mouse
Posts: 55
Likes: 29
|
Post by mouse on Apr 29, 2018 20:54:26 GMT
Many thnx to all respondents to my first post on this p2pindependentforum.com/post/264202/threadWith blender's update we have - Regal originally had some CCL/OFT permissions for their business. Regal morphs into COL and OFT becomes the fca. So the fca database shows that regal has some sort of credit/schedule 2/holders of client money etc or equivalent IP/permissions The security of the fca database is weak and someone changes the regal entry to COL UK. COL now consider themselves to be legit since to all intents and purposes they have fca schedule 2 permissions. Specific p2p IP/permissions are not needed since they are not statutory. COL may well have had legal advice on this. But then they find out , from their lawyers ? who knows , that their schedule 2 permissions were not transferable from regal and are therefore likely to be operating illegally. Panic. COL brings in RR to plan closure. T and C's concerning fca authorisation on the website are changed. Lenders not informed. Funds are transferred out of clients acct. COL stops trading. COL appoints administrator RR. The fca reads the forum and stops RR in its administration.
|
|
blink
Member of DD Central
Posts: 94
Likes: 119
|
Post by blink on Apr 29, 2018 21:18:38 GMT
Ok my notes from the summing of: Ruling on regulated activity Please bear in mind I was sitting at the back of the court during this part.
Brief acting for the Curries spoke very quietly. Judge had a bad stammer. Moved to front when returned after lunch.
1. Collateral Investment scheme - Electronic Platform, established deposit taking
2. Collateral Brief has presented no evidence stating lack of funds and time restrictions. No adjournment -(my thoughts only, they were playing for time) to what effect I would be speculating.
3 Collateral Collateral Investment scheme Collateral Securities Trustee - in Breech Collateral Sales Ltd - deposit taking (not allowed to do so) Borrowed money to fund other business activities.
4 Named solicitor acting for Collateral
5. Company now considered not regulated activity.
I so wanted to ask the judge to repeat himself on many occasions, but I would probably of been in contempt of court.
I did leave the court at this point, due to struggling to hear and also had to make a phone call.
Must admit after the first ruling I was feeling distinctly uneasy.
|
|
mouse
Posts: 55
Likes: 29
|
Post by mouse on Apr 29, 2018 21:49:20 GMT
Thank you blink for posting those notes.
In no 5, - was the company(COL) deemed not regulated because of for want of a better expression "no schedule 2 fca permissions" or was it because of no specific electronic p2p fca permissions. I suspect it was the former, although I'm no lawyer, since if it was the latter then it contradicts what the head of BC and his platform does.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,077
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 29, 2018 22:45:12 GMT
Ive been starring at the relevant legislation/FCA handbook (PERG 2.7.7HG) and I can see what BC is referring to when they talk about it being only automated platforms that are carrying out regulated activities (FSMA 2000, RAO 2013) but I can equally see lots of stuff that means it would be a regulated activity. Suffice to say that my head hurts & Im none the wiser.
If you want to offer an IFISA you need to be authorised and if people want to claim loss relief the platform needs the electronic lending permission.
|
|
mouse
Posts: 55
Likes: 29
|
Post by mouse on Apr 30, 2018 9:57:02 GMT
Thanks ilmoro for the heads up on those compliances/legislation. Will take a look at it.
|
|
mouse
Posts: 55
Likes: 29
|
Post by mouse on Apr 30, 2018 11:12:15 GMT
If you want to offer an IFISA you need to be authorised and if people want to claim loss relief the platform needs the electronic lending permission.Is that definite ? Just that in an earlier post mason reported that Bond Mason operates legitimately but without regulation p2pindependentforum.com/post/261321/threadSo possibly BM is not required to have full p2p permissions/IP, but it does have article 36H ,since its client tax statements directs lenders to offset losses against tax.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,077
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 30, 2018 12:13:36 GMT
If you want to offer an IFISA you need to be authorised and if people want to claim loss relief the platform needs the electronic lending permission.Is that definite ? Just that in an earlier post mason reported that Bond Mason operates legitimately but without regulation p2pindependentforum.com/post/261321/threadSo possibly BM is not required to have full p2p permissions/IP, but it does have article 36H ,since its client tax statements directs lenders to offset losses against tax. From HMRC SAIM 12030 When is peer to peer tax relief available 2) The loan must be made through an operator who has permission under Part 4A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to operate an electronic system in relation to the lending of money. (or an equivalent EU permission) Not on BM but they are not themselves offering Article 36H as AIUI lenders are investing in receivables for P2P lending & other loan types. Receivables are not believed to be a regulated activity. No idea how this squares with HMRC guidance on loss relief That loss relief guidance also says UK Regulation of peer to peer lending In the UK, operating a P2P lending platform is an activity regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as “operating an electronic system in relation to lending” under Chapter 6B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (SI 2001/544). If the platform arranges or facilitates loans where the lender is an individual or a “relevant person” then the platform must obtain authorisation from the FCA to carry on this activity. So we are back to the BC question again. NB I cant actually find the wording in the legislation referred to
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Apr 30, 2018 17:18:27 GMT
If you want to offer an IFISA you need to be authorised and if people want to claim loss relief the platform needs the electronic lending permission.Is that definite ? Just that in an earlier post mason reported that Bond Mason operates legitimately but without regulation p2pindependentforum.com/post/261321/threadSo possibly BM is not required to have full p2p permissions/IP, but it does have article 36H ,since its client tax statements directs lenders to offset losses against tax. It's interesting, isn't it, because several platforms with interim permission at the time produced tax statements showing losses that appeared to be eligible for tax relief. It doesn't appear they had article 36H at that time, but do have it now - perhaps this is ok.
|
|