This provides a quite brief but good explanation of the situation.
It seems Rufus took in a total of approx £15mn. But it was just a Ponzi scheme. So, according to the CoLP, some £7mn plus made it back to investors, leaving the £8mn shortfall. Of that one assumes much was lost to poor, risky financial gambles (I won't call them investments) with at least a few million making its way into his personal accounts to fund his lavish lifestyle.
I read it as he spent £300k in 3 years , big money but that’s hardly lavish spending for someone who would have been a big earner . where’s this few million that made his way in to personal account come from in your summary £15m he took in and lost £8m ….
He didn’t steal it did he? he traded the markets and lost anyone who put Their money in would have been fed the bullshit cos he probably did have a few wins at first but markets evolve and he got chewed up and spat out .
This provides a quite brief but good explanation of the situation.
It seems Rufus took in a total of approx £15mn. But it was just a Ponzi scheme. So, according to the CoLP, some £7mn plus made it back to investors, leaving the £8mn shortfall. Of that one assumes much was lost to poor, risky financial gambles (I won't call them investments) with at least a few million making its way into his personal accounts to fund his lavish lifestyle.
I read it as he spent £300k in 3 years , big money but that’s hardly lavish spending for someone who would have been a big earner . where’s this few million that made his way in to personal account come from in your summary £15m he took in and lost £8m ….
He didn’t steal it did he? he traded the markets and lost anyone who put Their money in would have been fed the bullshit cos he probably did have a few wins at first but markets evolve and he got chewed up and spat out .
This provides a quite brief but good explanation of the situation.
It seems Rufus took in a total of approx £15mn. But it was just a Ponzi scheme. So, according to the CoLP, some £7mn plus made it back to investors, leaving the £8mn shortfall. Of that one assumes much was lost to poor, risky financial gambles (I won't call them investments) with at least a few million making its way into his personal accounts to fund his lavish lifestyle.
I read it as he spent £300k in 3 years , big money but that’s hardly lavish spending for someone who would have been a big earner . where’s this few million that made his way in to personal account come from in your summary £15m he took in and lost £8m ….
He didn’t steal it did he? he traded the markets and lost anyone who put Their money in would have been fed the bullshit cos he probably did have a few wins at first but markets evolve and he got chewed up and spat out .
Right, first the easy bit. The £2mn figure came from the CPS. (They should know.)
The relevant extract says: “While making these huge losses he put approximately £2million into his personal accounts, allegedly for the purposes of investment but this was never transferred over to his trading account."
What he did with the money you would have to ask him. (I actually doubt he knows). The confusion and chaotic nature of fraudsters like Rufus, often mean they are working 24/7 just to keep all things afloat and have little idea of the reality of it all. They live in a fantasy world not inhabited by regular people.
As to whether he stole the money, all I would say is that the majority of the charges brought against him and of which he was found guilty are in relation to fraud.
Now fraud offences were taken out of the basic Theft Act when the Fraud Act 2006 came into being. In this regard it is worth referring to the CPS guidelines:
"In many cases fraud will also be theft. Prosecutors should bear in mind:
Theft carries a lower maximum sentence; The actus reus requirement for fraud is far less; The credit/debit status of any bank accounts debited is irrelevant to the Fraud Act offences. All that is in issue is the Defendant's right to use the account; It is not necessary to prove or demonstrate any consequences of fraud (though they will clearly be material to sentence, compensation and confiscation). "Preddy" type difficulties will not arise (where the property obtained had not belonged to another); Fraud Act offences do not require an intent permanently to deprive; A charge should describe what actually happened and reflect the true criminality; and The indictment should be as simple as reasonably possible."
In short, fraud offences are potentially easier to prove than theft offences. Rufus could also likely have been tried for almost any other number of offences under the Financial Services and Markets Act for example. But it is important not to over-burden a jury with too many complex issues when there is no need.
It says he put £2m in to his own personal account , did he spend it ? Cos there’s only £300k spent over 3 years in the other article .
I mean it’s horrific that any one would have put money in to an invidual punter on the basis of “invest in his ‘low-risk’ scheme with promises of returns of 60% a year” but if shit like that doesn’t ring alarm bells I don’t know what will, also the not FCA registered should have been a warning but £signs and bullshit lured em in , all so sad and bizarre.
His pathetic attempt at trading lost a shit load of money but he didn’t iron the lot out , which is what I’d have done chasing losses and on those numbers people should have got 50p in the pound back from a crackpot trader, although that will be skewed by some getting 100% back with the robbing Peter to pay Paul Ponziness of it all .
i spoke to Rufus in his first year or so of trading when a mutual associate introduced us at The Valley and he was allegedly winning but seemed it was all small fry then not the big numbers that eventually came in to play .
It says he put £2m in to his own personal account , did he spend it ? Cos there’s only £300k spent over 3 years in the other article .
I mean it’s horrific that any one would have put money in to an invidual punter on the basis of “invest in his ‘low-risk’ scheme with promises of returns of 60% a year” but if shit like that doesn’t ring alarm bells I don’t know what will, also the not FCA registered should have been a warning but £signs and bullshit lured em in , all so sad and bizarre.
His pathetic attempt at trading lost a shit load of money but he didn’t iron the lot out , which is what I’d have done chasing losses and on those numbers people should have got 50p in the pound back from a crackpot trader, although that will be skewed by some getting 100% back with the robbing Peter to pay Paul Ponziness of it all .
i spoke to Rufus in his first year or so of trading when a mutual associate introduced us at The Valley and he was allegedly winning but seemed it was all small fry then not the big numbers that eventually came in to play .
I reckon your chat with him led to you badly advising him, now he's in the slammer
Comments
where’s this few million that made his way in to personal account come from in your summary
£15m he took in and lost £8m ….
he traded the markets and lost
anyone who put Their money in would have been fed the bullshit cos he probably did have a few wins at first but markets evolve and he got chewed up and spat out .
He was not allowed to use the money by trading?
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/sentence-update-former-premier-league-star-jailed-ps15-million-investment-fraud
The relevant extract says: “While making these huge losses he put approximately £2million into his personal accounts, allegedly for the purposes of investment but this was never transferred over to his trading account."
What he did with the money you would have to ask him. (I actually doubt he knows). The confusion and chaotic nature of fraudsters like Rufus, often mean they are working 24/7 just to keep all things afloat and have little idea of the reality of it all. They live in a fantasy world not inhabited by regular people.
As to whether he stole the money, all I would say is that the majority of the charges brought against him and of which he was found guilty are in relation to fraud.
Now fraud offences were taken out of the basic Theft Act when the Fraud Act 2006 came into being. In this regard it is worth referring to the CPS guidelines:
"In many cases fraud will also be theft. Prosecutors should bear in mind:
Theft carries a lower maximum sentence;
The actus reus requirement for fraud is far less;
The credit/debit status of any bank accounts debited is irrelevant to the Fraud Act offences. All that is in issue is the Defendant's right to use the account; It is not necessary to prove or demonstrate any consequences of fraud (though they will clearly be material to sentence, compensation and confiscation). "Preddy" type difficulties will not arise (where the property obtained had not belonged to another);
Fraud Act offences do not require an intent permanently to deprive;
A charge should describe what actually happened and reflect the true criminality;
and The indictment should be as simple as reasonably possible."
In short, fraud offences are potentially easier to prove than theft offences. Rufus could also likely have been tried for almost any other number of offences under the Financial Services and Markets Act for example. But it is important not to over-burden a jury with too many complex issues when there is no need.
and on those numbers people should have got 50p in the pound back from a crackpot trader, although that will be skewed by some getting 100% back with the robbing Peter to pay Paul Ponziness of it all .
i spoke to Rufus in his first year or so of trading when a mutual associate introduced us at The Valley and he was allegedly winning but seemed it was all small fry then not the big numbers that eventually came in to play .