elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on May 31, 2021 9:13:01 GMT
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,597 
Likes: 6,764
|
Post by Mousey on Jun 1, 2021 17:26:37 GMT
Subject to the denials listed above this is the flow of money that the administrators claim has occurred: Dotted lines represent cash, solid lines represent directorship (It's much easier to understand animated and narrated)
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
Member is Online
|
Post by iano on Jun 1, 2021 18:18:07 GMT
Good god, if this is true it's practically brazen.
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Jun 1, 2021 18:33:04 GMT
If this is proven,,when do the SFO get involved.and why not now !  |
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 1, 2021 18:50:20 GMT
I assume Brankesmere House refers to 2 Brankesmere, LBs house, rather than Brankesmere House, Lendys office, owned by Lendy in this period before being transferred to Brankesmere Ltd in 2018
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 6,764
|
Post by Mousey on Jun 1, 2021 22:54:39 GMT
I assume Brankesmere House refers to 2 Brankesmere, LBs house, rather than Brankesmere House, Lendys office, owned by Lendy in this period before being transferred to Brankesmere Ltd in 2018 Yep, A more polished version will appear at some point. Just tricky to fit the 2 in without moving a lot of stuff about :s
I'll also say there's nothing inherently wrong about the structure.
Subject to much fuller explanations in their defence statements it's the defendants position that Anthony Smith carried out genuine work which he was compensated for which explained the money going out. The money coming back the directors say was loaned to them.
It's the Joint-Administrators position that Anthony Smith did not carry out any valuable work, and the invoices provided were "Sham", the whole thing being a structure to avoid paying tax.
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
Member is Online
|
Post by iano on Jun 2, 2021 0:33:55 GMT
I'm confused!
Nearly seven million pounds sent to three companies that Andrew appears to have control over feeding back into another company he is a director of leading directly to money passing to Liam and Tim? Not to mention another company beholden to Andrew "Conduit Nominees Limited" that also received money that was again sent to Liam and Tim?
Where did the money provided by "Conduit Asset Management" that also went to our favourite double act come from?
Did money pass from Liam to "LP Alhambra Limited" to finance the purchase of 10 Alhambra Road or is this separate (basically am I not seeing a dotted line) or did the separate company finance it?
Am I misreading this thing?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 6,764
|
Post by Mousey on Jun 2, 2021 8:16:44 GMT
1. Where did the money provided by "Conduit Asset Management" that also went to our favourite double act come from? 2. Did money pass from Liam to "LP Alhambra Limited" to finance the purchase of 10 Alhambra Road or is this separate (basically am I not seeing a dotted line) or did the separate company finance it? To answer #1 From the particulars of claim: "Conduit Nominees and/or CAM maintained sub-accounts for (at least) Emporis and Laurus (and the Administrators believe that this was also the case for Deplane). The ledger seen by the Administrators relating to what appears to be the Laurus sub-account (“the Laurus Ledger”) shows payments received from the Company and payments made to Argo out of that account."
So some more dotted lines need to get added!
and for 2: At first glance I can't see that information. "identifying (so far as the Administrators have been able to ascertain) the entity to which each payment was made, are set out in the schedule annexed hereto." - I don't have access to the schedule (well, atm anyway)
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jun 2, 2021 10:26:53 GMT
As RSM have repeatedly reminded us at great cost to ourselves it's very important to do money laundering checks when operating financial service businesses
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on Jun 3, 2021 12:56:47 GMT
I assume Brankesmere House refers to 2 Brankesmere, LBs house, rather than Brankesmere House, Lendys office, owned by Lendy in this period before being transferred to Brankesmere Ltd in 2018 Yep, A more polished version will appear at some point. Just tricky to fit the 2 in without moving a lot of stuff about :s
I'll also say there's nothing inherently wrong about the structure.
Subject to much fuller explanations in their defence statements it's the defendants position that Andrew Smith carried out genuine work which he was compensated for which explained the money going out. The money coming back the directors say was loaned to them.
It's the Joint-Administrators position that Andrew Smith did not carry out any valuable work, and the invoices provided were "Sham", the whole thing being a structure to avoid paying tax.
If proven fraudulent (is that the hope if tax avoidance is proven?), what might the outcome be for lenders? Can that be discussed?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 6,764
|
Post by Mousey on Jun 3, 2021 13:12:44 GMT
Yep, A more polished version will appear at some point. Just tricky to fit the 2 in without moving a lot of stuff about :s
I'll also say there's nothing inherently wrong about the structure.
Subject to much fuller explanations in their defence statements it's the defendants position that Anthony Smith carried out genuine work which he was compensated for which explained the money going out. The money coming back the directors say was loaned to them.
It's the Joint-Administrators position that Anthony Smith did not carry out any valuable work, and the invoices provided were "Sham", the whole thing being a structure to avoid paying tax.
If proven fraudulent (is that the hope if tax avoidance is proven?), what might the outcome be for lenders? Can that be discussed? Well fraud is one of those technical terms which doesn't actually appear in the Particulars of Claim so I'd have to defer to those more knowledgeable as to the correct phrase.
That aside, the claimants are asking the court for (inter alia):
(i) An order that the Directors repay the entirety of the Offshore Payments, totalling £6.849m;
(ii) An order pursuant to s.425(1)(f) of IA 1986 imposing a charge upon the property of the Directors (including 2 Brankesmere House and REDACTED), LP Alhambra (10 Alhambra Road), and RFP (Ryefields Park) as security for the discharge of such sums as the Directors are ordered to pay; and/or
(iii) Such further or other order(s) that the court thinks fit for restoring the position to what it would have been if each of the transactions had not been entered into and protecting the interests of the persons who are victims of the transactions;
^ all of which benefit the company and thus its creditors. Whether the lenders can be defined as creditors is a question to be answered in the directions hearing at the end of this month.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,138
Likes: 1,962
|
Post by rocky1 on Jun 3, 2021 15:01:50 GMT
all of which benefits LENDY/CREDITORS. LB is lendy and is also a main creditor as far as i can make out.so will the money just be spinning back round to him in one way or another win or lose. i suppose the lendy court costs will come from future investors returns along with all the other lendy unfair T@Cs benefits. no wonder white collar crime is booming. i was hoping LB and TG would end up with FA and a few years jail. well done mousey and thanks for all your time and effort in exposing the real goings on of these fintech directors.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 6,764
|
Post by Mousey on Jun 12, 2021 8:34:15 GMT
If proven fraudulent (is that the hope if tax avoidance is proven?), what might the outcome be for lenders? Can that be discussed? Well fraud is one of those technical terms which doesn't actually appear in the Particulars of Claim so I'd have to defer to those more knowledgeable as to the correct phrase.
That aside, the claimants are asking the court for (inter alia):
(i) An order that the Directors repay the entirety of the Offshore Payments, totalling £6.849m;
(ii) An order pursuant to s.425(1)(f) of IA 1986 imposing a charge upon the property of the Directors (including 2 Brankesmere House and REDACTED), LP Alhambra (10 Alhambra Road), and RFP (Ryefields Park) as security for the discharge of such sums as the Directors are ordered to pay; and/or
(iii) Such further or other order(s) that the court thinks fit for restoring the position to what it would have been if each of the transactions had not been entered into and protecting the interests of the persons who are victims of the transactions;
^ all of which benefit the company and thus its creditors. Whether the lenders can be defined as creditors is a question to be answered in the directions hearing at the end of this month.
zlb sorry I misspoke. The Particulars Of Claim doesn't contain the word fraud but the response to the defendants defences do.
"The Directors, having taken a course of action designed to defraud the Company and HMRC, are unlikely instead to have chosen a lawful means of paying themselves these sums, and in so doing incurring a tax liability (or causing the Company to incur a tax liability)."
The administrators continue: "the Directors remain liable to compensate the Company in respect of the losses the Company has suffered by reason of the unlawful means chosen; namely, the amount of the Company’s tax liability in respect of the sums that comprised the Offshore Payments, together with penalties and interest that have accrued on that liability. The Administrators calculate that these sums may amount in total to £5,041,515."
I've also updated the flow chart above.
|
|
wuzimu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 236
Likes: 735
|
Post by wuzimu on Jun 12, 2021 17:03:26 GMT
all of which benefits LENDY/CREDITORS. LB is lendy and is also a main creditor as far as i can make out.so will the money just be spinning back round to him in one way or another win or lose. i suppose the lendy court costs will come from future investors returns along with all the other lendy unfair T@Cs benefits. no wonder white collar crime is booming. i was hoping LB and TG would end up with FA and a few years jail. well done mousey and thanks for all your time and effort in exposing the real goings on of these fintech directors. Nearly all commercial claims like this end in a negotiated settlement and such will be a receipt to the Lendy estate. IE available for distribution to creditors of Lendy. HMRC will be a major creditor. As are M1 lenders As is LB (via proxy companies) And if LAG gets its way M2 lenders will be the largest group of creditors. However, RSM have not decided which creditor claims will be accepted and at what level...RSM have said this determination will be done at the point Lendy is liquidated. RSM may not accept creditor claims by LBs companies. So I don't see it likely much of any settlement from Lendy v Directors would just revert back to the Directors as per rocky1 concerns. A glance at the updates from the administrators would suggest that most of any settlement from the case is likely to be swallowed in fees and costs of the administration....More generally if Lendy admin fees and costs equal or exceed recoveries to Lendy estate, RSM won't bother determining any creditor claims as the matter will be otiose. BTW I am only aware of civil claims against the Directors, so jail time is not a possibility. FCA enforcement will at most result in a life ban from financial services for the Directors plus a fine often equal to the money FCA judge was improperly taken by the Directors. Note that such a FCA fine, if paid, will not be returned to creditors or lenders. It will go to general FCA funding. The SFO could bring criminal charges against Directors, but they don't seem interested, Lendy may be too small and complicated for SFO, who generally achieve SFA. I expect even so most Lenders would like SFO involved even if it wouldn't produce any £'s, .... justice needs to be seen to be done 🤞
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Jun 14, 2021 18:54:48 GMT
Any chance of multiple small claims getting anywhere? (Sorry for those who exceed small claims limits)
|
|
