Two companies, LillyWhite & Square Mile International Financial s.r.o, are key to the operation. The actors in these companies are the architects of the operation and orchestrate the large network of entities in numerous jurisdictions needed to misappropriate UK retail pensions. The goal being to get the pension into pre‑determined unregulated, high risk, opaque funds regardless of what's in the best interest of the client, purely for their own enrichment.
The irrefutable evidence for this is clearly described in an email I acquired, written in August 2015 by John Ferguson, owner of Lillywhite International, incorporated in Gibraltar, 24th Feb 2014, number 112701. John was also a Director of Square Mile International Financial s.r.o (”SMIF”) between 19th Nov 2014 and 15th Nov 2017.
SMIF, has undergone a number of transformations, and recently changed its name to Michalska Holding s.r.o on 15th Nov 2017. It was previously known as Aktiva Wealth Management prior 11th June 2015 when I first came into contact with its Director, David Vilka who acted as my financial adviser under the false pretence he was authorised to give investment advice which I later discovered was not true. The Letter of Authority given to my ceding provider, 21st Jan 2015, states Aktiva were registered with the Czech National Bank but the above link shows they weren't registered until 5th May 2015, just one of the many fraudulent misrepresentations I have on file against Vilka.
As a result I lost access to the Financial services compensation scheme (”FSCS”) and Ombudsman services.
I have numbered the paragraphs in the August 2015 email to make reference easier. This email is the most significant piece of evidence I have come across and justifies a detailed analysis. It proves conclusively the operation is not considering people's best interest but has pre‑determined the funds pensions will be transferred into depending on who introduced the client.
This has significant consequences for the adviser, David Vilka in my case, because, as I have shown in separate articles The Symphony Fund & a £6000 offer to silence me and Tort of Deceit & Pension Scams, using the Hedley Byrne rule, the adviser owed me a duty of care, a legal obligation to act in my best interest. As a result of false misrepresentations, he intentionally failed to act in my best interest and so he is likely to be held responsible for losses.
There are references to a couple of companies:-
Manish & Christianson. Manish, is Manish Gambhir, who owns numerous companies but only two are relevant here are:-
- Para 1 is simply justifying the need for Lillywhite as a hub, but makes the false misrepresentation by claiming their IFA's are “regulated”. The one I dealt with was not regulated to give investment advice or transfer pensions according to the FCA. They are restricted only to insurance mediation. However, at the material time the “adviser” I dealt with wasn't even licensed to sell insurance!! Just more fraudulent misrepresentation. The lies just kept rolling on and on.
- Paragraphs 2,3 & 4 describes the problem for unauthorised firms to engage in regulated activities in the UK and offers a “solution” around the legislation (FSMA 2000) – that, by the way, was put in place specifically to prevent unregulated firms targeting retail clients and misappropriating their pensions! Why the authorities are not prosecuting these unauthorised adviser's who are carrying on a regulated activity in the UK is a big puzzle!
- The key to Ferguson's solution is the misconception that because their adviser's are recommending a life assurance product (”providing bond wrappers”) they are operating within their regulatory permissions. The FCA have confirmed however that it's the investment rules that apply even though there is an insurance element and they are not authorised to give investment advice.
- Para 4 confirms irrefutably the client's best interest is irrelevant. An IFA has an obligation to consider all products and advise those that meet the client's best interest. This email proves conclusively that the product recommended by their advisers is dependent on nothing more than who the “introducer” is. The primary aim being to recruit subscribers to the introducer's fund. That is stated unambiguously. Therefore, if Aspinal Chase, they will recommend Blackmore Global or if MGF, they will recommend Manish's Christianson Property Capital. These are unregulated, opaque, high risk private ventures and unsuitable for retail client's pensions. The advice given is pre-determined and the same for everyone introduced by the same “introducer”. The actors in all this – Ferguson, Vilka, Nunn & McCreesh in my case – all say they are not operating a scam, but if this isn't describing a scam then what does?
Rory Percival, a guest on BBC Radio 4 You & Yours Programme, broadcast Jan 29th 2018, and a specialist at the FCA from 2006 to 2016 said, about Blackmore Global: “The fees are… in comparison with most investments, very very high. You’d have to be getting very very high levels of returns even to make any money out of that” and confirmed this fund was not suitable for pensions. What Rory was unaware of on the programme were the additional costs besides Blackmore's annual management fees: annual fees for the insurance wrapper and the QROP, plus costs for any drawdown which will be taken by the QROP, the Assurance company and Blackmore! The pension fund will drain dry in a heartbeat – but these fees are not disclosed when investors are drawn in! The law would take the view that any ordinary skilled member of financial advice industry would realise these products were unsuitable for retail pensions and conclude their recommendation was not in the best interest of the client. Consequently, the advisers in this operation failed in their duty of care established by the Hedley Byrne rule.
The email makes reference to arrangement for fees etc. but gives no detail. However, does hint at where these come from in the final paragraph as “splitting the distribution fees”.
This email proves conclusively the business operation is specifically designed to try and circumvent UK legislation and misappropriate UK pensions for the enrichment of those involved. I hold however, the operation is riddled with false misrepresentations and actually fails to circumvent legislation and I don't understand why the authorities allow it to continue!