Regulation

Mortgage broker walks free after landmark FSA ban & fine

July 19th, 2012

The first ever mortgage broker to be banned and fined by the FSA for mortgage fraud has walked free from court, the release resulting from her depression.

Sadia Nasir attempted to steal more than £100,000 by submitting false loan applications to Halifax bank. Nasir entered her own bank account details on the forms relating to two properties in London and Manchester and also used a fake name for the homeowner supposedly applying for the mortgage, reported London24.

The court heard that further investigation revealed that Nasir, the Director of Sucasa London Ltd, stood to gain £44,000 on one address at 79 Pittman Gardens, Ilford, East London, and £58,907 on the second at 132A Tempus Building, Manchester.

Despite the jury finding Nasir, 30, had committed the scam, following a two-day hearing at the Old Bailey, it was prevented from finding her criminally responsible after she was earlier ruled unfit to plead.

In July 2008, the FSA banned Nasir and fined her £129,000 after finding she had been involved in the numerous fraudulent mortgage applications highlighted above. This was the first time the FSA had both banned and fined a mortgage broker for mortgage fraud.

Nasir was FSA approved and director of a firm called London Mortgage and Financial Services Limited, which traded as House of Finance. It was then named Sucassa.

The FSA had found that Nasir:

* Submitted seven mortgage applications containing false information about her own employment and earnings supported by falsified documents;
* In four instances entered her own bank details on mortgage applications for clients;
* Deliberately withheld sections of an application form from FSA investigators, failed to disclose to the FSA information relating to a County Court Judgment made against her in September 2005 and failed to disclose the true extent of her assets in an authorisation application to the FSA.

Margaret Cole, former Director of Enforcement and Financial Crime at the time and last Managing Director at the FSA, said: “Ms Nasir’s actions were particularly serious and blatant, and she poses an immediate risk to lenders.”

Nasir also was the subject of another record when in July 2009, the FSA secured a bankruptcy order in the High Court against her for non-payment of the £129,000 financial penalty levied on her by the FSA a year previously for mortgage fraud. This was the first time the FSA had taken bankruptcy proceedings for an unpaid financial penalty levied on an Approved Person.

This month, Judge John Bevan QC told jurors detaining Nasir in hospital was “not appropriate because she is being cared for in the community for a long-term, deep depression.”

He added: “The only sentence I can sensibly pass is one of an absolute discharge.

“It is certainly an unusual trial, but it is not a waste of time because there are cases in which there is a genuine issue in which a person who didn’t do it could find themselves in a mental hospital when they haven’t done anything wrong.”

Catherine Farrelly, prosecuting, said she denied playing any part in either of the applications and had no idea where these false documents had come from.

Nasir explained that even if it was a member of her staff, all of the transactions had to be carried out in her name as she was the director of the company and money goes into her personal bank account.

Farrelly stated: “She said at the time in 2007 she had been heavily pregnant and was not in a position to know what was going on.”

Nasir refused to name any of her staff but did accept that two of the addresses used in support of one mortgage application were her home and her mother’s home.

“In essence the prosecution say it was Sadia Nasir who was behind these two frauds,” said Farrelly.

She added: “She was the person who stood to gain and it was very much in her interest for these frauds to be effected.

“It is quite clear it was this defendant who was behind both of these fraudulent applications.”

Nasir, of Gardiner Road, Plaistow, was charged with two counts of fraud by false representation between March 1 and March 7, 2007.

The jury had ruled that she “did the act” on each count.

Bookmark and Share

FSA concerned over advisers ‘circumventing’ commission ban

July 12th, 2012

Concerns have been raised by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) about the effectiveness of its commission ban relating to distribution deals. The regulatory body has stated that one of the primary aims of the retail distribution review (RDR) is to “address the potential for adviser remuneration to distort consumer outcomes”.

As a consequence, the FSA has been looking closely at the advise meted out by firms, and, in its latest RDR newsletter highlighted that it has found “…a number of firms that seem to be looking for ways to circumvent the adviser charging rules. This includes soliciting or providing payments that do not look like traditional commission, but are generally intended to achieve the same outcome – to secure distribution”.

The FSA continued: “We have always said that we would take any necessary action to deter firms from frustrating the intended market outcomes. We are considering ways to reinforce our expectation that firms can only be remunerated by adviser charges in relation to their new advisory business.”

The body has subsequently conducted a review and is warning firms against:

  • Failing to consider customer’s wider financial circumstances resulting in financial detriment;
  • Recommending switching to new products without due consideration of the associated costs;
  • Inadequate or inappropriate documentation of suitability;
  • Failing to fully consider the clients’ risk appetite or capacity for loss;
  • Failing to obtain full Know Your Customer information; and
  • Failing to fully consider tax efficient alternate solutions.

If the FSA finds evidence of these sorts of actions it will take action as required.

Advisory firms have been further warned by the regulator in respect of retaining the title of ‘independent’ if they are, in fact, restricted with regard to the advice they offer.

The FSA clarified that an independent advice firm: “Advises on all relevant retail investment products which could meet the investment needs and objectives of a retail client,” and “provides independent advice within a certain market and makes it clear that this is the case”. In contrast, a restricted advice firm: “Must tell the client that it provides ‘restricted advice’, must explain the nature of the restriction” and “must not use ‘independent’ to describe its advice”.

Bookmark and Share

Mortgage adviser’s 69 lies about FSA permissions

July 5th, 2012

A mortgage adviser’s FSA permissions have been removed after the regulator found that he continued to advise clients even though he was not permitted to do so. He also reportedly lied to clients about having professional indemnity (PI) insurance.

According to financial publication Citywire, a total of 69 mortgage transactions were completed by mortgage adviser Christopher Riches, who worked for Fairway Mortgages based in Essex, after he had his permissions amended in January 2012 to exclude his ability to carry out regulated transactions.

In addition to this, the FSA reportedly found that Mr Riches had submitted false documents and misleading information which stated he had PI insurance – including three Regulated Mediation Activities Returns – when he did not.

The FSA supervisory notice said: “Mr Riches has conducted regulated activities despite not having the permission to do so over a prolonged period of time, and therefore has failed to conduct his business with honesty and integrity, or in compliance with proper standards and he therefore no longer satisfies the FSA that he is a fit and proper person to conduct regulated activities.”

It continued: “Mr Riches has repeatedly provided false and misleading information to the FSA, and as such Mr Riches presents a significant risk to consumers.”

Bookmark and Share

FSA amends firms’ incidental business guidelines

July 3rd, 2012

Regulated professional firms could be providing their clients with less protection than their non-regulated counterparts when conducting business that falls outside of regulatory remit. This has prompted an FSA consultation which proposes to amend the guidelines under which regulated firms conduct non-regulated business.

The FSA [in consultation paper CP12/11] is proposing to remove a rule which “allows authorised professional firms under five designated professional bodies to carry out non-mainstream regulated activity (NMRA) without being subject to rules from those bodies.”

Regulated companies who also undertake some non-regulated business can only do so under NMRA, whereas non-regulated firms are “…exclusively regulated by their designated professional body.”

NMRA was created because, “…a firm cannot be both authorised and exempt. Some professional firms were authorised in order to undertake mainstream regulated activity, but also wished to do some incidental business. NMRA allowed them to do this incidental business on a level playing field with an exempt firm, (i.e. without it being subject to the rules for mainstream activity).

“The rationale was that the designated professional bodies would regulate NMRA to the same extent that they regulate the financial services activities of exempt professional firms.”

However, problems arose when the FSA became aware that regulated firms “…are not in fact subject to rules for NMRA under those bodies. The majority of FSA rules are disapplied for NMRA.”

This means that an FSA-regulated firm could be giving consumers less protection then a non-regulated firm when conducting non-regulated business as there are very few guidelines that govern this kind of activity.

The FSA concluded that “…If this gap is allowed to persist, consumers will lack protection for business conducted as NMRA. In particular, they are not subject to complaints handling and redress requirements from which clients of exempt professional firms benefit.”

Any changes to these particular rules will not come into force until April 2013, however the FSA proposes that “…the gap could be filled either by us making rules or by each of the five affected designated professional bodies doing so. The present consultation is aimed at applying our rules to address the possible consumer detriment.”

Feedback to this consultation should reach the FSA by 6th August 2012.

 

Bookmark and Share

SMEs get financial crime warning

August 31st, 2011

The FSA recently compiled and published a Consultation Paper that contains financial crime guidance for small firms, highlighting ways in which small firms need to protect themselves from becoming embroiled in data theft cases, fraudulent loans or corruption.

The guide is based upon all the research the FSA have carried out regarding system controls and good and poor practises within regulated financial services firms, including its 2010 ‘The Small Firms and Financial Crime Review’ – aimed at establishing the extent to which small firms across the industry addressed financial crime risks in their businesses.

The FSA, which supervises around 16,500 small firms, visited 159 of these across wholesale and retail sectors for the review. It covered three main areas – anti-money laundering/financial sanctions, data security and fraud controls – its new guidance highlights the weaknesses it found and gives guidance on improvement.

These include, among many other, simple failings such as no background checks before appointing staff, no checking of qualifications and references for staff and not knowing how to report to the Serious Organised Crime Association(SOCA).

In the first half of the year cases of identity fraud rose by 11 per cent and experts warned stealing someone’s personal and financial details was like ‘a licence to print money’.

Ray Cohen, managing director of Jackson Cohen, agrees: “Firms are being much more careful now than they were before – but that doesn’t mean attempted fraud isn’t up.

“It’s hard to measure but there is still a level of attempted fraud that comes consistently.”

Jonathan Newman, senior partner of Brighstone Law LLP, believes these types of crimes are definitely on the up, he says: “There is a significant rise in financial fraud. Downturn in the economy is one reason, but there are others. The computerisation of Land Registry records, the increase in distance transactions, the rise in non-owner-occupied properties have contributed to increased opportunity for the property-savvy fraudsters.”

Ray Cohen stresses that it may be difficult for small firms to keep up with high quality system controls as they don’t have a big fraud department, however the necessity is definitely there.

“Big issues are data protection – homeless people get paid ten pounds for any piece of data they can find in a rubbish bin or city dumpster – this is big business – ID fraud is one of the biggest growing crimes around and it doesn’t just apply to the mortgage industry, it applies across everything.”

Gavin Diamond, head of finance at Cheval, agrees these practises should be standard: “These guidelines are really just good business practises that should be adopted by all companies, whether they are FSA regulated or not.

“Each of our members of staff has a guide to our anti-money laundering prevention procedures and we run annual refresher seminars for all staff members.”

Recently there have been several high profile cases where the FSA, finding negligence, have fined companies.

They fined Willis Limited £6.895 million in July for failings in its anti-bribery and corruption systems and controls. In January it fined the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and National Westminster Bank (NatWest) £2.8m for multiple failings in the way they handled customers’ complaints.

An FSA spokesperson said: “There is no cap on the amount we can fine a company or no minimum, although we do take the size of the firm into account and we look to fine proportionately to the size of the business.”

Even if firms aren’t regulated by the FSA they are still accountable to other bodies, such as the police, and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

A spokesperson for the ICO, which works alongside the FSA, outlined what they do: “The ICO has an important role in regulating the seventh data principle – security.

“The ICO has dealt with a number of companies in cases where data has been disclosed recklessly, leading to monetary penalty notices. In November 2010 a monetary penalty of £60,000 was issued to employment services companyA4e Limited for the loss of an unencrypted laptop which contained personal information relating to 24,000 people who had used community legal advice centres in Hull and Leicester.”

It is imperative, especially in times of financial unrest like these, to keep highlighting the fundamental need for a high standard of security and systems in place to protect small firms – and indeed their valuable reputations – from fines and embarrassment, not to mention legal implications, of being embroiled in very prevalent issues such as ID fraud and general financial crime.

For more advice visit the FSA’s website for the guidance in full.

Bookmark and Share

Broker vs FSA: The £1.7m battle continues

May 27th, 2011

A broker trying to sue the FSA for libel for up to £1.7 million has requested that their latest defence be rejected.

Adam Lucas, the former owner of People Loans, is suing the FSA for loss of revenue and damage to his businesses reputation.

The broker, who had his regulatory permissions cancelled, has challenged the FSA’s decision due to errors on their part related to the treatment of the case.

Mr Lucas, who claimed in February the FSA libelled him by publishing a defamatory decision notice, has had his ability to conduct regulated business frozen.

Mr Lucas failed to pay £1,349.41 in fees and levies which he owed to the FSA which resulted in the decision to cancel his permission to carry out regulated activities. According to the notice these payments were missed “despite repeated requests”.

After the authority publicised the decision on their website, Mr Lucas claims that this was unjust and there were errors in the handling of the case.

Mr Lucas believes that a case for such a substantial sum should have been held in front of a high court judge.

He also claims the date his permissions were cancelled was May 8 2010, which did not match up with the details published in a press release dated March 9 2010.

He is calling for the FSA’s defence to be rejected because the hearing was held in master’s chambers and not in front of a judge.

Mr Lucas does not believe that he was treated according to the specified guidelines; as well as appearing on the regulator’s website in a press notice, his case was widely reported in financial publications.

The FSA claims it removed the notice dated  March 8 from their website and did not issue a press release regarding the case.

The case continues.

Masthaven – FSA regulated bridging loans

Bookmark and Share

New Head of CPMA set to change the face of regulation

February 8th, 2011

The Government has announced that Martin Wheatley will become chief executive designate of the Consumer Protection and Market Authority (CPMA). His formal appointed will be made at the end of 2012 when the new body has been established.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) also announced that Mr Wheatley would become the new managing director of the FSA’s consumer and markets business unit from 1st September 2011. He will work with the current FSA executive team as the FSA prepares its transition to the new regulatory structure.

Ray Cohen, compliance expert and MD of Jackson Cohen,  explained: “All brokers will be regulated by the CPMA after the transition. Only time will tell how things will change as Mr Wheatley will be setting the tone of the body over the coming months.”

Changes in regulation are part of the wider reform of the financial regulatory system set out by George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Mansion House speech last summer. Further details on the proposed changes to the structure are due to be set out following a consultation at the end of the month, and by the end of 2012 all aspects of the new regulatory structure should be established.

Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mark Hoban said:“I am very pleased that Mr Wheatley has agreed to join the FSA to help it transition to the new CPMA. He will help shape the new body to be an effective and focused conduct of business regulator, ensuring that consumers of financial services are protected and financial markets work effectively.

“This appointment is a key step in the establishment of the CPMA. Mr Wheatley is a widely respected regulator and extremely well-qualified to take on this vital role. His responsibilities in Hong Kong have included dealing with complex retail and wholesale market issues in one of the world’s leading international financial centres. He also has a strong track record in protecting consumers, for example dealing with the investment product mis-selling which has emerged in Hong Kong in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers in late 2008.”

Martin Wheatley is also pleased with his new role. He said: “I am delighted to join the FSA and the future CPMA and look forward to working with the Bank of England and the Treasury to create the new regulatory structure.”

Bookmark and Share