High Court orders three individuals to repay FSA £115m
Share
The High Court has today ordered John Anderson, Kenneth Peacock and Kautilya Nandan Pruthi to pay approximately £115m to the FSA for unlawfully accepting deposits without authorisation from the FSA.
The ruling follows another High Court judgment on March 25, 2010 which ruled that Pruthi, Anderson and Peacock, under their trading names Business Consulting International, John Anderson Consulting and Kenneth Peacock Consulting, unlawfully accepted deposits from UK consumers.
The Judge ordered Pruthi to pay £89,798,938, Anderson £13,197,076. and Peacock £11,645,053.
The FSA says it will be seeking to enforce the judgment and return money that can be retrieved to investors who had dealings with Pruthi, Anderson and Peacock.
But the regulator is warning investors that it is unlikely that money owed by Pruthi, Anderson and Peacock will be repaid in part or at all.
FSA director of enforcement and financial crime Margaret Cole says: “As the Judge commented in his ruling the FSA took quick and decisive action against Pruthi, Anderson and Peacock and was entirely justified in intervening, using the full force of the legislation, to bring the scheme to a speedy conclusion and prevent further consumers being cheated.
“However, this case again emphasises the importance of taking care to ensure that any firm or individual consumers deal with are authorised or approved by the FSA. Authorisation offers consumers valuable protection and access to complaints and compensation arrangements should anything go wrong.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (21)
Steven Farrall (Adviser Alliance) | 29 Jun 2010 12:42 pm
"Authorisation offers consumers valuable protection and access to complaints and compensation arrangements should anything go wrong".
Remind me, how many Banks did the FSA's regulations and catastrophic government policy cause to fail? And how much did it cost the poor taxpayer (note, no-one in the FSA pays any tax - the tax notionally deducted is just a rebate to us poor souls in private wealth creating business) to bail them out.
Next.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29 Jun 2010 12:47 pm
Great, FSA and Margaret Cole continue to pursue one man mortgage brokers for £1,000 unpaid fines and FSA Levies and bankrupt them, yet individuals like this get away with millions before they get caught - doesn't that tell you something? They will never recover the money and these individuals have it stashed away.
another case unsolved by the FSA.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael Fallas | 29 Jun 2010 1:23 pm
Flawed system which wll never work and until they realise that these cases will continue to pop up as the unscrupulous find ways to abuse it.
Still it keeps them all in their highly paid jobs so they have no incentive to change things now do they. With staff number increasing almost daily the costs are now massive the FSA is now a major employer and huge staff numbers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andrew Whiteley | 29 Jun 2010 1:43 pm
If no money is going to get to consumers then where is it going? If there is no hope of retrieving any funds then why publicise this as a regulatory "success" at all? Surely all this does is show that crime does pay....and quite handsomely at that!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Thompson | 29 Jun 2010 1:43 pm
I look forward to the weekly (daily) reports on the FSA. They have made me laugh more over the last few years than any stand up comedian. I guess I must be getting value for money?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Frank Jurga | 29 Jun 2010 1:45 pm
Don't panic - the FSA has ordered that the three chaps repay the £115 miilion immediately. The cheques will be written out immediately and all will be fine - you just wait and see. I believe we need an urgent review of where it has all gone wrong over the last 10 years - my worry is that the new Government isn't listening - I've written personally to 10 people three weeks ago and not one office has acknowledged receipt of my ideas. Anyone got any ideas about who is worth writing to?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Lindsey Adams | 29 Jun 2010 1:51 pm
Shame the same "quick and decisive action" wasn't taken against Keydata in 2005!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29 Jun 2010 1:56 pm
The Keydata debacle actually proves Margaret Coles Statement WRONG, she said "“this case again emphasises the importance of taking care to ensure that any firm or individual consumers deal with are authorised or approved by the FSA. Authorisation offers consumers valuable protection and access to complaints and compensation arrangements should anything go wrong.”
Keydata were regulated for years and the loss was not an investment loss, it looks like fraud and regulatory incompetence will be the reason why clients loose money.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29 Jun 2010 2:07 pm
Frank
Try Jim'll Fix It. Likely to get more response than you will from a government committed (apparently) to keeping Hector employed
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
hengist | 29 Jun 2010 2:20 pm
I simply do not understand why the wider media world does not take up the issue of how useless the FSA are. It is a scandal. The main stream press just publish the FSA propaganda of how thety are catching insider traders, etc. The Keydata situation must add up to £500m. now - how much do the FSA have to cock up before it is news.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment