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.
Thanks, SI Capital haven't been mentioned at all, so I assume this has nothing to do with them.
"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"
i don't understand the above , he was punting money for these people but surely you'd do the lot chasing your losses , you wouldn't just stop and give half the dough back
i reckon he done the dough and the paid back amount is what he had to give once he was asset stripped
Very sad tale that tarnishes the name of one of my favourite ever players.
I just can't believe he was financially and system knowledgeable enough to lead such a scam, but in a way, I'm kind of hoping the criminal events and reputation tarnishing is down to his own stupidity and not through the taking of very public heat for a friend, family or associate.
"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"
i don't understand the above , he was punting money for these people but surely you'd do the lot chasing your losses , you wouldn't just stop and give half the dough back
i reckon he done the dough and the paid back amount is what he had to give once he was asset stripped
Ponzi schemes, literally robbing Peter to pay Paul, work by getting the first few mug punters through the door the promised returns. That encourages them to invest more and introduce friends and relatives to the "scheme". Invariably the money they are getting back is a portion of their own original investment. The schemes rely upon more and more punters coming along to pay the interest of the others. Meanwhile whoever runs the scheme has to spend big and show all the trappings of wealth to convince people of their successes. In reality it is the punters money that is just being spent. Almost always, none of it is actually invested in anything that might turn a profit. Many, perhaps Rufus, who knows, as I don't know the precise circumstances of this scheme, are merely acting as middlemen for the main scheme operator. These people are often just as silly as the punters and often genuinely believe in what they are promoting. Often, the individual at the top of the pile walks away smiling while the introducers get caught.
Almost certainly, the figures quoted include all the outstanding interest payments as part of the debt. It was owed after all. The actual capital invested is likely to have been a much smaller total.
One of the ways these schemes continue to fool people is with smoke and mirrors. The punters' money is often on a fixed term with the 5% interest or whatever rolled up each month. At the end of six months, say, they will get a nicely prepared redemption certificate which shows that their original £100,000 is now worth £134,000 - in just six months! With it comes an explanation about a slightly different scheme which pays 7% or whatever a month but the money has to be rolled over again and kept invested for a further 12 months. Unfortunately the greed just takes over - people find the temptation too great. Of course the roll-over technique means that no one complains about not getting their money back until it is far too late and it's all long gone.
Of all these types of schemes I have seen over the years I can recall only one where the authorities got in soon enough to get people most of their money back.
No but I met someone who bought a property from him in Blackheath. Elliot wanted to sell so he could liquidise his assets to use the money in a scheme with unbelievable returns. The buyer was astonished that Elliot thought it was for real.
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.
Thanks, SI Capital haven't been mentioned at all, so I assume this has nothing to do with them.
Is Renato Rufus related, as he doesn't look that similar, but it would be a massive coincidence for them not to be related!
Terrible story, but I think we can all agree that Renato Rufus is the coolest name we've heard in a very long time, my parents were rubbish - bloody "Craig" when Renato was available.
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.
Thanks, SI Capital haven't been mentioned at all, so I assume this has nothing to do with them.
Is Renato Rufus related, as he doesn't look that similar, but it would be a massive coincidence for them not to be related!
Terrible story, but I think we can all agree that Renato Rufus is the coolest name we've heard in a very long time, my parents were rubbish - bloody "Craig" when Renato was available.
I feel no pity towards the church. They've been fleecing gullible folk out of their money for centuries, with their made up fantasy stories.
As for some I've read saying this incident has brought "shame" on our club, well, someone had better tell Rufus to take his shame elsewhere, as Roland has this covered and we're full to the brim right now.............
The US has FAR greater penalties for financial fraud, it's notable than Allen Stanford (of million dollar cricket game infamy) is serving 110 years for his fraud and Ponzi scheme...
Yeah, and didn't bernie madoff get 150 years for something similar? Can't believe people fall for these. Like a pyramid scheme
Never underestimate human greed, and the ability of pound signs to cloud better judgment
Anybody without a conscience can do this - it's so simple to fleece people of money. The people that do it deserve the strictest punishment available - it completely and utterly ruins lives.
Yeah, and didn't bernie madoff get 150 years for something similar? Can't believe people fall for these. Like a pyramid scheme
Never underestimate human greed, and the ability of pound signs to cloud better judgment
Anybody without a conscience can do this - it's so simple to fleece people of money. The people that do it deserve the strictest punishment available - it completely and utterly ruins lives.
Yeah, and didn't bernie madoff get 150 years for something similar? Can't believe people fall for these. Like a pyramid scheme
Greed will always win out over common sense. The letters telling you there is $180 million in a bank account in your name seem absurd to 99.9% of us. But they must work with enough people to make sending them worthwhile.
What astounds me is that he has stolen millions and they can't decide if he should be prosecuted. And yet someone can steal a pint of milk from a shop and they are ...
Yeah, and didn't bernie madoff get 150 years for something similar? Can't believe people fall for these. Like a pyramid scheme
Greed will always win out over common sense. The letters telling you there is $180 million in a bank account in your name seem absurd to 99.9% of us. But they must work with enough people to make sending them worthwhile.
What astounds me is that he has stolen millions and they can't decide if he should be prosecuted. And yet someone can steal a pint of milk from a shop and they are ...
Demonstrating an "intention of permanently depriving" is often the stumbling block. It's easy to say there was an intention to take the pint of milk if it's been drunk! Showing the fraudster intended to nick the money rather than paying it back in due course is always more difficult.
In such cases, it is often poorly trained/overworked fraud squad plod combined with inept CPS lawyers trying to use the wrong legislation to bring charges for the wrong crimes. It's almost certain in such cases that charges under FSMA 2000 would be the easiest to prove but the CPS try using the Fraud Act 2006 , the Theft Act 1968 or the fraudulent trading provisions of the Companies Act 2006 instead and then wonder why Counsel tells them they don't have a case.
To illustrate: the Fraud Act 2006 has this section:
Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a)the person making the representation, or
(b)any other person.
(4)A representation may be express or implied.
I've highlighted the keys bits which often become the hurdle to a successful prosecution. All someone has to do is convince the jury that he thought the scheme was genuine and had no idea that it was bogus.
Whereas FSMA says:
(1)No person may carry on a regulated activity in the United Kingdom, or purport to do so, unless he is—
(a)an authorised person; or
(b)an exempt person.
(2)The prohibition is referred to in this Act as the general prohibition.
You'll note that there is no need to demonstrate any degree of dishonesty in the latter. But an offender could still get a couple of years.
Yeah, and didn't bernie madoff get 150 years for something similar? Can't believe people fall for these. Like a pyramid scheme
It is based on a pyramid scheme where the only winners would be the folk who get out early, but greed keeps most of them in until the links begin to break. First heard of this in the 60's from the USA.
The fact that the Church seems like the biggest losers in RR case just shows that "the Lord acts in mysterious ways"
I'm glad i'm a cynical Atheist who trusts no one ?
Other than the nice CAFC fan from West Africa who sent me a lovely e-mail.
Comments
He was in his charlton gear on the way to the training round still a very humble man.
Let me explain...
If you rip off Roland, you deserve a knighthood.
the Roof,
the Roof is a pariah.
http://sicapital.co.uk/about-us/our-people/
Is Renato Rufus related, as he doesn't look that similar, but it would be a massive coincidence for them not to be related!
Now qualifies for a job in FIFA.
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"
i don't understand the above , he was punting money for these people but surely you'd do the lot chasing your losses , you wouldn't just stop and give half the dough back
i reckon he done the dough and the paid back amount is what he had to give once he was asset stripped
Keston, if I remember correctly.
I suspect that paid off a couple of million.
I just can't believe he was financially and system knowledgeable enough to lead such a scam, but in a way, I'm kind of hoping the criminal events and reputation tarnishing is down to his own stupidity and not through the taking of very public heat for a friend, family or associate.
However if the charges are proven, then he has been a very, very naughty boy and a very long stretch awaits.
About time basic finance was taught in schools so fewer people were taken in by charlatans like Rufus.
Many, perhaps Rufus, who knows, as I don't know the precise circumstances of this scheme, are merely acting as middlemen for the main scheme operator. These people are often just as silly as the punters and often genuinely believe in what they are promoting. Often, the individual at the top of the pile walks away smiling while the introducers get caught.
Almost certainly, the figures quoted include all the outstanding interest payments as part of the debt. It was owed after all. The actual capital invested is likely to have been a much smaller total.
One of the ways these schemes continue to fool people is with smoke and mirrors. The punters' money is often on a fixed term with the 5% interest or whatever rolled up each month. At the end of six months, say, they will get a nicely prepared redemption certificate which shows that their original £100,000 is now worth £134,000 - in just six months! With it comes an explanation about a slightly different scheme which pays 7% or whatever a month but the money has to be rolled over again and kept invested for a further 12 months.
Unfortunately the greed just takes over - people find the temptation too great. Of course the roll-over technique means that no one complains about not getting their money back until it is far too late and it's all long gone.
Of all these types of schemes I have seen over the years I can recall only one where the authorities got in soon enough to get people most of their money back.
As for some I've read saying this incident has brought "shame" on our club, well, someone had better tell Rufus to take his shame elsewhere, as Roland has this covered and we're full to the brim right now.............
Anybody without a conscience can do this - it's so simple to fleece people of money. The people that do it deserve the strictest punishment available - it completely and utterly ruins lives.
What astounds me is that he has stolen millions and they can't decide if he should be prosecuted. And yet someone can steal a pint of milk from a shop and they are ...
In such cases, it is often poorly trained/overworked fraud squad plod combined with inept CPS lawyers trying to use the wrong legislation to bring charges for the wrong crimes. It's almost certain in such cases that charges under FSMA 2000 would be the easiest to prove but the CPS try using the Fraud Act 2006 , the Theft Act 1968 or the fraudulent trading provisions of the Companies Act 2006 instead and then wonder why Counsel tells them they don't have a case.
To illustrate: the Fraud Act 2006 has this section:
Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—
(a)the person making the representation, or
(b)any other person.
(4)A representation may be express or implied.
I've highlighted the keys bits which often become the hurdle to a successful prosecution. All someone has to do is convince the jury that he thought the scheme was genuine and had no idea that it was bogus.
Whereas FSMA says:
(1)No person may carry on a regulated activity in the United Kingdom, or purport to do so, unless he is—
(a)an authorised person; or
(b)an exempt person.
(2)The prohibition is referred to in this Act as the general prohibition.
You'll note that there is no need to demonstrate any degree of dishonesty in the latter. But an offender could still get a couple of years.
First heard of this in the 60's from the USA.
The fact that the Church seems like the biggest losers in RR case just shows that "the Lord acts in mysterious ways"
I'm glad i'm a cynical Atheist who trusts no one ?
Other than the nice CAFC fan from West Africa who sent me a lovely e-mail.