Hi, I've got a court case coming up next month and with a bit of luck i'll be removing 50k from the Spanish treasury!

I'm signed up with currency broker (currency direct) and they can facilitate a transfer from my solcitors bank account. I'm not sure if the court will specify my own bank account?

Any thoughts? I was hoping to set up a euro account though.

I've used Currency Fair and would recommend them. You can set the rate you want to exchange at and wait (and hope) it becomes a reality! No need to set up a euro account, unless of course you want one for future use.

Be careful

Police investigate after Britons lose holiday home money in £10m company collapse

A couple who lost £272,000 say the collapse "stole our future and our dreams" - but they won't get any compensation.

https://news.sky.com/story/police-investigate-after-britons-lose-holiday-home-cash-in-10m-company-collapse-11492763

Very worrying. A lot of people use these kind of companies. 

According to the article, "Victims say they believed their money was deposited in segregated accounts with the company's bankers Barclays, but that was not the case."

CurrencyFair's website says:

"All customer funds are held separately in segregated client accounts with one of the world’s largest financial institutions. These accounts are separate from our corporate accounts and we cannot use them to settle any of our own obligations."

But how can we be sure?

I would advise only transfering small amounts at a time (although this would push the cost up, not to mention the inconvenience), and certainly not leaving any large amount on deposit for more than a few hours. Based on this story, I would only move money to any of these companies with the intention of moving it out as quickly as possible again.

I think these type of companies will take a big hit on this story and the banks will think all their birthdays have come at once.

Although the Financial Conduct Authority did get involved eventually, it doesn’t say a lot for them and so called regulation, plus all the companies that boast they are regulated by them. Maybe they will change their name again to the Arthur Daley Authority. A nice earner for doing nothing.

An informative article by Martin Lewis might be of assistance here.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/foreign-currency-exchange/

Martin quotes the following

“There's NO compensation scheme if a firm goes bust

This is crucial to understand - if you use an online transfer company (or any transfer company that holds your money) and it goes bust while it has your money, there's no guarantee you'll get it back. The regulation of these companies has become tighter in the past few years, but the risk of losing cash still remains.

• If it's 'authorised' - your money is kept separate.

  A large firm trading over €3 million (£2.5 million) a month, must be authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Each day, at the close of business, these firms separate your money from the firm's own accounts (known as ringfencing). This protects your cash, so you should get it back if the firm gets into difficulty.

• If it's 'registered' - there are no safeguards for your cash.

  Smaller firms can choose to be registered. This means there's no safety process if something goes wrong with the firm, meaning your money isn't protected.

To check how a firm is regulated (whether it's authorised or just registered), search for its name on the FCA register. For more information on your protection, this Sending Money Safely leaflet from the Money Advice Service is useful.”

I think people will start trying to use cryptocurrency for this kind of thing. I'll be looking into it myself when i finally get my money back.

ads

Was Premier FX authorised or registered? and where does it say and by whom?

Authorised by the FCA. Should be plastered all over the site, if it is authorised.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/check-a-firms-authorisation-to-send-money-overseas

Kavanagh

I, probably like you, know nothing of this firm but when searching the FCA register on Premier FX it identifies the following....

https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000000NMWNKAA5

Sub Status

In Administration

Perhaps the moral to the story for transferring large amounts of monies is to only use those large companies that do confirm that they are regulated and have a monthly turnover that forces them to be authorised and regulated and safeguard monies at the end of each day by ring fencing.

But also to be aware according to the Money Advice service of the following

“While authorisation means there are certain safeguards on your money, you still won’t be covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).

So if the firm you’re using fails and can’t pay back all the money it owes you, you won’t be able to get compensation through the scheme.

What protection do authorised firms offer?

Firms authorised by the FCA need to safeguard your money by keeping it separate from company funds.

So if the firm goes bust, you are more likely to get your money back.

All larger firms must be authorised. “

But how can one be sure that even authorised firms actually do ringfence your money? If they fail to do so, you won't get compensated, whether they were authorised or not.

Just googled for comparisons and came across this which appears to compare three of the largest transfer companies with three Banks (note the Banks are protected through the PRA scheme).

(https://moneytransfercomparison.com/money-transfer-companies-vs-bank-service/ ):

TL;DR Comparison Results

Roberto

Good question.

I thought that the FCA make it mandatory for large firms to ringfence and safeguard their monies as a condition of being authorised?

I think they're statute backed - meaning your money is protected, even if the company 'lose' your money, up to a certain amount.

Not sure where you got that from Ph68. A couple who lost £272,000 say the collapse "stole our future and our dreams" - but they won't get any compensation.

Even if they were Authorised by the FCA, what were the FCA doing while £10 million went missing? The  FCA failed.

But it can be all bullshit, what they say and what they do can be completely different. Amazing how their website headlines promote they are trustworthy, honest, reliable, related to the Pope. Then buried in the faint print that you can hardly read at the bottom is a vague description of their regulation, but still not a mention that YOUR MONEY IS AT RISK AND NO COMPENSATION SCHEME. That statement should be the headline, and pigs might fly. So much for regulation.

This appears very complex (as with all things connected to financial regulation  )   but for those interested there is a topic on safeguarding within pages 155 to 166 in the FCA website (July 2018 version)

http://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fca-approach-payment-services-electronic-money-2017.pdf

It also appears that the FCA have broadened the scope of regulation on page 8 of the above website - i.e.re details relating to regulation after 12th July 2018.

Totally agree that the element of risk and safeguarding should be highlighted and made far more easy to comprehend and transparent for all to see on these money transfer company websites, but at the end of the day in the absence of good self regulation, we all depend increasingly upon a trustworthy regulatory body for ALL Financial Institutions and e-commerce in this day and age, and make the BOE or Bank of Spain etc far more accountable and complicit with protective ethical standards.

But on a smaller scale and in the interim it helps when the likes of Martin Lewis try to educate and forewarn , and in some instances positively influence reform.

Education and a willingness to help one another (or try to ) is one of the great aspects to this forum.

Ads what you say is correct. I have checked several money transfer websites and cannot find any mention of YOUR MONEY IS AT RISK AND NO COMPENSATION SCHEME, even buried and hidden in the small print.

What on earth are the FCA thinking about when it comes to regulation and disclosure? How many more disasters and cases of fraud do we need in order to get proper warnings of risk.

Because it is not there average Joe Public thinks they are as safe as a bank. Why should we need Martin Lewis to warn us when we as tax payers employ the FCA to do this? It’s a disgrace and sometimes I think the FCA is as corrupt as the rest.

Below, who got fined? Them that did it or the shareholders? How many Bank staff were prosecuted and sentenced?

Lloyds Banking Group

1. In 2014, Lloyds was fined £218 million after adjusting the London interbank offered rate, or LIBOR, for the Japanese yen. It also tried to artificially adjust the rates for the British pound and the American dollar. Much of this was in an attempt to manipulate the market and to provide benefits to some of the preferred clients that Lloyds has been working with in recent years. (Reference: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28528349)

Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS Group)

1. RBS was also fined £399 million in late 2014. This came after the group assisted some customers in efforts to adjust foreign exchange rates to their benefit. (Reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2858418/RBS-asks-staff-help-DIY-branches.html)

Barclays

1. Barclays engaged in some activities to adjust LIBOR rates in recent time. In 2012, Barclays settled on charges stating that it had adjusted LIBOR rates. The bank had been engaging in this activity since around 2005. Several inaccurate rates were sent to investors for their benefit. Barclays was fined a total of £59.5 million for its actions as well as $360 million US from American enforcement agencies for the same issues. (Reference: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/07/06/Libor-gate-Explained-Why-Barclays-Scandal-Matters)

Standard Chartered

1. Standard Chartered engaged in money laundering activities in 2012 by hiding billions of pounds of financial transactions with Iran from the United States. The United States government accused the bank of securing funds with a country that had been known for terrorist activities and fined the bank $300 million US for its actions. (Reference: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/20/standard-chartered-fined-300m-money-laundering-compliance)

Tesco Bank

1. In 2014, the Serious Fraud Office found that Tesco had engaged in actions like mis-selling insurance policies, writing off some of its profits to avoid taxes and delayed a few of those profits in their books. Tesco has been hit with about £382 million worth of impairment charges although the total may be higher depending on how the investigation goes along in 2015 and beyond. (Reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/11214948/Unanswered-questions-in-Tescos-accounting-scandal.html)

Effective disincentives are essential to make Bank executives both sides of the channel fully accountable for compliance with their mission statements within their organisations, if the truth be known. 

The ECB appear to have taken greater control over stability mechanisms since the 2008 crisis, so perhaps the question should be asked why they never did more to regulate in this regard and pay far greater attention to purchasers rights across borders (Bank guarantees) and mortgage rights ( abusive clauses, floor clauses etc ), if trust is ever to be restored. These were real people and not just statistics. And now it appears that money transfer mechanisms are being brought into question in terms of adequate protection to safeguard monies .... what next I wonder?

It’s all too easy to dismiss this by suggesting that it’s for the individual countries to put their own house in order when the EU could have intervened at a far earlier stage and minimised the proliferation of litigation against the Banks, which has significantly compromised the court and judicial system in Spain, let alone the rule of law..... They had the power to use infringement mechanisms but chose to turn a blind eye to the uncomfortable realities, even when presented with credible petitions. You couldn’t write this script.

The implications of lack of Banking regulation and compliance go far wider than first envisaged, as though the financial crisis wasn’t enough!

Ads

Before you can bring about change and rectify anything you need to identify the root cause of the problem, not just the problem. Do you have that knowledge regarding your crusade?

Most people could paint a picture of a perfect world, but not many can identify the root causes why it does not exist.

Have you identified a route to reform Kavanagh when you identify the problems of the Banking realities that you posted....have you contacted the EU Commission and Parliament or the UK or Spanish Government agencies, etc? Have you been proactive in this regard?

If so could you inform what the outcome was.

Ads why don’t you answer the question or at least be honest and admit you do not know?

What is the purpose of contacting anyone until you have identified the root cause of the problem? You may as well join all the other anoraks mouthing off to anybody who will listen.