View more on these topics

Behind the scenes at latest rogue Ucis advice firm

A financial adviser banned and fined £350,000 by the FCA for promoting unregulated collective investment schemes misled consumers through a complex company structure designed to circumvent regulatory rules.

Craig Cameron, a director of London-based advice firm Burlington Associates, helped set up and promote three high risk Ucis investing in new property developments in Croatia, Bulgaria and Montenegro.

Over 800 consumers invested around £30m in the three UCIS, which subsequently failed.

Prohibited

Burlington was a member of a network which prohibited its appointed representatives from promoting Ucis.

Cameron therefore arranged for a separate advisory firm, Leslie & Nuding (trading as Burlington Funds and now known as Leslie & Swallow) to take responsibility for checking investors’ eligibility and sending out promotional materials.

In reality, a firm named AdminCo – which was under Cameron’s control and shared an office building with Burlington – carried out the vast majority of these activities. Leslie & Nuding played little or no part in the sales process.

The FCA says this meant that in practice an unauthorised firm handed out prospectuses and consumers were misled into believing they were dealing with Burlington when in fact they were not.

Another company, MarketingCo, helped Cameron set up and promote the Ucis. MarketingCo believed Burlington’s activities were regulated by the FCA and gave consumers the impression the firm’s involvement would give them extra protection.

Burlington received a fee of at least 3 per cent of any amount invested in the three Ucis, while Leslie & Nuding received 0.5 per cent of any amount invested.

Promotions

The Ucis were promoted to thousands of retail consumers without adequate assessments of their eligibility.

They were promoted in person at sales seminars and workshops, as well as through 15,000 unsolicited email mailshots and 2,900 prospectuses.

Cameron attended MarketingCo’s seminars, at which he was presented to the audience as representing Burlington, and sometimes AdminCo.

The FCA says the content of the seminars and the language used at them was designed to “induce” consumers to invest in the Ucis.

Consumers were told at some seminars that the Ucis were promoted in a way that was within FCA guidelines.

Risk assessments

Cameron also agreed a process with Leslie & Nuding at the outset to deal with investors who could not certify themselves as eligible to invest in Ucis by being sophisticated investors or high net worth individuals.

In these cases, Burlington provided a risk questionnaire, on Leslie & Nuding letterhead, for Leslie & Nuding to use as the basis for an advised sale.

The regulator says that under Cameron’s direction, these questionnaires were “routinely misused”.

When investors said they felt they could not be certified as sophisticated or high net worth, Burlington simply used the questionnaire themselves to assess whether the Ucis was suitable. Hundreds of questionnaires were used in this way.

It is understood investors are unlikely to be able to recover their money as the investments were not approved by Burlington’s network and were therefore treated as unauthorised business.

The sales were made between April and December 2008. Burlington was a member of the network between May 2003 and January 2006, when it became directly authorised by the FCA.

The FCA says the failings did not become apparent until much later.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. This is pathetic. Do the FCA actually think that this absurd, paltry punishment is a deterrent? Had these crooks known that were they to get caught they would get such a non-punishment they would have paid up front.
    They purloined £30 million – they will now be sitting on a yacht drinking champagne laughing at we poor schmucks.

  2. I totally agree with Banker 2014. These people should be locked up for long periods in the same way as other crooks.

  3. So these schemes were unregulated at the time but are now regulated after the event. I’m not saying it was right to promote such schemes but the goalposts do seem to have been moved.

  4. Julian Stevens;
    So are you saying that the responsibility for ethical, moral and honest behaviour only vests with “Investment Advisors” when they are regulated? Without specific laws prohibiting certain behaviour everything is acceptable?
    If so you are missing the point – it is because of unethical behaviour that they have to be regulated. With the pace of change in the realms of technology that idea allows thieves and scoundrels to prosper at the expense of the backbone of society as a whole, not just the investment community.

Leave a comment

Close

Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com