N.M. Rothschild & Sons has taken the legal defense of the Equity Release (ER) cases in Spain as a matter of life or death.
In a very generous interpretation of Spanish procedural laws that allow parties to bring those witnesses deemed useful in support of their arguments, the following individuals have been lined up for an up and coming Court hearing to take place in Denia:
- Dean Murphy, former boss of Hamilton’s Financial Services, in charge of selling hundreds of fraudulent ER contracts. Currently based in La Cala de Mijas, Málaga.
- Stephen Dewsnip, former manager Rothschild Bank International Limited that operated, knowingly, without a license in Spain. Currently living in West Sussex.
- Peter Rose, former director at Rothschild Bank International Limited, currently living in Guernsey.
- Claire Whittet, currently working for Rothschild Bank International Limited.
- David Shannon, currently working for Rothschild Bank International Limited.
ERVA lawyers have cast doubt over the convenience -for Rothschild- of deposing those who explicitly extolled the false virtues of the Credit Select Mortgages, namely:
- IHT-friendly.
- Fully apt for risk-averse pensioners.
- “Different” from a normal mortgage, as Rothschild would “not look to treating customers as regular borrowers”.
In all logic, those no longer under the umbrella of Rothschild will surely feel that being subjected to harsh cross-examination from the victims’ expert counsel, after moving on with their personal and professional lives, will be both stressful and unnecessary, unless of course their is some financial gain in it.
The Denia judge has the right to use his discretion to decide on the pertinence of Rothschild’s witness requests.
And so the charade goes on. Logically I cannot understand why Rothschild are taking such steps. Surely Rothschild marketing/sales and all there corresponding literature given out to their victims is clear as day. And it cannot be overturned by both past employees or current employees. First, for example the Hacienda (Spanish Tax Office) have deemed that the scheme is anything but IHT tax efficient. Other courts in similar cases against other banks have ruled the same, both on the matter of IHT and other reasons. This scheme is “WHAT IT IS” fraudulent to say the least.
In the real world where integrity is absent … Rothschild can never lose.
And so the charade goes on. What Rothschild can gain from such tactics is hard to comprehend and makes little sense, except of course as anothe delaying tactic. The sales and marketing literature is clear and the benefits stated regarding IHT do not exist as the Tax Office has ruled and has other courts ruled in the past. No Rothschild employee or past employee can overturn this ruling or convince any judge to the contrary. The scheme IS WHAT IT IS” simply FRAUDULENT.
Of course it is FRAUDULENT!! But then the entire banking and financial services industry is fraudulent as are those responsible for policing the scumbags.
Further proof (if proof is needed)
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/watchdog-grill-head-police-lloyds-2645906
I seem to be having the same problem as pjames. Sometimes my post does’nt get accepted. In fact I recently posted a a comment, which for some reason never got posted, so I will try again.
I agree with pjames with all he has posted. It may well be that any defence lawyer can argue the points mentioned in the ERVA post in relation to points 2 & 3. However it would be difficult to argue against the Tax office ruling that these schemes do not mitigate or reduce the IHT content, this is written in “stone”
Other banks have also stated that their scheme also mitigates “Wealth Tax” again this is not the case as I am aware of a member of Erva was charged “Wealth Tax” and what’s more was fined for failing to declare this on the tax return. Is it not a similar matter to IHT?
This is the third time I have tried to post a comment, so it may well be that three similar comments may eventually be posted. I agree entirely with the comments made by pjames. It may well be that a defence lawyer can argue and put up “smoke screens” to argue points 2 & 3 in the Erva post. However it would be difficult to put forth any argument to the Tax Ruling by the Hacienda, where it is stated that these schemes in no way mitigate or reduce IHT. It is a simple fact of life.
Other banks also stated that their similar scheme mitigated “Wealth Tax. Again this is false. Purely and simply that one of Erva members was not only charged “Wealth Tax” but fined for not paying it on time. In other words these schemes do not allow for the mitigation of Taxes. Is this not the same thing.
Well I managed to get 2 out of 3 posts accepted. Again this is the second time I have tried to post this comment. On the first ocasión T the bottom of this comment box where it states ‘I am not a robot this was overlaid by reference to the Landsbanki scheme. When this box was ticked the comment was lost. On this occasion this Landsbanki overlay was not evident. I am wondering whether other members are having the same problem, give up in frustration and do not try to comment. Should Erva admin pick up this post, perhaps they could look into the matter.
And so the charade goes on. Logically I cannot understand why Rothschild are taking such steps. Surely Rothschild marketing/sales and all there corresponding literature given out to their victims is clear as day. And it cannot be overturned by both past employees or current employees. First, for example the Hacienda (Spanish Tax Office) have deemed that the scheme is anything but IHT tax efficient. Other courts in similar cases against other banks have ruled the same, both on the matter of IHT and other reasons. This scheme is “WHAT IT IS” fraudulent to say the least.
1. The written and stated IHT benefits was a lie.
2. There was no real Equity Release, as a year later thet were asking for it back again to cover shortfalls.
3. The initial portfolio of investment funds that were chosen for their promotional slideshow were later switched to a single and different fund unknown to their clients and without their consent.
4. Rothschilds acted against the best interests of their clients, a fundamental obligation for a financial entity.
All the above can be shown of course.
1. Rothschild written and stated IHT benefits was a lie.
2. There was no real Equity Release, as a year later they were asking for it back again to cover shortfalls.
3. The initial portfolio of investment funds that were chosen by Rothschild for their promotional slideshow was later switched to a single and very different kind of fund unknown to their clients and without their consent.
4. Rothschild acted against the best interests of their clients, a fundamental obligation for a financial entity.
All the above can be shown of course.
Surely Steven Dewsnip was really in charge of the selling of the fraudulent ER contracts. Not to mention his presence acting and overseeing at the seminars, the promotional material, the acceptance of the applications and the terms and conditions contained within it, along with the investment fund were all dictated entirely by Rothschild’s. The bogus IFA’s were merely unscrupulous agents recruited by Rothschild, intended as scapegoats when the truth of the fraud was going to be exposed.
Surely Steven Dewsnip was really in charge of the selling of the fraudulent ER contracts. Not to mention his presence acting and overseeing at the seminars, the promotional material, the acceptance of the applications and the terms and conditions contained within it, along with the investment fund were all dictated entirely by Rothschild’s. The bogus IFA’s were merely unscrupulous agents recruited by Rothschild, intended as scapegoats when the truth of the fraud was inevitably going to be exposed.
What about the fact that it is a criminal offence to try to avoid IHT?
…. or selling a financial product in Spain without CNMV approvsl… the list goes on
@Perdida. For the record, it’s not criminal to try to avoid IHT, it’s criminal to evade it. It’s perfectly legal to take steps to mitigate it too. Rothschild’s scheme does not do any of these things, either in Spain or the UK, and they were well aware of that.
Very simple question Dean Murphy was an unregistered IFA in Spain therefore is that even legal under Spanish law.
Phony “financial advisors” in association with illegal “product providers” are always financed by a large international Banks (The multi-million fraudsters Premier Group was backed by RBS).
These crooks have been stealing money from elderly people living in Spain for over 50 years and nobody has been able to effectively stop them. Yet.
For every 1,000 victims less than 1% obtain any compensation for the loss of their homes and lifetime savings. The Banks continue in this theft knowing they will rarely be prosecuted – and this is why when they are subject to Court proceedings they will use their huge £financial muscle to avoid being found guilty.
The Banks have bottomless pockets – and other (less savoury) influences….
Does anybody know when the Rothschild case will come to court in Denia?
Dear Lancelot,
There are several ongoing court cases in Denia, each one has its own hearings.
regards,
Is there any news yet about the court cases in Denia ? And what about the trial which was postphoned to november 12th 2019?
Dear Johanna,
Please note that we are unable to provide you with exact informaiton about court cases in Denia as there are several actions going on in that area. We suggest you contact your solicitor who will be able to provide you with all the details. The same applies to the court case to be held in November in Malaga.
Kind regards
May we expect a summary of yesterdays Trial against Rothschild??.
Good morning.. May we expect a summary from yesterdays Trial against Rothschild?? thanks.