responsible. They chose en masse to look the other way. In reality they could and should and in the end IMO kniow exactly what was happening. Better to keep schtum and say nothing.

Nothing effective has been done other than the Taxpayer picking up the tab for the entire mess. It is this complicit deception and self serving mutual support that is burring the real lines of supervision and responsibility throughout out financial activities. No one is responsible for anything. Everybody wins. Well they do in the regulatory industry, the Banking sector and politics.

Except the taxpayers who are hard working patsy's.

I dislike fraud and deception. I dislike government interference in business. In the case of my post here I think we should accept greater government interference to prevent excessive and entirely avoidable fraud by a relatively small but very determined bunch of con men.

The cynic might say 'fat chance' when that government is so ineffective with its own regulation. I am not a cynic. I do think these investment frauds could be easily stopped. It requires effective management of the legal process. However that in itself with the shower we have in power is improbable.

[sjc]

12gauge said:

I don't think it makes much difference. People like Grant Bovey are associated with scores of business failures. Yet people still do business with him, despite his failures being common knowledge.

If people want to trade with these spivs, let them. Its their shirt.

And they still call him an entrepeneur.

[WhoseGeneration]

Steffan said:

I am not a cynic.

Liar.

[Steffan]

WhoseGeneration said:

Steffan said:

I am not a cynic.

Liar.

Oh all, right then.

The consequence of sixty years or reality has diminished my naivety somewhat. All politicians are self serving, slimy, dishonest, money grabbing apparatchiks. IMO that is fair comment not cynicism