Reminds me of the Dana Stevens story - apparently the real Wolf of Wall Street character. Maybe Rufus simply had his money taken by bad investments. Very easily done to get done by slippery city types. Maybe they saw him coming.
Anyone know what sort of punishment/time could be done if found guilty of something like this?
Yes. But, frankly, it is pointless to set the options out as there are many and there are too many variables/unknowns to even begin to speculate.
What I will say is that investigating financial irregularities is always difficult and this is doubly so when a close-knit religious community is involved. (I've experience of three such matters - two led to prison sentences and one didn't). Witness testimony is crucial and members of such communities are invariably reluctant to (a) grass up a fellow group member and (b) risk bringing the community into disrepute by complaining in the first place.
It is quite possible that Rufus was investing the money "in good faith" but utilised highly speculative vehicles to do so such as derivatives - and that initial success in doing so lulled him into believing that making money in this way was a "piece of cake". With this "proof" to hand It probably wouldn't have been too difficult to persuade other "believers" to invest.
I would hope that to be the truth rather than the accusations made on the RichardRufusponzi site are extremely serious.
Pointless speculating until the evidence is heard but my personal opinion, having been lucky enough to meet Richard Rufus some years ago, inclines to his probably being a naive* fall guy whose "name" was exploited by unscrupulous associates.
If you rip off a church for several million quid you should spend a very long time inside. It's sad because I loved the guy when he played for us.
oh i thought the Church gave him money to "trade/punt" with and he lost it
***An investor may get back less than the amount invested. Information on past performance, where given, is not necessarily a guide to future performance***
Strewth ... "A criminal prosecution could follow over what the Insolvency Service branded “one of the worst” frauds it had ever encountered and which Rufus elected not to contest by failing to turn up to Wednesday’s civil trial ... the judge said: “It is of course, a matter for the authorities whether they take the criminal process further ... all I would I say to that is, this is an appalling case." He branded Rufus “a rogue”, ruling that he had “abused” the trust of investors who had suffered “disastrous” losses. He outlined how Rufus misappropriated funds from new investors to pay returns to those who had previously put money into the scheme. Judge Jones added: “It is, in substance, a fraud and it is a fraud that has similarities with the well-known Ponzi schemes that we have seen in the papers over the years.”
"In total, Rufus was found to have collected deposits from investors of £16,044,437 and to have used £3,422,087 for his own purposes. Investors were found to have lost a total of £8,682,343,having been paid back just £7,362,094 under a scheme which Rufus had promised would yield a five per cent monthly profit on top of their original stake."
Alright if you are at the tip of the triangle But shit if you are the bottom. Lots of ex and current players have been sucked into this fraud. I'm sure Jason Euell lost a lot of his football wealth in an investment scheme . The fella McIndoe at Wolves was fleecing lots of current and ex players recently. Players must be thick to hand over this sort of money to another footballer. Unfortunately he has to face the consequences. So a new under 15 coach will soon be required. Roly out.
If he used £3.4m for his own purposes, I'm amazed this didn't go straight to criminal courts.
Not turning up to the civil court as well shows a complete lack of repentance. Was he actually authorised (by the Financial Conduct Authority) to carry out the investment activities he did?
This is a very sad state of affairs. He may well discover that his faith in God as his only judge - and no doubt a certain hope of forgiveness - won't excuse him from the consequences of illegal actions, which are likely to be harsh if the criminal case is pursued.
I think people could understand it more if he actually came clean. But, by refusing to attend the hearing and choosing to hide behind God being his judge, it is very difficult to have any sympathy for him or the consequences of what might happen to him as a result of his dishonesty.
Even more so when one considers that Rufus had the cheek to sue Paul Elliott for a text, the contents of which that somehow found its way to the Sun. Presumably Rufus was arrogant enough to think that Elliott should be judged on earth and not afforded the same luxury as himself - that of waiting 'til he reaches the Pearly Gates before being judged!
If you rip off a church for several million quid you should spend a very long time inside. It's sad because I loved the guy when he played for us.
Not sure who you rip off should make a difference.
Its pretty cold ripping off people he must have got to know very well. He can't have any empathy to do that. You might be legally correct but morally it's terrible.
If he used £3.4m for his own purposes, I'm amazed this didn't go straight to criminal courts.
Not turning up to the civil court as well shows a complete lack of repentance. Was he actually authorised (by the Financial Conduct Authority) to carry out the investment activities he did?
An individual called Richard Raymond Rufus was a CF30 (adviser) from 11/6/2009 to 25/2/2011. He advised on behalf of a firm called SI Capital. Some of the allegations reported in the article were for a period prior to his gaining approved person status. In addition SI Capital -owned by one Renato Rufus - is still authorised. So it has to be assumed that the activities reported were not put through that firm's books and were very much "off piste". Now that the Insolvency Service has had its day in Court I'd expect other regulatory vultures to start picking at the carcass. We will probably hear more and it's unlikely to be good news for our erstwhile player.
Comments
What I will say is that investigating financial irregularities is always difficult and this is doubly so when a close-knit religious community is involved. (I've experience of three such matters - two led to prison sentences and one didn't). Witness testimony is crucial and members of such communities are invariably reluctant to (a) grass up a fellow group member and (b) risk bringing the community into disrepute by complaining in the first place.
I would hope that to be the truth rather than the accusations made on the RichardRufusponzi site are extremely serious.
* that should better read naive and idealistic
Godnature for that.Just came reported on radio London as " A former Charlton Athletic player"
:-)
Should we put him in touch with Roland?
***An investor may get back less than the amount invested. Information on past performance, where given, is not necessarily a guide to future performance***
or did he run off with their money
"In total, Rufus was found to have collected deposits from investors of £16,044,437 and to have used £3,422,087 for his own purposes.
Investors were found to have lost a total of £8,682,343,having been paid back just £7,362,094 under a scheme which Rufus had promised would yield a five per cent monthly profit on top of their original stake."
No ambiguity there then.
Great player, dreadful person.
Unfortunately he has to face the consequences.
So a new under 15 coach will soon be required.
Roly out.
Not turning up to the civil court as well shows a complete lack of repentance. Was he actually authorised (by the Financial Conduct Authority) to carry out the investment activities he did?
Even more so when one considers that Rufus had the cheek to sue Paul Elliott for a text, the contents of which that somehow found its way to the Sun. Presumably Rufus was arrogant enough to think that Elliott should be judged on earth and not afforded the same luxury as himself - that of waiting 'til he reaches the Pearly Gates before being judged!
In addition SI Capital -owned by one Renato Rufus - is still authorised. So it has to be assumed that the activities reported were not put through that firm's books and were very much "off piste".
Now that the Insolvency Service has had its day in Court I'd expect other regulatory vultures to start picking at the carcass. We will probably hear more and it's unlikely to be good news for our erstwhile player.