The Malaga Mercantile Court yesterday held a hearing on ocassion of a misleading advertising case against Nordea Bank Luxembourg S.A. and its Swiss branch.
An overweight Jesper Hertz, for the defendants, lied to the Court shamelessly. He confirmed that the bank had never offered any tax or fiscal advertising, information or otherwise to clients and that all they did was offer investment advice. Jesper’s dishonest intervention depicted a scenario of deceipt and will be remembered as the worst example of the hypocrisy and underhandedness of today’s bankers.
Nordea’s legal advisor questioned the quality of “advertising” of the promotional literature, stating that it made it clear that such information was not advice, but a mere guidance.
They also referred to the date on the main booklet (2008), arguing that it would have been impossible for claimants to have relied on it.
Finally, they dismissed the information provided to customers as mere investment guidance, arguing that it was the loss of such investments that had prompted the Nordea’s clients to sue the bank, and nothing else.
Claimants were able to prove that Nordea extensive tax advertising was misleading, confusing and inaccurate with the aid of 2 Tax Office binding rulings, the expert witness opinion brought in by the claimants (Carlos Jimenez Dengra) and an abscence of any proof to the contrary by Nordea, save for half-hearted attempts to discredit the evidence brought in by the victim’s legal team.
With respect to the booklet date, it was held in Court that previous brochures (2005 and 2006) had inspired the 2008 booklet for identical paragraphs appear on both sets of promotional advertising. It was also held that no where in the advertising did Nordea Bank discuss the product as being an investment proposition but rather, a tax planning tool for the inheritors.
The case is ready for sentencing.
When “advice” is not “advice”.
I was present at a meeting between a friend and a man representing an Isle of Man based “financial product provider”. The “representative” claimed that he was not offering “advice” but “information” about his range of “investment funds”. However, as the conversation ranged over different financial products and the options available to my friend, we both felt that, whatever the claimed interpretation, the man appeared to be delivering advice rather than simple information.
This blurring of the distinction between “information” and “advice” is prevalent the financial services industry and is intended to deliberately confuse consumers into thinking that they are receiving one thing, when in fact what they are officially being given is something rather different.
There are “financial product providers” on the one hand and “professional financial advisers”, on the other, both offering consumers the benefits of their “technical information” and “research data”.
Investors could be forgiven for failing to spot the difference between “providers” and “advisors”…
But the distinction is vital because consumers should be crystal clear about whether they are receiving financial advice or not. If they mistakenly think they are, they could be lulled into a false sense of security about the appropriateness of the product they are buying.
Financial product providers like Luxemburg based Nordea Bank and the Isle of Man based Premier Group are not exactly unhappy about the blurring of distinctions…. because as soon as things go wrong, as they clearly have with the product provider Nordea Bank Luxembourg S.A, then Nordea can claim that they were NOT advising the consumer but merely offering “information”.
This trick is sanctioned by the governments of both Luxemburg and the Isle of Man and it allows blame for misrepresenting financial products to be passed onto the “financial advisors” leaving the “product provider” to appear completely innocent… The final trick is to ensure that financial advisors handling the products disappears into thin air at the first sign of trouble; leaving the injured consumer with nobody to sue.
Companies like Nordea Bank will always issue a disclaimer that none of the information they provide should be construed as amounting to a recommendation or advice. But cynics rightly claim that if it looks like advice, sounds like advice and feels like advice, then all consumers are going to consider that it is advice.
The fraudsters who operate these scams and the dishonest governments who condone them are a bunch of crooks. And they have no scruples about stealing the life savings of defenceless pensioners.
You have been warned!
Fully agree. These conmen try and wriggle out of taking responsibility for their illegal practices by claiming they were “not giving advice” and that they were “only giving out information”.
And when their “products” are revealed as being fraudulent scams they tell their victims that “they did not advise them to buy the product” and that they should blame their “financial advisor” who by then has left the country!
And the “financial regulators” in the wretched tax havens from where this scum operate condone this practice. May all those who rob elderly people via these schemes rot in Hell.
Just a little late with the warning surely, hindsightt is a great thing. Also the word “cynics” could be sustituted by “in reality” IMHO.
There is no question that he lied in court, however as he was the defendant he is allowed to lie under Spanish law. I know that to us Brits this goes against the grain, however this stems from the Spanish Inquisition I believe. Hat is how archaic the laws are in Spain. Stangely enough, if called as a witness then he cannot tell lies and will be punished by the court if found out. On another tract be it advice or information why publish such inforemation anyway unless it was intended that the victim should rely on it, which was the case.
Members of erva were in court for the hearing and we can tell you categorically that Jesper Hertz lied to the court. Well we have come to expect nothing less than these tactics from Nordea Bank . If only the court system would have allowed Lawbird to produce witnesses that Hertz had had sold these products to and explained that by entering into such a scheme there would in their opinion be considerable tax savings both Inheritance & Wealth Tax, then his lies would have been exposed. Should Jesper Hertz or and Nordea Bank feel they have been unjustly defamed by this post, then they are at liberty to sue us. Bet they don’t though.
How come Lawbird are not allowed to produce witnesses?
Is that the Judge’s decision or is that normal in a Civil case?
Can anyone answer that question?
Which ever way you look at it it mislead victims to signing up for an illegal tax evading scheme. Having read all the posts and evidence it is as plain as day. Then you have a Sh1t called Hertz standing up and denying everything on behalf of the bank beggars belief. If you have followed this story over the years like I have it warrants a little air time.
We have seen that Hertz paid regular visits to the Alicante region peddling this product. Convincing victims through his avertising to sign up for this illegal scheme. Then when they could not make the investments work having lost half of the clients money pulled the rug and foreclosed on the properties. What makes it worse is that one of the victims as was reported in the past was suffering from cancer and Hertz foreclosed on this person. What kind of person and from under which rock did he appear. Does he have a mother and father for instance or a family of his own. I wonder if he can sleep at night knowing the hardships he has caused. Hertz you are nothing but a big shit and you should go to confessional very week to cleanse your soul.
Hi Sarah
You write “when they could not make the investments work having lost half of the clients’ money pulled the rug and foreclosed on the properties.”
That the totally useless “investments” should “work” was the last thing these thieves cared about … simply because they were holding the deeds to the victims houses as security! .
By handing the equity released from the re-mortgage of innocent people´s homes to incompetent fund managers/operators (such as the Isle of Man based Premier Group) these fraudsters obtain huge commissions … this on top of the commissions and charges already received by greedy conmen, bank sharks, bent lawyers and any other crook who could get their hands on the money as it passed along the fraudulent chain.
These “investments” are not “investments” at all, but clearing houses to feed all the parasites involved in robbing elderly and innocent people. All sanctioned by dishonest “governments” in grubby tax havens like Luxemburg and the Isle of Man.
Never EVER trust a “financial advisor”.
Never EVER trust an “investment fund”.
And never EVER place your savings in a tax haven!
Well said and I could not agree more. Let us hope that the Judge sees through this mans lies and rules accordingly.
How come nobody answers the questions posed …..
What is the point in using all these “superlatives” … does that serve any purpose? Do you think they read these posts and then loose sleep over the name-calling??
Why could Lawbird not produce any witnesses?
What is the point in all these angry comments that no banker will read or care about!
Action is what we need. Bigt demonstrations that attract attention worldwide, something memorable!!
Who comes up with some good ideas instead of all this moaning and whining on paper!!!
Whistleblower how right you are. In fact Erva had a demonstration some three years ago at the Tax Office in Malaga. Although Erva tried desperately to get people there it wasn’t particularly well supported. Since then Erva has tried many times to arrange demonstrations with little interest from the members. Unfortunately this leaves us the only way we can show our disgust at the way people are being treated. Whilst not ideal it is better than nothing.