Chess and Pension Fraud - allegation

[Ian Thompson]

I won't even try to understand what has happened (and I'm sure a lot of those throwing their hands up in despair don't either)

A lot of the comments suggest their author has made no attempt to understand what the Ombudsman's ruling says. The Ombudsman has said Simon Williams is liable for investor losses of £730,000 due to his failure to properly run the companies he was involved with. It says nothing about where the money went and who benefited from the investors' losses.

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[Roger de Coverly]

It says nothing about where the money went and who benefited from the investors' losses.

Towards the end of the judgement in an assessment of the losses to be reimbursed, it itemises where the money was invested and the recoverable value of the investments. Almost all are valued at zero. It's a small maze of property companies and loans to property companies. It doesn't say how the investments and loans were spent by the recipients.

That was the alchemy of the scheme. In return for investment of pension funds in the property companies, loans to the property companies or even property itself, a gain equivalent to 25% of the pension fund would appear from almost nowhere, documented as a capital gain on property investment,

It's why the compensation is so high, that as well as the two complainants, the other people who joined the fund where Simon was Trustee are also to be given restitution.

[David Williams]

Perhaps someone could explain a little.

I pretty much understand one thing here. If you have a pension fund you can't take money out until you're 55. If you do it's taxed at 55%. Certain people devised schemes intended to circumvent this. They didn't work. HMRC took their 55%.

What I don't understand is what happened to the other 45%. Was that also lost somewhere in the web of investments that made up the scheme, and if so who gained from it?

Is this latest thing a separate matter altogether?

[Roger de Coverly]

What I don't understand is what happened to the other 45%. Was that also lost somewhere in the web of investments that made up the scheme, and if so who gained from it?

That seems to be the conclusion of the Ombudsman. I don't think the report goes into detail as to how the invested funds were lost. It does however value the property companies and loans where the money ended up as worthless.

Is this latest thing a separate matter altogether?

I'm not sure whether the 55% tax charge was levied as it doesn't seem to get a mention. It appears the intention was that the transations were structured so the payments to the scheme memebers didn't appear to come from the scheme.

[MikeLamb]

Perhaps someone could explain a little.

I pretty much understand one thing here. If you have a pension fund you can't take money out until you're 55. If you do it's taxed at 55%. Certain people devised schemes intended to circumvent this. They didn't work. HMRC took their 55%.

What I don't understand is what happened to the other 45%. Was that also lost somewhere in the web of investments that made up the scheme, and if so who gained from it?

Is this latest thing a separate matter altogether?

My understanding is that if you were under 55 (and for examples sake), had a pension of 100k, the 'scheme' said it could lend you 25% of that money tax free, but only if you transferred the 100k into their investments to be used as collateral.

The first problem is that contrary to the schemes legal advice claims, HMRC 55% tax is due on the 25k paid out, so the person gets an unexpected tax bill of £13.75k down the road.
The second problem seems to be that the 100k the scheme received was then invested in a bunch of inappropriate loss making companies, some owned by related parties, that generated large commissions and fees (Up to 50% according to paragraph 576 of the report).

These companies then continued to be loss making and seemingly bled the remaining money away & went into administration, leaving the initial 100k next to worthless.

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[Angus French]

Point 165; ‘This money and his pension have been embezzled by Brambles and the Trustees.’ Brambles being Glenn House, the Trustees are Simon Williams and co.

Points 167-169 of the report don’t pull many punches; ‘Mr Williams is trying to blame everyone but himself.’ And goes on from there.

Just to be clear, I think the paragraphs are a summary of the submission made by Mr M, one of the applicants.

Simon has said he will appeal. Let's see if he does.

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[NickFaulks]

Simon has said he will appeal. Let's see if he does.

I imagine that a barrister would be looking for upfront payment.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Thanks to Mike Lamb for clarification.

[Angus French]

So to appeal it, is it correct he doesn’t have an automatic right, but has to apply to the High Court to get permission to appeal on compelling grounds? And none of that stops the judgement being carried out unless the High Court rule it should be paused. So the 24th Oct remains a deadline to pay.

From here: "The Applicants and Respondents have been notified of the Determination, which is final and binding, subject to appeal to the High Court on a point of law." So presumably an appeal would be on the grounds that the ombudsman got the law wrong?

[John Upham]

Simon has said he will appeal. Let's see if he does.

Good luck with that!

See bottom right side of the image below:

the_scheme.jpg

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[Ian Jamieson]

So to appeal it, is it correct he doesn’t have an automatic right, but has to apply to the High Court to get permission to appeal on compelling grounds? And none of that stops the judgement being carried out unless the High Court rule it should be paused. So the 24th Oct remains a deadline to pay.

From here: "The Applicants and Respondents have been notified of the Determination, which is final and binding, subject to appeal to the High Court on a point of law." So presumably an appeal would be on the grounds that the ombudsman got the law wrong?

Good luck with that. It’s not impossible but it is very unlikely / difficult.