Chess and Pension Fraud - allegation

[Simon Myles]

In taking on such an important role or controlling function within financial services, if things do go wrong any defence which relies on ignorance, inability or incompetence is no generally defence.

[David Williams]

For some reason I'm reminded of the episode of the Simpsons where it turns out that Mr Burns is not responsible for the dumping of nuclear waste because the power plant is owned by a canary.

[Roger Lancaster]

In taking on such an important role or controlling function within financial services, if things do go wrong any defence which relies on ignorance, inability or incompetence is no generally defence.

The standard used to be, and probably still is, as set out in the Trustee Act 1925, that a trustee should “exercise the same care as an ordinary prudent man of business would exercise in the conduct of his own affairs”. The words "act with reasonable care and skill" appear elsewhere as a more recent requirement. If a trustee can show he has met those two tests, he's probably safe even if the worst happens. It's worth pointing out here that all this is true even where someone, although not termed a "trustee", fulfils that role - for example, a chess club committee member.

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[Roger Lancaster]

Is Simon’s scheme literally the same as ‘The Original Scheme’ but Simon is now the Trustee and Glenn is the administrator? Or were there further tweaks? It does seem a bit mad they just kept going considering there seems a fair bit of information out there in 2015 and 2016, well before the High Court case of 2019, that ‘The Original Scheme’ was a scam.

20th Match 2016, even with a nice diagram!;
https://pension-life.com/kjk-investment ... -revealed/

June 9th 2016;
https://pension-life.com/kjk-investment ... tion-scam/

Even earlier, 24th June 2015;
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/n ... high-court

Where some of the relevant legislation sits today;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/29/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/1/contents

The 20/3/2016 diagram shows a very rudimentary scheme, the work of amateurs. As the 9/6/2016 piece makes clear, "Later models were careful to cloak the liberations in layers of smoke and mirrors", typically by interposing shell companies. The test of such an arrangement (assuming the law hadn't changed since last I looked) was whether it made any commercial sense, other than as a tax avoidance device, and interposing shell companies - particularly offshore companies where HMRC had difficulty accessing records - made this test more difficult to carry out.

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[Nick Ivell]

Well this was certainly smoke and mirrors.

When we get down to basics, though, it appears that a cabal of chessplayers has played fast and loose with other people's money.

[John Upham]

Well this was certainly smoke and mirrors.

When we get down to basics, though, it appears that a cabal of chessplayers has played fast and loose with other people's money.

One wonders how BH Wood would have reported this had it happened during his watch. I'm sure he would not have minced his words.

Even Freddy Reilly would have put his thoughts into print.

[Angus French]

Well this was certainly smoke and mirrors.

When we get down to basics, though, it appears that a cabal of chessplayers has played fast and loose with other people's money.

One wonders how BH Wood would have reported this had it happened during his watch. I'm sure he would not have minced his words.

Even Freddy Reilly would have put his thoughts into print.

Is "cabal" the right word? I'm not sure. I did see mention of a Michael Hennigan (*possibly* to go alongside involvement of three other titled chessplayers), in a Tweet thread recently referenced by Matt Bridgeman... What I think would be useful is a timeline and charts of the various interactions between the pension schemes which have run into trouble, the property investment companies (with cross transactions) in which the schemes invested and the individuals involved. Certainly it seems to me that Gary Quillan helped "mastermind" the schemes and that Simon Williams has been involved in two schemes which have run aground, the latter apparently with the loss of nearly all scheme funds. What I gleaned from a scan of the most recent ruling is that the Ombudsman was not impressed by the (in)actions of Simon Williams.

Also, I think there's a question about what action if any the ECF should take. At the time of the previous ruling the FT reported:

Mike Truran, the chief executive of the ECF, told the FT in a written statement: “We do not comment on matters pertaining to the actions of individual members outside of chess . . . Simon Williams is a very popular chess commentator and has a large following.

[Roger Lancaster]

I think there's a question about what action if any the ECF should take. At the time of the previous ruling the FT reported:

Mike Truran, the chief executive of the ECF, told the FT in a written statement: “We do not comment on matters pertaining to the actions of individual members outside of chess . . . Simon Williams is a very popular chess commentator and has a large following.

The ECF should, in my view, do absolutely nothing. This is a civil finding, admittedly involving large sums of money, and not a criminal conviction. The ECF wouldn't be expected to do anything every time a chess player received a CCJ against them, even though many of these imply dishonesty, so presumably there would have to be an arbitrary delineation between "serious" cases (where the ECF was expected to take action) and "not so serious". And even "serious" cases wouldn't be discussed in the manner this has been discussed, but for the fact that Simon is a GM and not some random player. Criminal convictions are maybe another matter although, there again, I'd distinguish between shoplifting and manslaughter. Given that the ECF has limited resources, I believe it should prioritise allegations of sexual abuse and similar within the chess world.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"The ECF should, in my view, do absolutely nothing."

Yes. As I've said before, they are not qualified or competent to deal with such matters. Football and cricket have been banning people for being accused of offences, just in case they're guilty. Why?

ECF has to do what it can to ensure the safety of players, so it's a good idea to stop convicted sex offenders working in chess. The law covers such things anyway.

But for other offences, who would decide what is "serious" enough to merit a ban or other sanction? BCF threatened to ban me for saying arbiters should not ignore accusations of cheating just because the cheat was a family friend!

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[Matt Bridgeman]

.

[Mick Norris]

Further development:

https://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/n ... ermination

Para 57

On 8 October 2018, Mr M emailed Brambles saying: “Been reading through my policy and understand Focus Administration Pension Scheme are my trustees and that Brambles Administration Limited are the administrator’s. Do Brambles not do the transfer of £65,022.57. All the transfer forms have been completed and you stated would arrange transfer. However still waiting for this transfer to take place, I have followed all your instructions, sold this property with a loss of £35,000 last year to be able to move these funds to Aviva at the age of 55 years as they needed to be sold first in compliance with Focus Administration. I would like to speak to Focus Administration Pension Scheme and establish what the delay is, as you don't appear to be answering any of my emails or phone calls regarding this transfer.” [sic]

Para 60

On 23 October 2018, Brambles responded to Mr M saying that contact with the Trustee was through Brambles' email address. It provided no detail of who the trustee was or how to contact them.

Para 242

Brambles no longer holds any written records of instructions from the Trustee. All communication with the Trustee was by telephone.

So, House only spoke with Williams on the telephone

Interesting date, 23 October 2018, as the Isle of Man Masters took place 20-28 October 2018

Glenn L House vs Simon Kim Williams
Isle of Man Masters (2018), Douglas IMN, rd 5

1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6 3.g3 e5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.c4 O-O 7.Nc3 d6 8.Bg5 f4 9.Rb1 Ng4 10.Bxe7 Nxe7 11.d4 fxg3 12.hxg3 Qe8 13.dxe5 Qh5 14.Re1 dxe5 15.Nd5 Nxd5 16.Qxd5+ Kh8 17.Rbd1 c6 18.Qc5 Bf5 19.e4 Be6 20.Rd2 Rae8 21.Qxa7 Rxf3 0- 1

[Roger Lancaster]

Further development:

https://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/n ... ermination

Para 57

On 8 October 2018, Mr M emailed Brambles saying: “Been reading through my policy and understand Focus Administration Pension Scheme are my trustees and that Brambles Administration Limited are the administrator’s. Do Brambles not do the transfer of £65,022.57. All the transfer forms have been completed and you stated would arrange transfer. However still waiting for this transfer to take place, I have followed all your instructions, sold this property with a loss of £35,000 last year to be able to move these funds to Aviva at the age of 55 years as they needed to be sold first in compliance with Focus Administration. I would like to speak to Focus Administration Pension Scheme and establish what the delay is, as you don't appear to be answering any of my emails or phone calls regarding this transfer.” [sic]

Para 60

On 23 October 2018, Brambles responded to Mr M saying that contact with the Trustee was through Brambles' email address. It provided no detail of who the trustee was or how to contact them.

Para 242

Brambles no longer holds any written records of instructions from the Trustee. All communication with the Trustee was by telephone.

So, House only spoke with Williams on the telephone

Interesting date, 23 October 2018, as the Isle of Man Masters took place 20-28 October 2018

Glenn L House vs Simon Kim Williams
Isle of Man Masters (2018), Douglas IMN, rd 5

1.Nf3 f5 2.d3 Nc6 3.g3 e5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.c4 O-O 7.Nc3 d6 8.Bg5 f4 9.Rb1 Ng4 10.Bxe7 Nxe7 11.d4 fxg3 12.hxg3 Qe8 13.dxe5 Qh5 14.Re1 dxe5 15.Nd5 Nxd5 16.Qxd5+ Kh8 17.Rbd1 c6 18.Qc5 Bf5 19.e4 Be6 20.Rd2 Rae8 21.Qxa7 Rxf3 0- 1

Point well taken, they might well have spoken face to face. But that's still consistent with no written records.