Tag Archives: Ombudsman

Piramideskema se eise kan begin verjaar

12 Apr

Author: Nellie Brand-Jonker 

Publications: Die Burger

Date Published : 12 April 2015

Beleggers wat geld verloor het in Herman Preto­rius se piramideskema, moet opskud as hulle nog eise wil instel teen die makelaars wat hulle oorreed het om in die skema te belê. 

Pretorius is in Julie 2012 dood nadat hy eers sy sakevennoot Julian Williams van die Basileus-groep en toe homself doodgeskiet het.

Sedertdien het dit aan die lig gekom dat beleggers R2,2 miljard in Pretorius se Relative Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF) belê het.

Die RVAF-fonds het al sedert die vroeë 2000’s geld van beleggers gekry. Opbrengste van sowat 20% per jaar is belowe en is jare lank gelewer.

Noluntu Bam, ombudsman van finansiëlediensteverskaffers, het pas nog twee uitsprake gelewer ten gunste van beleggers wat in die RVAF-skema belê het. Dit bring die getal positiewe uitsprake op 23 te staan.

Sowat R13 miljoen moet reeds deur finansiële adviseurs terugbetaal word aan van die beleggers.

Franscois van Gijsen, direkteur van regsdienste van Finlac, wys daarop dat beleggers wat nog eise by die Fais-ombudsman wil indien, dit gou moet doen. In Julie sal dit drie jaar wees sedert die skietdood van Pretorius en dan kan die eise verjaar.

Hy help nou vier mense wat destyds in die RVAF-fonds belê het, om eise in te dien.

Oor die moontlikheid dat die eise kan verjaar, het Bam by navraag gesê die proses vereis dat ’n klagte “die ombudsman nie later moet bereik nie as drie jaar vanaf die datum dat die finansiële diens gelewer is of nie later nie as drie jaar vanaf die datum dat die klaer redelikerwys bewus geraak het of behoort bewus te geraak het dat iets fout is”.

Sy wou nie kommentaar lewer op ’n vraag of dit so is dat eise binnekort kan verjaar nie en sê: “Ons kan nie ja of nee op die vraag antwoord nie omdat elke saak op eie meriete gehanteer moet word.”

Die ombudsman het nie die mag om die verjaring van eise uit te stel nie.

Van Gijsen glo egter dit gaan moeilik wees vir beleggers om te bewys hulle het nie geweet dat iets fout is nadat die nuus oor Pretorius se selfmoord in Julie 2012 bekend geword het nie.

“As jy nie teen Julie ’n eis ingedien het nie, gaan jy die geleentheid verbeur.”

Volgens Van Gijsen het hulle ná Pretorius se skietdood in 2012 aanvanklik baie navrae gekry van beleggers wat wou weet hoe om klagte by die Fais-ombudsman in te dien. Min beleggers het egter opgetree teen die bepaalde makelaars – vermoedelik omdat hulle wag om te kyk wat uit die likwidasieproses spruit.

Die makelaar Michal Johannes Calitz wat in Stellenberg in Kaapstad woonagtig is, het in dié stadium verreweg die meeste geld terugbetaal. Daar is al berig dat sy kliënte op sy advies meer as R86 miljoen in die skema belê het. Daar is reeds 17 uitsprake teen hom om altesame R10 miljoen aan beleggers terug te betaal.

Die eerste belegger wat verlede jaar teen Calitz ’n uitspraak gekry het, het Vrydag gesê hy is nog nie die geld terugbetaal nie omdat Calitz besig is om by die Raad op Finansiële Dienste (RFD) te appelleer teen die uitspraak.

Advertisements

Regstappe kom teen makelaars

8 Apr

Author: Marelize Barnard

Publications: Die Burger

Date Published : 8 April 2015

Wes-Kaapse makelaars wat miljoene rande gemaak het deur beleggers na die Ponzi-skema van wyle Herman Preto­rius te lok, weier nou om hul kommissiegeld terug te betaal.

Die trustees van Pretorius se Rela­tive Arbitrage Fund (RVAF) en Seca Trust se volgende stap is om “een vir een op die ry af” die makelaars met regstappe te dwing om die geld terug te betaal, het Rynette Pieters van Independent Trustees Dinsdag gesê.

Intussen het die ombudsman vir finansiële adviseurs en tussengangers (Fais) Dinsdag die makelaars Simon Morton en Carol Louw, voorheen verbonde aan Catwalk Investments 592 met ’n besigheidsadres in Durbanville, beveel om R600 000 te betaal aan ’n belegger wat deur hul toedoen by die RVAF belê het.

Morton, wat ’n kantoor in Durbanville gehad het, het intussen na Auckland in Nieu-Seeland geëmigreer. Louw woon in Goedemoed.

Die klaer aan wie die geld terugbetaal moet word, Nigel Andrew Freddy, noem in die klag wat by Fais ingedien is dat hy R450 000 van sy R600 000-beleggingsgeld by Allan Grey wou belê, maar dat Morton hom anders oortuig het.

Noluntu Bam, ombudsman vir finansiële diensteverskaffers, het bevind dat Morton en Louw “blindelings” aanvaar het wat oor Pretorius se RVAF aan hulle vertel is. ’n Behoorlike ondersoek na die bestuur van die RVAF-beleggings is nie gedoen nie en albei het versuim om hul plig teenoor die belegger na te kom.

Bam het verder bevind dat die belegger nie ’n ingeligte keuse kon maak nie omdat dit nie aan hom genoem is dat sy geld belê sou word in ’n entiteit wat nie gereguleer of geregistreer was nie.

Morton en Louw het as “geregistreerde finansiële diensteverskaffers versuim om die Fais-wetgewing na te kom en kan nié die skuld vir die beleggingskeuse op die belegger plaas nie”, het Bam bevind.

Morton is een van die makelaars wat ook miljoene rande kommissie moet terugbetaal – tussen R8 miljoen en R10 miljoen.

Nog ’n makelaar, Wilhelm Erwee van Moorreesburg, moet meer as R12 miljoen aan kommissie terugbetaal.

Die makelaar Michal Calitz van Impact Finansiële Konsultante in Bellville weier om R9,06 miljoen terug te betaal nadat regter Monde Samela ’n bevel daaroor in die Wes-Kaapse hooggeregshof gemaak het.

Calitz het aansoek gedoen om verlof tot appèl teen Samela se uitspraak en daar word gewag op ’n datum waarop die appèl aangehoor kan word.

Pierre du Toit van Mostert en Bosman, regsverteenwoordiger van die kurators, het gesê die volgende stap is om teen elkeen van die makelaars op te tree sodat al die kommissiegeld terugbetaal kan word.

Adviser who put clients in RVAF must repay R1.6m

4 Apr

Author: Angelique Arde

Publications: iOL

Date Published: 4 April 2015

The financial advice ombud has handed down five scathing rulings against financial adviser Andrea Moolman of Vaidro Investments in Wilro Park, Roodepoort, for advising her clients to invest in the Relative Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF), which is in liquidation following the suicide of Herman Pretorius, the architect of the scheme. 

Although it was promoted as a hedge fund, the RVAF was a Ponzi scheme, according to the ombud. The fund reportedly owes more than R2 billion to about 3 000 investors, and the trustees of the fund have said that most, if not all, investors’ funds have been lost. 

In the first of five rulings handed down last month against Moolman, the Ombud for Financial Services Providers, Noluntu Bam, said her office had received a number of complaints from the adviser’s clients who were invested in the RVAF.

he key issues in all complaints were identical, and the essence of Moolman’s response was to renounce liability for any breaches of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Act, the ruling states. Additionally, Moolman claimed she had carried out a due diligence on the RVAF and that her actions were in the best interests of her clients. 

All the investors who have lodged complaints against Moolman say she advised them that, not only had the RVAF won a top award in 2008, but it was part of a financial services provider (FSP) known as Abante Capital, which had been in existence for years. 

“In reality, Abante Capital was a separate legal entity and was licensed as an FSP by the Financial Services Board (FSB), while RVAF was not,” Bam says. 

There was no mention of Abante or its licence number in the contractual documents between clients and the RVAF, and client funds were transferred directly into the fund without the protection of a nominee account, the ombud says. “Furthermore, there were no financials or even so much as a fund [fact] sheet.” 

Without these, Moolman could not have understood the economic activity that generated the returns, she says. 

When, in November 2011, the first complainant heard a warning about RVAF and its lack of transparency, he took this up with Moolman. She reassured him that the fund had weathered the recession and sent him a survey of South African hedge funds. 

Bam says the survey is pertinent because it was sent to substantiate her advice, yet the RVAF was “conspicuously absent” from the survey. Moolman’s action placated her client but “provides evidence that the RVAF did not exist as a hedge fund”, Bam says. When asked to explain the glaring absence of the fund among the funds listed, Moolman’s response showed that she relied on the supposition that Abante was the fund manager. 

Bam’s rulings against Moolman refer to her determination Inch vs Calitz, which unpacks all the issues on the rendering of advice to invest in the RVAF. These relate to the adviser’s failure to understand the RVAF and the risks to which clients were exposed. 

The Inch ruling was the first of 16 rulings by Bam against financial adviser Michal Calitz, who has the Certified Financial Planner accreditation and who is a member of the Financial Planning Institute. Calitz received R8.4 million in share profits from the RVAF. 

In terms of the FAIS Act, a financial adviser must recommend products that suit your needs and your investment objectives, and the risk inherent in the product must suit your risk profile. Your adviser is also obliged to ensure that the investment that he or she recommends is legitimate, and that the person offering the investment, or acting as an FSP, is licensed. Pretorius wasn’t licensed as an FSP. 

In the five rulings, Bam has ordered Moolman to pay back more than R1.6 million to the complainants. 

Under new regulations passed last month, hedge funds will be regulated by the FSB. They must, by March next year, be regulated as collective investment schemes, offering you, the consumer, a great deal more protection. 

Although they were not regulated at the time of Moolman’s advice, any advice rendered in respect of a hedge fund was subject to the FAIS code of conduct and a notice issued by the FSB. 

In terms of this code, a hedge fund service provider must obtain a signed mandate from a client before rendering any intermediary service to the client, and the mandate must be approved by the regulator. An additional signed mandate, confirming the contents of the first, is also required. 

Bam’s ruling states: “The legislature has made every effort to require not only that a client be appropriately appraised as to the risks inherent in, and the processes and strategies followed by, a hedge fund, but that the client confirms such disclosure having taken place.” 

Bam says Moolman was out of her depth in advising on the RVAF and failed in her duties to her clients. 

“Quite simply, no adviser would have recommended this product as a suitable component of any investment portfolio had they exercised the required due skill, care and diligence,” she says.

How to lay a complaint with the FAIS Ombud

27 Jan

Author: Hanna Barry

Publications: MoneyWeb

Date Published: 26 January 2015

JOHANNESBURG – To help you navigate the world of financial services in 2015, Moneyweb has put together a guide to understanding how the complaints process of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Ombud works. Since the FAIS Ombud handles complaints from members of the public against financial advisors and product providers it could come in handy.

1. Try make amends

Before submitting a complaint to the FAIS Ombud, you must try to resolve it with the responding party (financial advisor or product provider) within a six-week time frame. Once you’ve received the final word from the respondent and are still not satisfied, you then have six months to approach the Ombud with your complaint.

2. Fill out a form

Your complaint should be outlined in a six-page form under the How to complain tab on the Ombud’s website. You can phone the Ombud on 012 470 9080 if you need help completing the form, but it’s fairly self-explanatory. The form requires a detailed explanation of your complaint, including background, product details, as well as date-stamped phone calls and emails exchanged with the person or company you are complaining against. Supporting documentation, such as proof of your investment and any relevant correspondence you may have, should be attached to your complaint. There’s even a section that asks you to describe how you would expect your complaint to be resolved.

3. Know your limits

The Ombud has a jurisdictional limit of R800 000 per complaint and complainants must agree to forego any amount in excess of R800 000 in order for the Ombud to consider their complaint. However, it’s important to understand that one complaint can comprise a number of causes of action, which for the purposes of this rule are considered as separate complaints.

“Where a person makes an investment of R790 000 in July 2013 as a result of advice offered by their financial advisor and then in May 2014 a further amount of R1 million is invested, following the advice of the same financial advisor, the two transactions make two separate causes of action,” explains FAIS Ombud, Noluntu Bam.

“In other words, even though the person will send us one complaint detailing all the investments they made, the two transactions remain two separate causes to institute a complaint,” Bam tells Moneyweb.

If this complaint were to succeed, the full R790 000 would be awarded in respect of the first cause of action, while the second cause of action would be limited to R800 000. The complainant would ultimately walk away with R1.59 million.

Importantly, the Ombud is precluded from looking at complaints pending before a court of law. The office’s eventual determination has the effect of a civil judgment of the court.

4. Wait for an outcome

Once the FAIS Ombud has received your complaint, the office “may follow and implement any procedure which the FAIS Ombud deems appropriate, and may allow any party the right to legal representation,” an information leaflet on the Ombud’s website broadly explains.

The respondent is naturally given a chance to respond and the Ombud must first attempt to mediate a settlement between the parties. If the parties refuse to accept the Ombud’s recommendations, the Ombud will make a final determination. This could include either the dismissal of the complaint or the upholding of the complaint wholly or partially by compensating the complainant for financial harm suffered.

R10m for one advisor

Of the 9 400 odd new complaints received in the 2013/14 financial year, the Ombud settled 7 587 within the same year (including 49 determinations), returning around R30.6 million to consumers.

Of the 49 determinations made, 17 were made against Impact Financial Consultants CC and Michal Johannes Calitz in respect of Herman Pretorius’s Relative Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF).

Excluding the annual interest accumulating from the date of determination to the date of final payment (varying between 9% and 15.5%), the total awards made to consumers in respect of this one advisor and product came to more than R10.7 million.

Calitz moet R8 m. betaal

17 Oct

Author: Marelize Barnard

Publications: Die Burger

Date Published : 17 Oktober 2014

Wyle Herman Pretorius se beleggingskema het “ ’n baie lae risiko en is gepas vir ’n mens wat op die punt is om af te tree”.

Dít was die raad wat die makelaar Michal Calitz van Impact Finansiële Konsultante in Bellville volgens ’n belegger verskeie kere aan hom gegee het toe hy tussen Augustus 2007 en Maart 2011 al sy aftreegeld by Preto­rius belê het.

Die belegger, Hendrik Carstens, is een van die mense wat Calitz by die ombudsman vir finansiële adviseurs en tussengangers (Fais) verkla het. Carstens het vyf keer beleggings met ’n totale waarde van R2,3 miljoen in Pretorius se Rela­tive Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF)-trust belê en mettertyd R175 000 daarvan onttrek.

Die Fais-ombudsman, Noluntu Bam, kan slegs eise van tot R800 000 hanteer. Sy het Dins­dag beslis dat vir die een belegging van R1,9 miljoen Calitz slegs R800 000 hoef terug te betaal. Sy het egter die ander vier beleggings bygereken en gelas dat Calitz R1,19 miljoen aan Carstens moet terugbetaal.

Bam het Maandag nog ’n eis van R150 000, wat deur Jeanrich Ehlers ingedien is, teen Calitz toegestaan. Dit is die jongste van 13 suksesvolle eise teen Calitz en hy moet nou reeds meer as R8 miljoen aan beleggers terugbetaal.

Die Burger het vantevore berig dat Calitz die eise teen hom teenstaan.

Calitz voer aan dat daar geen kousale verband is tussen die skade wat beleggers gely het en sy optrede as makelaar nie. Die skade was nie sy (Ca­litz se) toedoen nie, maar die gevolg van Pretorius se bedrog.

Calitz is ook besig met ’n aansoek om verlof tot appèl teen ’n uitspraak van regter Monde Samela in die Wes-Kaapse hooggeregshof.

Dit is nadat Monde gelas het dat Calitz, sy beslote korporasie Impact Finansiële Konsultante en die maatskappy EQ Prop R9,06 mil­joen moet terugbetaal.) Vyf makelaars het reeds ooreenkomste aangegaan met die kurators van Pretorius se maatskappye en trusts en hulle het reeds R1,8 miljoen terugbetaal. ’n Verdere sowat R2,4 miljoen gaan deur dié makelaars terugbetaal word.

More rulings against Calitz up his bill to R6.8m

5 Oct

Author: Angelique Arde

Publications: iOL

Date Published: 4 October 2014

Over the past three months, the Ombud for Financial Services Providers has handed down eight more rulings against financial adviser Michal Calitz, who advised clients to invest in the Relative Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF), a Ponzi scheme that was marketed as a hedge fund. This brings the number of rulings against Calitz to 12 and the total amount he must repay investors to more than R6.8 million.

The RVAF was “nothing short of a scam”, Noluntu Bam, the Ombud for Financial Services Providers, said in her first ruling against Calitz, which was handed down in June.

Following the collapse of the RVAF, in July 2012 Herman Pretorius, the mastermind of the scheme, shot his business partner before turning the gun on himself. The RVAF reportedly reaped in about R2.2 billion from investors.

In Bam’s first ruling against Calitz, she says Calitz conceded that he had received “profit share” from the RVAF amounting to about R8.4 million. This was contained in a report addressed to creditors, by the trustees of the insolvent fund.

Calitz, who operates from Bellville in the Western Cape, holds a Certified Financial Planner accreditation. This means he has a Post Graduate Diploma in Financial Planning and is a member of the Financial Planning Institute (FPI).

The latest rulings against him read much like the previous four. Bam holds Calitz and Impact Financial Consultants, a close corporation and an authorised financial services provider (FSP), jointly and severally liable to pay the complainants, as follows:

* Garvitte Lombard – R700 000;

* Hendrik du Plessis and Erna du Plessis – R800 000 each;

* Johannes Coetzee – R500 000;

* Hendrina Rautenbach – R701 350;

* Carolina Olivier – R360 000;

* Fiona King – R494 000;

* Loredana Hansen – R630 000; and

* Natalina Natali – R120 000.

In previous rulings, and repeated in the latest rulings, Bam says nothing in the evidence persuades her office that the complainants were aware of or could have understood the implications of what they were investing in. “In particular, there is no mention of the risks of investing in an unregulated entity, one without so much as a set of audited financials.”

Hedge funds are currently not regulated in South Africa. Hedge fund FSPs may operate, but are subject to a code of conduct.

Calitz contends that he dealt through Abante Capital, a licensed FSP, but Abante Capital is not mentioned in any contractual documentation, Bam says. A hedge fund must also obtain a signed mandate from the client and ensure that the client understands the risks.

Investors in the RVAF paid money directly to the RVAF, instead of to a nominee account, “a safety mechanism to distinguish investor funds from those of the service provider”, Bam says.

She says no adviser would have recommended the RVAF as a suitable component of any investment portfolio had they exercised the required skill, care and due diligence.

Bam’s first ruling against Calitz states that, in terms of the law, a financial adviser must carry out a needs analysis on his or her client, provide a record of advice, and make proper disclosure about product suppliers. Clients must be given details of the services the adviser is authorised to provide, and whether the adviser holds guarantees or professional indemnity cover.

Ashley Percival, an assistant ombud at Bam’s office, says the office of the ombud is finalising investigations in respect of other financial advisers who advised their clients to invest in the RVAF.

This week, Jacqui Grovè, the legal and compliance services manager for the FPI, told Personal Finance that Calitz’s disciplinary hearing is scheduled for November 10. Although the ombud’s rulings carry the weight of a High Court ruling, Grovè says an FPI member is “deemed innocent until found guilty by a competent FPI disciplinary panel of his or her peers”.

Makelaar moet sy Pretorius-miljoene terugbetaal

15 Aug

Author: Marelize Barnard

Publications: Die Burger

Date Published : 14 August 2014

KAAPSTAD. – Die makelaar Michal Calitz, wat beleggers gelok het om meer as R86 miljoen by die swendelaar Herman Pretorius te belê, moet miljoene rande aan kommissiegeld en ‘n “kontantgeskenk” terugbetaal.

Regter Monde Samela het in die Wes-Kaapse hooggeregshof uitspraak gelewer in ‘n aansoek deur die kurators van Pretorius se gesekwestreerde Relative Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF) en sy Seca-trust.

Die kurators het ‘n aansoek by die hooggeregshof ingedien dat Calitz R6,54 miljoen aan die RVAF en nagenoeg R380 000 aan die Seca-trust moet terugbetaal.

Verder is geëis dat Impact Finansiële Konsultante (’n beslote korporasie waarin Calitz ’n 80%-aandeel het) ook sowat R2,1 miljoen aan die twee trusts moet terugbetaal.

In die beëdigde verklaring van Lambertus von Wielligh Bester, een van die kurators, en hofdokumente wat in die aansoek ingedien is, word genoem dat Calitz tussen 28 Februarie 2005 en 31 Mei 2012 meer as R6 miljoen in betalings ontvang het uit die RVAF as wins of kommissie omdat hy beleggers na Pretorius verwys het.

Van die Seca-trust het hy R377 155 ontvang.

Pretorius het ook net minder as R1 miljoen aan Calitz geleen. Van dié geld is R750 000 aan Pretorius terugbetaal deur Calitz se kommissiegeld van die lening af te trek. Pretorius het die res, R250 000, as ‘n geskenk aan Calitz gegee en hy het dit aanvaar.

Die kurators het aangevoer die betalings was deel van ‘n onwettige beleggingskema, of Ponzi-skema.

Calitz het op sy beurt aangevoer dit is geld wat hy vir dienste wat gelewer is, betaal is en waarop hy belasting betaal het.

Samela het gelas Calitz moet die geld – met rente bygereken – terugbetaal.

‘Hedge fund’ advice slammed

22 Jun

Author: Angelique Arde

Publications: iOL

Date Published: 22 June 2014

The Ombud for Financial Services Providers has handed down a scathing determination against a financial planner who placed R500 000 of his client’s savings in the Relative Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF), which was a scam posing as a hedge fund.

The RVAF collapsed after the architect of the scam, Herman Pretorius, reportedly shot his former business partner and then himself in July 2012.

The determination handed down by ombud Noluntu Bam this week reveals that adviser Michal Calitz of Impact Financial Consultants in Bellville, Western Cape, earned R8.4 million in so-called share profits from the RVAF, “yet on the objective evidence he could not have conducted even the most basic due diligence [tests] on the RVAF”.

Calitz placed his client’s funds in a scheme which did not have a financial services provider number, nominee account or even audited financials, Bam’s determination states.

“Schemes such as the RVAF cannot exist without professionals such as Calitz turning a blind eye to legislative requirements,” Bam says.

Calitz holds a post-graduate diploma in financial planning and is a member of the Financial Planning Institute (FPI). This entitles him to call himself a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). He was certified to a standard above that of the average financial adviser and “must be held to that standard”, Bam says.

The ruling follows a complaint by a dentist, Dr Craig Inch, who became Calitz’s client because a friend had recommended him.

According to the ruling, Inch’s friend had told him about a hedge fund that had been performing well, and the dentist asked Calitz about it or others of a similar ilk. Calitz said he did know about it, and mentioned the RVAF.

Not knowing much about hedge funds other than that they can be risky, Inch asked Calitz to explain the fund. Calitz replied that the fund manager was a gentleman he knew very well and that the fund used a technique involving long-short strategies.

When Inch asked about the risks of losing capital due to poor decision-making by the fund manager, Calitz said that although this was possible, the fund had done consistently “very, very well” and provided a return of 20 percent a year without much deviation.

Calitz explained that hedge funds are not regulated in the way that unit trust funds are, but that this fund has “all the correct paperwork”.

Bam says the RVAF had no paperwork by way of registration or licence whatsoever, and in that regard was conducting business illegally.

With all his savings (R600 000) in a money market fund, Inch was not willing to invest his capital with a high risk of loss. But Calitz assured him that the fund was not influenced by market fluctuations. Furthermore, not only had many of his clients invested in the RVAF, but so too had he. Based on this assurance, Inch deposited R500 000 into the RVAF’s bank account on March 30, 2010, the ruling says.

On July 26, 2012, Inch instructed Calitz that he wanted to withdraw R600 000. The following morning, he heard of the death of Pretorius, “the fund manager and trustee of the RVAF”.

The RVAF is in liquidation, and the trustees have indicated that some, if not all, investor funds have been lost. Bam’s ruling says that in a letter dated November 2012, Calitz wrote: “It is presumed that Dr Inch’s funds are lost, although no definite finding has been made by the liquidators.”

Inch told the ombud he trusted Calitz because he is a CFP and his company is registered with the Financial Services Board (FSB). This led him to believe that the product he was investing in was legal and registered, that Calitz had done the necessary due diligence, that the fund manager was licensed with the FSB, that there were valid financial statements and that the fund was audited.

“This is not the case at all. Had I known this, I would never have invested a cent in this fund,” Inch told the ombud. Calitz acted unethically by investing his money in this “hedge fund”, he says.

In response to questions from Bam’s office, Calitz did not provide evidence of having done a financial needs analysis, justifying investing Inch’s savings in a hedge fund, “which is high risk”, or a record of advice, to explain what other products were considered.

Bam says while Calitz supposedly had the qualifications and experience, “he either failed to properly understand what he was dealing with, or, more worryingly, turned a blind eye in favour of lucrative commission, which he received from the RVAF” .

Bam says Calitz ignored the very legislation designed to protect his client, which led to his client’s loss, and ordered him and his company pay Inch R500 000.

Bam’s office has also referred the determination to the FPI.

Read Article

‘Kommissie’ teruggeëis

11 Dec

Author: Marelize Barnard

Publications:  Die Burger

Date Publiched: 11 December 2013

            Net R469 000 was ‘egte wins’

             KAAPSTAD. – Herman Pretorius het R1 miljoen aan ’n makelaar geleen met slegs ’n handdruk om dié transaksie te beklink.
Boonop het Pretorius later R250 000 van dié R1 miljoen-lening aan die makelaar, Michal Calitz, gegee – ’n geskenk wat hy met nog ’n handdruk as afgehandel beskou het.En volgens ’n transkripsie van getuienis wat in ’n sekwestrasie-ondervraging deur Calitz gelewer is, het Pretorius gesê: “Ek sê vir jou ek het soveel geld gemaak . . . ek betaal vir jou ’n miljoen rand oor . . . dan kan jy dit weer vergoed vir my later (sic).”Dié inligting is vervat in ’n beëdigde verklaring van Lambertus von Wielligh Bester, een van die kurators van Pretorius se Rela­tive Value Arbitrage Fund.

Bester se verklaring is deel van ’n aansoek wat gister in die Wes-Kaapse hooggeregshof teen Calitz ingedien is om miljoene rande “kommissie” wat Pretorius aan hom betaal het, te verhaal.

Luidens die transkripsie van Calitz se ondervraging deur die kurators het hy Pretorius só beskryf: “Herman was een van daai mense . . . en agterna kom ons dit agter . . . wat hand geskud het en niks was op papier nie . . .”

Bester het in sy verklaring aangevoer dat Pretorius se Ponzi-skema ongetwyfeld een van die grootste skelmstreke van sy soort tot nog toe in Suid-Afrika was.

Die ondersoeke wat tot nou deur die kurators en ouditeurs gedoen is, het gewys dat die meeste van die beleggers boere of plattelandse inwoners is.

Bester het gesê Calitz se regsverteenwoordiger het bevestig dat beleggers verskeie klagtes teen Calitz en Impact Finansiële Konsultante by die Ombudsman van Finansiële Diensverskaffers ingedien het. Die Finansiële Diensteraad ondersoek ook Calitz en ander makelaars.

Bester voer aan dat Pretorius, ten einde te verseker dat makelaars “geesdriftig” bly en daar ’n gereelde kapitaalstroom van beleggers inkom, “kommissies of winsdeling” van tussen 5% en 7,5% van die beleggingsbedrae aan hulle betaal het. Makelaars het hul wins ontvang die oomblik wat beleggers se geld inbetaal is.

Ekstra “administratiewe fooie” is ook aan makelaars betaal.

Terwyl beleggers meer as R2,2 miljard aan Pretorius toevertrou en hy deurentyd “opbrengste” van tussen 14% en 25% per jaar op die beleggings verseker het, het die hele beleggingskema oor al die jare nie meer as R469 000 egte wins gemaak nie.

Daar word nou van Calitz en Impact Finansiële Konsultante (’n beslote korporasie waarin Calitz ’n 80%-aandeel het) verskeie bedrae aan “kommissiegelde” teruggeëis. Dit wissel van R489 000 tot R2,45 miljoen en R3,6 miljoen.

Die aansoek is tot 6 Mei uitgestel.

Lees Artikel in Die Burger

Makelaars in skema ondersoek

27 Nov

Author: Marelize Barnard

Publications:  Die Burger

Date Publiched: 29 November 2013

KAAPSTAD. – Finansiële raadgewers wat “minstens R100 miljoen” kommissie gemaak het uit beleggers in Herman Pretorius se piramideskema, word ondersoek.Die Finansiële Beplanningsinstituut (FPI) het heelparty klagtes ontvang en doen dissiplinêre ondersoeke na dié makelaars, wat by die instituut geregistreer is.Adv. Jacqui Grovè, hoof van regsdienste van die FPI, het gister gesê die ondersoek gaan voort.

“Ons het al redelik inligting bekom, maar aangesien die tipe oortredings as baie ernstig beskou word, wil ons seker maak ons maak behoorlik werk van die klagtes en ondersoeke,” het Grovè gesê.

Ingevolge die FPI se dissiplinêre regulasies sal die uitslag van verhore oor die makelaars gepubliseer word.

Die FPI kan egter geen inligting bekend maak alvorens die proses afgehandel is nie.

Grovè het gesê die FPI het heelparty klagtes ontvang, maar het die meerderheid van die klaers na die ombudsman verwys, aangesien die FPI se jurisdiksie om klagtes te ondersoek, beperk is tot FPI-lede.

Luidens die jongste verslag van die kuratore van Pretorius se Relative Value Arbitrage Fund (RVAF) is minstens R100 miljoen as kommissie aan makelaars betaal.

Die kurators, Rynette Pieters en Bessie Bester, het in hul verslag gesê verskeie mense is reeds gedagvaar vir ondervraging.

Die kurators volg inligting oor die mense en instansies op waarheen beleggers se geld “gevloei” het en elke transaksie word ondersoek in ’n poging om geld vir die beleggers te herwin.

Een van die kurators se eerste doelwitte is om geld wat in oorsese rekeninge is, na Suid-Afrika terug te bring. Bankstate word ook nagegaan om die geld wat uit dié oorsese rekeninge uitbetaal is, na te spoor.

Pieters het gesê sover die kurators weet, “word al die geld by finansiële instellings in Engeland bewaar”.

Daar word ook ’n prokureur in Switserland aangestel wat sal probeer om die state van bankrekenings in dié land te bekom.

Die kurators het in Oktober by die Wes-Kaapse hooggeregshof aansoek gedoen om die sperdatum vir ’n eerste likwidasierekening uit te stel. Dié rekening moes op 30 Oktober gelewer word.

Pretorius het nie behoorlik boekgehou van die RVAF en ander beleggingsrekeninge se transaksies nie. Dit blyk dat Pretorius bloot die een beleggingsentiteit gesluit en dan ’n volgende begin het.

Hy het geld van die een na die ander oorgeplaas en dan voortgegaan om nuwe beleggers te lok.

Lees Artikel in Die Burger

Sharemax director warns against Fais Ombud complaints

24 Sep

Author: Julius Cobbett

Publications: MoneyWeb

Date Published: 24 September 2013

Dominique Haese claims investors might lose their right to investment returns.

JOHANNESBURG – Investors in Nova Group Investments have been cautioned against pursuing complaints with Fais Ombud Noluntu Bam. Investors have been warned that if they pursue their complaints, they may forfeit their rights to investment returns or repayments from the Nova Group

Continue Reading

Bedrieglike beleggings vang jou só

12 Apr

Author: Hanlie Stadler

Publications:  Die Burger

Date Publiched: 12 April 2013

Dis ’n frase wat almal ken: As dit te goed klink om waar te wees, ís dit. En tog verloor duisende mense jaarliks miljarde rande in twyfelagtige en bedrieglike“beleggings”. Hoe keer jy dat jy ’n slagoffer raak?

VERSKILLENDE SOORTE BEDROG Geen swendelaar gaan jou ooit nooi om in sy Ponzi- of piramideskema of ander soort skelmspul te belê nie. Hulle gaan jou intrek met indrukwekkende syfers en woorde wat klink of dit wettige beleggingsinstrumente is.
In die geval van ’n Ponzi-én ’n piramideskema word jou geld egter nooit regtig in ’n werklike onderneming, eiendom of ander beleggingsinstrument belê nie. Die geld wat jy belê, word gebruik om die belegger voor jou se beloofde opbrengs te betaal. Net só word jou “opbrengs”betaal uit die geld wat die volgende belegger belê.

WAT IS DIE ROL VAN ’N FINANSIËLE TUSSENGANGER?
Voordat jy jou geld belê, vra die raad van ’n sogenaamde finansiële tussenganger – hy kan die titel finansiële raadgewer, gesertifiseerde finansiële beplanner (CFP) of makelaar hê. “Ervare raadgewers het al ál die skemas gesien en weet hoe hulle werk,” sê Came.

Uiteraard is daar enkele vrot appels in die bedryf vir finansiële tussengangers. Só was tussengangers by Herman Pretorius se bedrogspul betrokke. Die Fais-ombudsman het pas tussengangers wat beleggers se geld in Sharemax (’n eiendomsindikasie wat in duie gestort het) belê het, skuldig bevind aan ’n verskeidenheid oortredings.

Maar, sê Lubowski, baie min bedrieglike skemas laat hul produkte deur finansiële tussengangers verkoop óf hulle beperk hulle net tot enkele sulke tussengangers, wat dan ook gewoonlik ’n baie nou verhouding het met die“ghoeroe” van die beleggingskema.

Lubowski sê die rol van ’n finansiële beplanner strek baie verder as net die verkoop van versekerings- of beleggingsprodukte. “Hy moet jou éérs help om realisties en voldoende te beplan en dan te kyk na ’n portefeulje produkte. Enige beplanner wat net aan jou produkte wil verkoop voordat ’n behoorlike proses deurloop is, moet vir jou ’n rooi vlag wees.”

Lees Artikel in Die Burger

Fais-ombud besleg 9% van klagtes

28 Oct

Author: Nellie Brand-Jonker

Publications:  Sake24

Date Publiched: 28 October 2012

Kaapstad. – Die kantoor van die ombudsman vir finansiële adviseurs- en tussengangerdienste (Fais) het in die boekjaar tot einde Maart 8 821 nuwe klagtes ontvang, 11% meer as in die vorige boekjaar.

Pravin Gordhan, minister van finansies, het gesê die toename toon dat die publiek wel die diens gebruik, maar dit is ook ’n aanduiding dat finansiëledienstemaatskappye nie kliënte se klagtes oplos nie en hulle hulle gevolglik tot die ombudsman moet wend.

Meer as die helfte van die nuwe klagtes handel oor lang- en korttermynversekering. Sowat 20% het met beleggings te doen. Gordhan het gesê onlangse voorvalle van skurkagtige beleggingsadvies wat die ombudsman gehanteer het, toon watter gevare beleggers loop wat finansiële advies nodig het.

Die skuif na ’n nuwe regulatoriese stelsel sal hopelik ’n ….

Continue reading this article

 

Sharemax-adviseur moet geld terugbetaal

28 Oct

Author: Adri van Zyl

Publications:  Sake24

Date Publiched: 28 October 2012 

Johannesburg. – Nóg ’n finansiële adviseur is deur die ombudsman vir finansiële tussengangers en adviesdienste (Fais) gelas om geld terug te betaal aan ’n afgetrede egpaar wat op sy aanbeveling geld in The Villa-ontwikkeling van Sharemax belê het.

Noluntu Bam, die Fais-ombudsman, het gelas dat Christoffel Johannes Nel R320 000 terugbetaal aan ’n egpaar van KwaZulu-Natal.

Dié egpaar, onderskeidelik 71 en 68 jaar oud, het in April 2010 op aanbeveling van Nel in The Villa belê.

Die bedrag verteenwoordig sowat 50% van hul aftreekapitaal en hulle is van die inkomste daarop afhanklik vir hul daaglikse bestaansuitgawes.

Luidens die klagte wat by die ombudsman se kantoor ingedien is, is The Villa aan hulle voorgehou as ’n “belegging met geen risiko nie wat ’n hoër maandelikse inkomste lewer”.

Bam het bevind dat Nel nie ge­lisensieer was om beleggings in die ongenoteerde aandele en skuldbriewe van The Villa te verkoop nie en ook nie die egpaar bewus gemaak het van die risiko’s van die belegging nie.

Continue reading this article

Winners and losers in indemnity case

21 Oct

Author: Bruce Cameron

Publications: iOL

Date Published: 21 October 2012

Some good news. Santam, as a provider of professional indemnity (PI) insurance to financial advisers, will no longer be financing advisers who wish to force consumers to take their complaints to the High Court, blocking access to the low-cost, accelerated process provided by the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Ombud.

…….. The situation reached a level of absurdity recently when the FSB, in effect, claimed that it could not be blamed for not taking action earlier against the Relative Value Arbitrage Fund – a Ponzi scheme masquerading as a hedge fund in which investors may lose R1.8 billion – because the fund, managed by the late Herman Pretorius, did not fall under the FSB ………

Continue reading this article

Raadgewers word nou ondersoek

21 Sep

Author: Marelize Barnard

Publications:  Die Burger

Date Publiched: 21 September 2012

KAAPSTAD. – Die optrede van finansiële raadgewers wat duisende beleggers oorgehaal het om in skemas van Herman Pretorius te belê, word ondersoek.

Marc Alves, senior bestuurder in die kantoor van die ombudsman vir finansiële diensteverskaffers, het by navraag bevestig dat dié kantoor klagtes van beleggers ontvang het.

Dié klagtes is ingedien teen talle finansiële raadgewers en handel spesifiek oor die advies wat hulle aan beleggers gegee het.

Die raadgewers word gereguleer ingevolge die Wet op Finansiële Advies- en Tussengangerdienste, ook bekend as die Fais-wet.

Alves het gesê die ombudsman ondersoek nie Pretorius se spesifieke skemas nie.

“Ons kan slegs klagtes ondersoek wat mense indien oor die advies of diens wat ………

Continue reading this article

Makelaars sal moet opdok

9 Sep

Makelaars sal moet opdok

Regter Selby Baqwa het Vrydag beslis dat die ombudsman vir finansiële adviseurs en tussengangerdienste (Fais) wel die mag het om finansiële adviseurs te gelas om geld aan kliënte terug te betaal as hulle die bepalings van die Fais-wet oortree het.

FAIS geen verrassing

Die goeie nuus vir kliënte wat versekerings- en beleggingsprodukte koop, is dat verbruikers nou danksy die Wet op Finansiële Advies- en Tussengangersdienste (FAIS) onder dié tel wat die beste ter wêreld beskerm word.

Ombudsman se sterk rol

Beleggers in wie se guns die ombudsman vir finansiële adviseurs- en tussengangersdienste (FAIS) beslis as hulle klagtes ingedien het teen adviseurs en tussengangers het al ’n ver pad geloop in die oplossing van hul probleem.