Fairline Dorset Limited---VAT Fraud

[DAKA]

Well, it seems to me that gets to the heart of the issue.

It is really, really difficult from what you write to identify what the "real problems" are. You come up with all sorts of "cases" that involve fraud, misrepresentation and dodgy companies taking deposits and going bust - all general and very common (in the sense that they happen across the whole spectrum of commercial activities), although perhaps not so much in the Boating business compared with other businesses.

Your "solution" is "more regulation" - of what is never clear and a centrallly administered "client account" - even though brokers operate secure (as they can be) client accounts already. The difficulty I have is that neither of these "solutions" is in any way connected with the examples of wrongdoing that you quote, each of which are either well covered by existing laws and regulations or are not specific to transactions involving boats - never mind those where a broker is involved.

I am sure I am not alone in having this difficulty!

I cant believe you have posted that, is this wind up DAKA day...............


An unregulated clients account without a compensation scheme is about as much real protection as a chocolate tea pot.

It is only the integrity of the individual Yacht Broker that prevents him from freely borrowing money from the so called clients account.

I hope anyone reading this thread has now deduced that the integrity of some Yacht Brokers is not all it should be.

If there was compulsory regulation including legislation surrounding clients accounts then the Yacht Broker would be breaking the law if he borrowed from it, a temporary loan would in effect become theft, of course that still wouldnt be a great deal of use if there wasnt a compensation scheme in place.

In the mean time if the Yacht Brokers associations held the client money it would be out of temptation from the Yacht Brokers/employees/administrators (whom have a duty to look for errors in the trust and split it between other creditors).

[Tranona]

I cant believe you have posted that, is this wind up DAKA day...............

No, Pete, it is not a wind up. Just explain how you jump from your motley collection of wrongdoing to the solution being "regulation" - when you have failed to establish that lack of "regulation" -whatever that means is in any way connected with your examples.

YOU HAVE PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE THAT BROKERS "BORROW" MONEY FROM CLIENT ACCOUNTS.

Apologies for the use of capitals, but maybe if the letters were bigger you might get the message and re-assess your position.

If what you suggest is true - that is brokers regularly mishandle clients money (even wider than stealing) I and I am sure many others would agree "something must be done". However, they don't, and the possibility that they could that has come out of the Peters case (years ago!) has resulted in everybody being aware of how clients accounts should operate to avoid what you say might happen (but does not).

In other words you are suggesting a "solution" to a problem that does not exist.

[ari]

I cant believe you have posted that, is this wind up DAKA day...............


An unregulated clients account without a compensation scheme is about as much real protection as a chocolate tea pot.

It is only the integrity of the individual Yacht Broker that prevents him from freely borrowing money from the so called clients account.

I hope anyone reading this thread has now deduced that the integrity of some Yacht Brokers is not all it should be.

If there was compulsory regulation including legislation surrounding clients accounts then the Yacht Broker would be breaking the law if he borrowed from it, a temporary loan would in effect become theft, of course that still wouldnt be a great deal of use if there wasnt a compensation scheme in place.

In the mean time if the Yacht Brokers associations held the client money it would be out of temptation from the Yacht Brokers/employees/administrators (whom have a duty to look for errors in the trust and split it between other creditors).

So given that you've posted up your problem with an osmotic boat (which you were able to resolve through the courts) as an example, can you now tell us how a regulated Clients Account would have helped in your instance please?

[DAKA]

YOU HAVE PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE THAT BROKERS "BORROW" MONEY FROM CLIENT ACCOUNTS.

The judge in the BA Peter's case summing up included that BA Peters did exactly that in order to clear part of their overdraft, once a week the clients account was swept of all funds save a small working balance.
How much more proof do you want.
Alright it might have happened a long time ago but I had to wait for the court case to complete and check an appeal wasnt started before I could submit the proof you have demanded from me.

I can not state other cases YET until they have settled ( you know the mods will delete the thread if I do)

proof here
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254190




.

[jonic]

The judge in the BA Peter's case summing up included that BA Peters did exactly that in order to clear part of their overdraft, once a week the clients account was swept of all funds save a small working balance.
How much more proof do you want.
Alright it might have happened a long time ago but I had to wait for the court case to complete and check an appeal wasnt started before I could submit the proof you have demanded from me.

I can not state other cases YET until they have settled ( you know the mods will delete the thread if I do)

proof here
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254190




.

How may brokerage are 100% legitimate and have no history of wrong doing Pete?

Do you know?

I suggest you pack all this in until you find out.

[DAKA]

How may brokerage are 100% legitimate and have no history of wrong doing Pete?

Do you know?

I suggest you pack all this in until you find out.

Im trying to park it.

I feel my posts are being questioned in accuracy which just forces more dirt into the open.


I accept that placing money in trust with a reputable Broker isnt high risk.
The risk is both small and avoidable.


Now its up to Tranona if he feels the statement is fair and reasonable but I expect round MCIIXii but we will see.

[jonic]

Im trying to park it.

I feel my posts are being questioned in accuracy which just forces more dirt into the open.


I accept that placing money in trust with a reputable Broker isnt high risk.
The risk is both small and avoidable.


Now its up to Tranona if he feels the statement is fair and reasonable but I expect round MCIIXii but we will see.

Excellent now lets all go to the pub

[PaulGooch]

Excellent now lets all go to the pub

Is it your round ?

Don't worry if you're a bit short, you can always borrow some from the client account

[PaulGooch]

<snip>

I am sure I am not alone in having this difficulty!

No, you're not.

Without getting into too much detail, i've often felt there is a need for some regulation. Very basically, i think it should be a requirement to do all of the good and decent things that good and decent brokers like Jonic do voluntarily.

But, i don't see where that has anything to do with VAT fraud, osmosis or flashers.

Bashing brokers in general and calling for regulation on issues that are already regulated well enough (all of the cases Daka quotes were dealt with bye the courts) just detracts from any sensible debate on what might need some regulation.

[PaulGooch]

perhaps someone convicted of £210 vat fraud should be allowed to be a broker but not hold clients funds, I think most prison libraries have adequate facilities to allow him to continue trading if you really feel that is appropriate Paul, but perhaps client funds could be held in a central client account operated by the yacht brokers association or perhaps you could ask the Prison warden if he can look after it for you.

That isn't what i asked, typical Daka distortion.