Chess and Pension Fraud - allegation

[NickFaulks]

His role was to ensure that the investments were legitimate, allowed by UK pension law

Wow. My first career was as a pensions actuary, but I would never have considered myself competent to do that. I would have sought specialist expert advice.

as the investments were closely correlated.

One thing I do know is that you are supposed to take that into account.

[John Moore]

How would you think it possible that a trustee of a pension fund could rely on advice and guidance from those controlling the companies in which the pension fund was investing. Did Simon as trustee of the fund have, at any time, independent legal advice.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Really probably best that no more is said on this. Saying too much here could really complicate matters (though Gary Quillan's candour is refreshing).

[NickFaulks]

Did Simon as trustee of the fund have, at any time, independent legal advice.

Is the Pope a Buddhist?

[John Upham]

as the investments were closely correlated.

Is this one of those phrases that might have alternative (and perhaps clearer) ways of expressing them?

Those with stronger knowledge perhaps could shine a light?

[Roger de Coverly]

Not knowing any of the details treat this as a separate question. Nothing to do with Simon's case.

The first scheme seemed to have as one of its motivations and selling points that it attempted to enable people with pension assets to release a quarter of them free of tax without waiting to the age of 55. The second scheme, the one that Simon is on the hook for, seems to have had similar objectives. The first scheme had an independent administrator and Trustee who blew a whistle when they found out what was happening,

[Alistair Campbell]

So what are we saying here?

The GM didn't know what he was doing, but didn't know that he didn't know what he was doing? And his friends didn't help?

And having been done for not knowing what he was doing, he did it all over again?

Have I got that right?

Who would ever have thought that a tax dodge could be dodgy?

[Ian Jamieson]

So what are we saying here?

The GM didn't know what he was doing, but didn't know that he didn't know what he was doing? And his friends didn't help?

And having been done for not knowing what he was doing, he did it all over again?

Have I got that right?

Who would ever have thought that a tax dodge could be dodgy?

No, according to the comments above the first Trustee knew what they I.e. the Trustee were doing and blew a whistle.

If I am being cynical it looks like Simon’s “friends” then looked for someone who didn’t know what he was doing so that he didn’t blow a whistle on their new ploy.

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[Roger Lancaster]

It probably needs to be said, apropos specialist tax avoidance measures, that the normal first step for whoever was promoting a scheme was to first obtain an Opinion from a tax barrister regarding its legitimacy and its likely effectiveness. This might involve a certain amount of shopping around until one found a barrister prepared to give a favourable Opinion - only "favourable" as no barrister in his/her right mind would give unconditional approval. Since few people would commit sizable sums of money to such a scheme on the basis of a salesman's say-so, the Opinion was then key to its credibility. In all probability, if the Opinion was favourable enough to convince potential clients, it would have had the same effect on Simon. What the barrister almost certainly wouldn't have anticipated was, first, that Simon was seemingly clueless as to the duties expected of a prudent trustee and, second, the decision to invest in securities which were not only individually intrinsically risky by comparison with FTSE or even AIM shares but also connected.

[Roger de Coverly]

In all probability, if the Opinion was favourable enough to convince potential clients, it would have had the same effect on Simon. What the barrister almost certainly wouldn't have anticipated was, first, that Simon was seemingly clueless as to the duties expected of a prudent trustee and, second, the decision to invest in securities which were not only individually intrinsically risky by comparison with FTSE or even AIM shares but also connected.

It did occur to me that had Simon come onto this forum, explained what he had been asked to do and requested opinions, that he could have got what were at least CM or FM opinions in finance or pensions in comparison to his novice status.

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[Roger de Coverly]

Tribunal here; https://www.scribd.com/document/4770814 ... t-Metcalfe

Numerous references to a "GQ"

[Roger Lancaster]

In all probability, if the Opinion was favourable enough to convince potential clients, it would have had the same effect on Simon. What the barrister almost certainly wouldn't have anticipated was, first, that Simon was seemingly clueless as to the duties expected of a prudent trustee and, second, the decision to invest in securities which were not only individually intrinsically risky by comparison with FTSE or even AIM shares but also connected.

It did occur to me that had Simon come onto this forum, explained what he had been asked to do and requested opinions, that he could have got what were at least CM or FM opinions in finance or pensions in comparison to his novice status.

Well, yes, of course you're right. But that's with benefit of hindsight. At the time, if handed a nicely-typed document from a barrister saying that - subject to X and Y being the case - the scheme was unobjectionable, would a financial novice have sought a second opinion?

[Chris Goodall]

It's increasingly apparent to me that in the field of investments, the cardinal rule is "don't be a loser". Increase your clients' wealth, and you will be fine. Diminish it, and you must have "defrauded" them one way or another.

That doesn't mean I think it would be morally justifiable to tell people "I am going to walk into a casino and bet your whole pension pot on red". Even if you found people who agreed to that level of risk and signed a disclaimer to that effect. You are playing on the client's behalf with money that is not theirs to play with.