Below is an example of an email sent by an IFA, recommended by tax-defrauding N.M. Rothschild & Sons, in respect to the abject performance of the Rothschild Credit Select Series 4 Equity Release product.
The figures reflect three things:
— Confirmation that Rothschild vets all investment service providers before recommending them to their victims, and confirmation that such powers are hardly consistent with Rothschild’s preferred phrase: “WE WERE ONLY THE LENDERS…”
– The inexistent skills of whoever was entrusted with investing the funds.
– The inability of the Rothschild Equity Release product to ever make any progress in respect of providing an income stream, let alone paying the cost of the mortgage (and the IFA).
Dear Mr & Mrs…,
I hope you are well, please find below the quarterly update on your equity release scheme.
Your investment as at 23rd¬†October 2013 was ‚ā¨138,518.70. Your loan balance as at 23rd¬†October 2013 was ‚ā¨331,628.90 the difference between your loan and your investment is ‚ā¨193,110.20. The loan to value is 45.78%, Rothschild will request additional funds from you if this percentage rises above 35%. Loan to value is calculated using 100% of the value of the investment and 35% of the original property valuation.
The current interest rate charged on your loan by Rothschild is 1.723%¬†(including Rothschild margin of 1.50%)¬†ending the 23rd¬†January 2014.
As discussed previously there is a limited choice of approved investments for this scheme and their performances are detailed below:
|Rothschild Cash account
|Aspecta Optima 2
|Aspecta Optima 4
|Ashburton Replica 22nd¬†Oct
|Premier Balanced Fund
If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact
ERVA is considering joining criminal case 527/2011 in Denia (Alicante) pursued against N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Steve Dewsnip and others.
The case seems to have stalled after attempts to deliver Court papers to IFAs failed to materialize (as a result of them not living in those addresses).
Joining this case may help the acting solicitors and their clients by pushing¬†proceedings with fresh new publicity evidence, broker affidavits and other relevant information which has already been filed with the Malaga Courts.
According to an envelope received in the offices of ERVA, Nordea Bank S.A. gave out 75 million Euros worth of mortgage loans in Spain.
It is not clear how much of it was used to finance property acquisitions (some of it was actually used correctly) and how much to defraud the Spanish Tax Office via the renowned Equity Release Scheme programme, consisting of a Spanish mortgage loan and a Unit-Linked insurance policy called Capital Managed Plan.
ERVA is aware that at least 6 Equity Release contracts exchanged in the years 2006-2008, ¬†totalling 9 million Euros.
However, the¬†Spanish Land registry tells us that there are far more, many more…
As an ERVA member put it: “My, my, haven’t they been busy…!!”
Nordea Bank S.A. Luxembourg’s (as well as the Swiss Branch) legal representative has today turned up in the Malaga¬†Court¬†for the pre-hearing stage to face the music. Opposing him was the representative of 6 claimants who were sold the¬†tax-defrauding client-cheating highly-toxic Nordea Equity Release Mortgage & Managed Capital Plan¬†and, as it has turned out to be, the presiding Judge.
The Court was sympathetic to the plight of the claimants and has admitted the following evidence in the case:
- 2 Tax Office resolutions¬†that categorically define Equity Release for tax purposes as tax fraud.
- 1 Notarized document proving that ¬†Nordea¬†removed, maliciously and with premeditation, its fraudulent advertising from its website.
- Expert Witness¬†testimony by a reputed Malaga-based Tax Advisor.
- Testimony by the¬†broker that acted for Nordea, in Denia.
- Request to Nordea¬†to provide the Court with a same document that is on the website that was subsequently removed.
Nordea’s legal representative, on the contrary,¬†did not submit any evidence¬†in support of their position which, considering that the specific law employed in this action (misleading advertising) imposes on them the burden of proving the accuracy of their advertising, might have left them bereft of any legal argument other than an unlikely statute of limitation, particularly considering that they were still advertising…1 month ago.
The Court was not impressed with the allegations that Nordea removed crucial information from their website, an allegation that¬†their lawyer was seemingly not aware of¬†(a textbook case of a client being dishonest with his own lawyer!).
Also, the presiding Judge challenged the objection raised by Nordea’s defence that contended that Nordea Bank S.A. and Nordea Bank Switzerland Branch were 2 separate entities, arguing that it is not admissible to isolate the activities of both `banks¬īwhen they share common infrastructure, use the same lawyers, the same staff at the Marbella Representation Office (our good friend Jesper Hertz) and moreover, when the Swiss website (www.nordea.ch) directs traffic for private banking to the Luxembourg main branch.
Unfortunately, the Court has set the hearing for April 2015 (yes, not 2014) which will¬†regrettably¬†allow Nordea, for at least the next year and half, to carry on with their¬†tax fraud activities in Spain. ¬†