The Inspector

Private
Messages
12
I'm going to go hypothetical here but still remain factual.

On the basis of legitimacy being true then I4U being set up as a limited company would be for tax purposes as well as the protection that a limited company offers; i.e. personal assets are protected as long as the company is run properly and the directors are not at fault for the failings of the business.

That being said, assuming all "income" generated belongs to the company then I am positive that HMRC would be taking a close look at the tax returns of the director and sole shareholder as the funds to buy a mclaren of approx £133,000 as well as the funds required to be a deposit/pay in full for a new property would have to be extracted through a combination of salary and dividends and would hit the 38.1% bracket.. High income child benefit charge would also kick in but lets not digress with that..

Now if both of said assets are assets of the company then a P11D charge would kick in in April for the car (nice tidy sum to HMRC there) as well as a market value rent for the property (I would hazard a guess at circa £1,000 per month for this) which would no doubt give him an overdrawn loan account (32.5% of balance - HMRC rubbing hands gleefully).

Now a few more facts; a quick search on Companies House shows that there is 1 share in issue with a nominal value of £2; typically we would expect to see 2 shares with a nominal value of £2 so we conclude that the company cannot even be set up properly as I am positive he meant 2 shares worth £1 each (ergo nominal value of £2).

What Dec has also done is set himself up as sole shareholder and director therefore, ultimately, being the sole person to blame and therefore exonerating his girlfriend/wife as no doubt she would just be an employee.

The above is on the basis that a company is run properly however, if it is proven that the actions of a director are the ultimate downfall of a company (negligence, paying Peter to save Paul (i.e. taking company money personally rather than paying creditors), fraud, etc.) then I believe that a limited company does not offer any protection whatsoever over personal assets. As to whether that is just the director's share I do not know as I am not an Insolvency Practitioner.
Until the police finish their inquiries its not known exactly how I4Y operated but they are not an approved investment company as they are as Mike quoted not FSA registered, you will note on companies house website that I4Y need to file their first yearly financial accounts in November 2021 so this will prove exactly what the company achieved in its first year of trading , failure to do this can result in action from the UK regulators, this will also confirm if the company director of I4Y traded the money through the company or through his private account,
Company’s annual accounts - called ‘statutory accounts’ - are prepared from the company’s financial records at the end of the company’s financial year.
You must always send copies of the statutory accounts to:
  • All shareholders.
  • People who can go to the company’s general meetings
  • Companies House
  • HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) as part of your Company Tax Return.
Anyone can access the I4Y company accounts once there submitted these will be on companies house website or pay a small cost to view them.
Obviously there could be winners and losers in this one and anyone that does lose money should ensure they report all gainers to HMRC to ensure they pay their tax on what could turn out to be "Their Money"
I'm sure all investors are aware of the ongoing police inquiry and should really inform the investigating officer of any funding they have put into I4Y or the company directors private or paypal, accounts as this can help speed up the inquiry, and if it does end up going through crown court the judge will look at the honest people first.
 

The Inspector

Private
Messages
12
Spread betting by an individual is tax-free however for a limited company that exemption does not apply however, as per accendomarkets.com, spread betting companies are authorised and regulated by the FCA (being the initial fundamental issue at play with this).

The extraction of funds, regardless of how generated in the first place, out of a limited company would be subjected to Income Tax and apparently HMRC will investigate any reports that are submitted to them directly with regards to Money Laundering. Before anyone does that it should be noted that at the moment everything is purely speculative so no reports should be made right now.

One thing that should also be noted is that there should have been a separate client account to keep client money away from firm's money. Otherwise, how is a firm meant to keep track of what belongs to them and what doesn't?? In theory, client money should be easily returnable once unfrozen however, we still come back to the issue of whether or not trading took place as, from what I have read through the forum, it would appear that no evidence has been provided to prove this fact; unless I have missed that and, if so, I apologise.
If the registered investment company do not supply daily/weekly fund reports they are breaking the trading standard laws as set out by the UK regulators, i have numerous accounts with FCA registered fund accounts and spread betting platforms and have records of every penny going back 30 years, does every investor at I4Y have theirs. ?
no company records can make this a complicated trace mission for the police and regulators,
 

Alkazeal

Private, 1st Class
Messages
58
It's been highlighted to me about the ambiguity in one of my recent posts and I'd just like to highlight that no reports should be made to hmrc at this point but reports should still be made to Action Fraud, SOCA, etc if you feel you need to.
 

Uptheironz

Recruit
Messages
29
I read this email as Sahara handford is confirming his Libertex account is in credit therefore confirming firstly he has got an account and secondly it was trading
 

hoodledudle

Sergeant
Messages
168
I read this email as Sahara handford is confirming his Libertex account is in credit therefore confirming firstly he has got an account and secondly it was trading
1631209717755.png

Why does I4U reject any suggestion of dishonesty these aren't suggestions these are known facts that I4U acted dishonestly.

Fraudulently is yet to be confirmed. He's instructing his solicitor, look at the first sentence in the email, it's entirely possible his legal aid has no idea of the full picture put forward here.

I can commit a crime and tell my solicitor I didn't do it, they'll do what I instruct, you pay for them for that reason.

If you want my interpretation of this letter, it's nothing we've not heard before and is classic speel a legal would throw out looking to protect their client. I mean they are obviously aware the FCA has intervened and essentially shut them down - the rest is damage control in my opinion. It's a no brainer they would deny criminal activity at this point in time, they're probably waiting for any charges to be put forward.

Also the solicitor states 1631210584466.png

What do they mean removed all records from him? Declan has emailed clients during the investigation, why can't he login to the libertex account and just show clients some sort of money - it wouldn't be concrete evidence it's legit but it would be a step forward for him.
 
Last edited:

Ak261

Corporal
Messages
86
But Declan, herself and his lawyer don't have access so how can she confirm it?
Exactly!
I read it as, shifting blame and focus onto something/someone else.
Now it’s the police who are stopping us from getting our money back, not the bank, not libertex, not frozen….
Basically the same pattern as everything else that comes out of Declan’s mouth…
 
Top