investing4you.co.uk scam forex investment

uptheiron

Corporal
Messages
85
The guy lived in a £60,000 house bought for him by his mum and dad. He was broke. It was 6 months AFTER setting up i4u, and taking in everyone else’s money, that his “wealth” appeared. The only “investment” he made was in his swanky new house and car. There is no evidence of anything else especially forex related.
 

LINCS007

Recruit
Messages
2
Whilst I have read in abject horror the utter nonsense and absolute speculative posts in this thread, I have never posted here. That quite obviously is about to change. The last time I checked, we live in a country where persons suspected of criminality remain innocent until proven guilty. Such underpinning ensures not only that due legal processes are required to convict those who are guilty, but also acts to protect those who are innocent. To my knowledge, there has been zero evidence offered to date from either the banks, the FCA nor the police, yet a large proportion of "we're all doomed" posters on here are already to fix the noose! Many of you should have your fingers and toes crossed as many of the posts on here are clearly libellous in context and if this ain't a "scam", then you boys gonna be in trouble as fake names can't hide your respective IP addresses. To all those who have invested, sit tight and let the authorities and other third parties do their thing, the outcome will be what it will be. To all the clever boys and gals revelling in antagonising or adding to the concerns of people who invested, you should be utterly ashamed of yourselves. In fact, you should do humanity a favour and crawl back underneath whatever pathetic rock you were previously hiding under and stay there. Nuff said.
 

MikeFair

Corporal
Messages
102
The last time I checked, we live in a country where persons suspected of criminality remain innocent until proven guilty.

To my knowledge, there has been zero evidence offered to date from either the banks, the FCA nor the police, yet a large proportion of "we're all doomed" posters on here are already to fix the noose.

The FCA have taken https://investing4you.co.uk down. This is not a trivial process and requires the correct process to be followed - I posted example documentation of this before in this thread and requires the FCA to have a legitimate reason for them to make the request - such as laws being broken.

As for Declan being guilty / not guilty.

Declan was/is in breach of Section 19 and 21 of FSMA.


Under section 19 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) a person is not permitted to carry on a regulated activity unless they are authorized by the FCA or they are an exempt person. This is often referred to as the general prohibition. The activities which are regulated by the FCA are set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (see above link).

Breach of the general prohibition is a criminal offense under FSMA and arrangements entered into can be unenforceable, as such, the consequences of getting it wrong can be significant.

So Declan was in breach of the general prohibition which is a criminal offence, is that guilty enough for you?

"People who carry on regulated activity and are ignorant of the law, even if reasonably so, should be more at risk because they are more of a danger to the public."
 

LINCS007

Recruit
Messages
2
The FCA have taken https://investing4you.co.uk down. This is not a trivial process and requires the correct process to be followed - I posted example documentation of this before in this thread and requires the FCA to have a legitimate reason for them to make the request - such as laws being broken.

As for Declan being guilty / not guilty.

Declan was/is in breach of Section 19 and 21 of FSMA.


Under section 19 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) a person is not permitted to carry on a regulated activity unless they are authorized by the FCA or they are an exempt person. This is often referred to as the general prohibition. The activities which are regulated by the FCA are set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (see above link).

Breach of the general prohibition is a criminal offense under FSMA and arrangements entered into can be unenforceable, as such, the consequences of getting it wrong can be significant.

So Declan was in breach of the general prohibition which is a criminal offence, is that guilty enough for you?

"People who carry on regulated activity and are ignorant of the law, even if reasonably so, should be more at risk because they are more of a danger to the public."
In answer Mr Fair, no that is not sufficient. The regulations as stipulated by law and as regulated by the FCA are, as you are fully aware highly complex. The fact that the FCA intervened and thereafter instructed the company to cease its activities merely confirmed non compliance. In your own post "the consequences of getting it wrong can be significant", can being the operative word. That being the case, in the fullness of time we will all find out, as to this point the FCA has not to my knowledge commenced legal proceedings, nor have the police confirmed any criminality. In fact, there lies my point, the judge, jury, executioners and yourself on here are trying to pre-emt ongoing due process to establish factual information. Whilst I know this post will fall upon deaf ears and the doom mongers will continue, I state again, the individual(s) concerned remain innocent until proven otherwise.
 

MikeFair

Corporal
Messages
102
Across the UK most common sensed people have somewhat of a grasp of right and wrong and some basic understanding of the law. It's hardly pre-emptive of myself to say that if I or someone else breaks the law that they could be held accountable and make an assumption on the laws which have been broken.

If someone breaks into a house and steals a TV, I can make a pretty good pre-emptive assumption that they could be in court one day for breaking and entering and theft.

A cursory look over the General Prohibition law and how the FSMA is applied shows carrying on regulated activities when not authorized or exempt is against the law.

There has been Website, Facebook, Instagram, Bank Statements, Mobile Applications, Statements produced by I4U and so on which all show Declan was either carrying on or portraying that he himself was carrying on regulated activities.

Take your pick

1) Declan was carrying on regulated activities when not authorized which is against the law.
2) Declan was not carrying on regulated activities but claiming that he was which would be fraud.
3) Declan did nothing wrong, and the FCA are mistaken and should remove the warning on their website.

You are correct the Police not pursue the case (still does not mean he was doing something against the law just because he got away with it) and Declan remains innocent until proven otherwise.

The legal burden of proof is of course on the prosecution in court (should it ever get there) which must present the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty / every man will have his day in court.

Until that day though we can all sit here and speculate, none of us are experts so what does it matter if we have a good chin wag on here or down the pub.
 

Pharaoh

Colonel
Messages
20,146
Do you know what will happen when investors who have taken far more money out than they put in, and have spent it all, will they have to pay any of it back? Eg. Invested 10k , spent 60k.

Justice would be that ill-gotten gains cannot be retained, even if the recipient was ignorant. For you this sucks, but imagine how the person who put in 50k and got nothing out would feel about you keeping 50k of profits.

Exact rulings in a case like this depend on how the judge interprets the law. I strongly suggest you consult a lawyer.

No he doesn’t he can only speculate

I'd already suggested checking with a lawyer some time back. In the meantime, allow me to thank Uptheironz (aka Captain Obvious) for adding another pointless jibe to thread.

Do you know why paypal would allow a refund as such then?
People are still made to believe they will receive money back early 2022 as told by solicitors/dec. How can they say such things if all is false. Cannot figure this out.

Paypal refunds are very unpredictable. I've seen cases of clear (and far less obvious) fraud get rejected and I've seen cases where the recipient of the cash did everything right only to lose the payment to a malicious complaint. Paypal has policies, but the employees interpreting those seem to have widely varying views on what they say.

There have been so many promises of when the money will be released. At this stage, at least trying with Paypal (or your bank if you wired cash) seems like a better path than sitting around feeling hopeful.

Whilst I have read in abject horror the utter nonsense and absolute speculative posts in this thread, I have never posted here. That quite obviously is about to change. The last time I checked, we live in a country where persons suspected of criminality remain innocent until proven guilty. Such underpinning ensures not only that due legal processes are required to convict those who are guilty, but also acts to protect those who are innocent. To my knowledge, there has been zero evidence offered to date from either the banks, the FCA nor the police, yet a large proportion of "we're all doomed" posters on here are already to fix the noose! Many of you should have your fingers and toes crossed as many of the posts on here are clearly libellous in context and if this ain't a "scam", then you boys gonna be in trouble as fake names can't hide your respective IP addresses. To all those who have invested, sit tight and let the authorities and other third parties do their thing, the outcome will be what it will be. To all the clever boys and gals revelling in antagonising or adding to the concerns of people who invested, you should be utterly ashamed of yourselves. In fact, you should do humanity a favour and crawl back underneath whatever pathetic rock you were previously hiding under and stay there. Nuff said.

Someone shot multiple students in a school in the US this week, resulting in several deaths and more injuries. A suspect has been arrested. Despite the overwhelming evidence, he's not technically a criminal until he's convicted, but that doesn't mean we don't know a crime was committed and that all the evidence points to him. Maybe there will be a plot twist where it turns out he's innocent and has an evil twin. In the meantime, I think keeping him locked up before he goes on trial is a very wise move. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not the equivalent of "No criminal actions took place and no one can discuss who is likely to be the culprit" before a trial is complete. Justice is supposed to be blind, but justice is not supposed to be stupid.

This thread has examples of Dec providing incorrect information about his company's relationship with the FCA. The reports of at least some banks refunding money to clients is a strong indicator that the banks feel that fraud has taken place.

Had there been no warnings in this thread, chances are that even more people and money would have been sucked in and it would likely have taken longer for the authorities to step in.

This thread began by showing impossible rates of return along with zero proof of actual profitable trading. To not warn people of an investment that raises the red flags of a Ponzi scheme is something only a shameful person reveling in "profits" that were only achieved via the power of Ponzi would do.
 

forexforyou2021

Private, 1st Class
Messages
69
In answer Mr Fair, no that is not sufficient. The regulations as stipulated by law and as regulated by the FCA are, as you are fully aware highly complex. The fact that the FCA intervened and thereafter instructed the company to cease its activities merely confirmed non compliance. In your own post "the consequences of getting it wrong can be significant", can being the operative word. That being the case, in the fullness of time we will all find out, as to this point the FCA has not to my knowledge commenced legal proceedings, nor have the police confirmed any criminality. In fact, there lies my point, the judge, jury, executioners and yourself on here are trying to pre-emt ongoing due process to establish factual information. Whilst I know this post will fall upon deaf ears and the doom mongers will continue, I state again, the individual(s) concerned remain innocent until proven otherwise.
O dear the clowns are out again!! hahaha.. what on earth are you on about?? what part of " everyone's" money has GONE don't you get.?? if not then tell who evers got it to return it in time for Christmas so they can buy there kids some well deserved gifts. ..its ISNT held etc think that's more then clear now..so bidding time and stretching out the con isn't looking good for anyone..

It was a con from the start ..for many easy to see, for some not so much. Like the guy says above ..the CEO of investing4you was a broke bum before everyone handed their cash to him. Which he rapidly spent like a guy who's never had a pot to p**s in!! although claiming to trade for 5 years? as well as deliver food for tescos. now if the penny hasn't dropped yet then more fool you. like I've said before, fair play to this guy for pulling it off and still be able to dangle that golden carrot,;)
 

Real dude

Private
Messages
18
Are there any actual legal updates or emails from p.c banks with investigation updates? Prefer these to assumptions ...wrong has been done the rest or what has been done we know not at present. Any how's any updates from solicitor or the 'fuzz' ? Crypto is a good investment though....just saying.
 
Top