The Analysis News & Opinions
FCA urges victims of illegal loan scheme to come forward
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has urged customers who took out a loan with Dharam Prakash Gopee to contact them as they may be eligible for compensation. Mr Gopee was convicted of illegal money-
lending offences in 2018 and sentenced to three and a half years in prison. The FCA began confiscation proceedings against Mr Gopee in order to recover financial benefit he obtained from his criminality. Money recovered under the confiscation order can then be used to compensate victims. Mark Steward, executive director of
enforcement and market oversight at the FCA said: “Mr Gopee preyed on vulnerable people for his own gains. He has now been jailed and now we want to confiscate his criminal proceeds to compensate his victims. We have been in contact with victims already, but we know there are more out there. We ask anyone who borrowed from Mr Gopee to come forward so we can quantify relevant amounts and present the evidence to the court.” Meanwhile, the FCA and the Prudential
Regulation Authority (PRA) have banned and fined Stuart Malcolm Forsyth, the former CEO of a small mutual insurer, £78,318 and £76,180 respectively. The decision-making
committees found, after a joint investigation, that between February 2010 and July 2016 Mr Forsyth transferred excessive amounts of his own remuneration to his wife to reduce tax liability and took steps to conceal this. Mr Forsyth has referred the Decision
Notices to the Upper Tribunal where the parties will present their respective cases. Any findings in the Decision Notices are, therefore, provisional and reflect the FCA’s and PRA’s respective findings as to what occurred and how they consider Mr Forsyth’s behaviour should be characterised. The Upper Tribunal will determine what,
if any, is the appropriate action for the FCA and the PRA to take, and will remit the matter to the FCA and PRA with such directions as the Upper Tribunal considers appropriate to give effect to its determination. The Upper Tribunal's decision will be made public on its website. Accordingly, the proposed actions outlined in the Decision Notices will have no effect pending the determination of the case by the Tribunal. The FCA Decision Notice, which reflects
its view of what occurred, outlines the reasons for the FCA’s decision to ban Mr Forsyth and fine him £78,318 for lacking integrity.
Digitalisation discussion is planned
Senior professionals from the credit and collections industry are to gather to discuss the issues around going digital, which effect their work and responsibilities. The latest of CCRMagazine’s successful
range of discussions will be run in association with Esendex. Stephen Kiely, editor of CCRMagazine,
said: “Digital collections is now an essential part of an industry, which is facing a wide range of pressures, from the need to change and adapt to work with customers for their benefit and to ensure the right customer
December 2019
journeys, all under the public’s gaze and very substantial regulatory framework, which could see them facing significant penalties for any mis-steps. “So we are delighted to, once again, be
working with Esendex to facilitate knowledge- sharing and increased understanding within the industry.”
www.CCRMagazine.com As CEO of Scottish Boatowners Mutual
Insurance Association (SBMIA), Mr Forsyth paid his wife a proportion of his own salary in compensation for providing some out of hours administrative support and occasional hospitality at home. Until 2010, Mrs Forsyth was paid between £5,000 and approximately £10,000 per annum, which was not obviously unreasonable for the work she undertook. From 2010, Mr Forsyth transferred more
of his salary, and, in most years, all or part of his own bonus, to Mrs Forsyth. Between 2010 and 2016, Mr Forsyth
transferred just over £200,000 of his pay to Mrs Forsyth, and by the 2015-2016 tax year, Mrs Forsyth’s remuneration was just over £52,000, more than any other SBMIA employee save Mr Forsyth. As a result of these arrangements, Mr Forsyth paid approximately £18,000 less in income tax than he should have done. SBMIA’s Board and Remuneration
Committee were aware that Mr Forsyth paid a proportion of his salary to Mrs Forsyth but were not aware how much Mrs Forsyth was paid. Mr Forsyth concealed the level of payments from SBMIA’s board and others. In particular: Mr Forsyth created false minutes to give
the misleading impression that SBMIA’s Remuneration Committee had agreed the salaries of both Mr and Mrs Forsyth in 2013, 2014 and 2015. In fact, it had only agreed Mr Forsyth’s salary. In late 2015, after internal concerns were raised about Mrs Forsyth’s remuneration, Mr Forsyth inappropriately involved himself in a subsequent investigation by an external auditor. In 2016, Mr Forsyth responded recklessly
to an information request from the PRA by sending it false Remuneration Committee minutes. Mr Forsyth did not believe that his actions were permissible. He was aware Mrs Forsyth only carried out a limited amount of administrative work and that the amount of her remuneration for the work was unjustified. By deliberately arranging these payments to Mrs Forsyth, Mr Forsyth acted without integrity to his financial benefit.
9
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52