£86m FCA Trial To Go Ahead Despite Suspension Request

Home » News & Knowledge » £86m FCA Trial To Go Ahead Despite Suspension Request

As reported in the Financial Adviser, a request to delay the trial of two unregulated introducers and their management who transferred £86m-worth of pension assets, has been rejected. The plea was made as the defendant made the claim that he was suffering from ill-health.

Initially, the case was brought to light by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) back in 2017 as an alleged pension mis-selling. It was alleged that the unregulated Avacade Limited and Alexandra Associates‘ pension report service had stepped into the territory of pension advice.

The firms were trading under the names of Avacade Investment Options and Alexandra Associates before they went into liquidation, and were at the time promoting SIPPs (Self-invested Personal Pensions) and investments towards other assets, such as tree plantations, the FCA reported.

The FCA also alleged that both firms gave misleading statements to their consumers and dealt in regulated activities in the UK when they were unauthorised to do so.

Further to this, the FCA alleged that:

“Craig Lummis, Lee Lummis and Raymond Fox were each knowingly concerned in Avacade’s breaches and Craig Lummis and Lee Lummis were each knowingly concerned in Alexandra Associate’s breaches.”

However, on the 8th of January 2020, Craig Lummis requested in Court that the trial date be adjourned on the grounds that he was unfit to stand trial due to suffering from ‘severe adjustment disorder’. This came less than a week before the trial was due to take place from the 19th of January 2020, for the duration of an estimated nineteen days.

£86m FCA Trial

Lummis’ doctor wrote: “Patient presents with acute depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation secondary to stress related to upcoming court proceedings. In my opinion, any forthcoming trials in the three-month period would be detrimental to his health and he should not attend trial.”

Craig Lummis stated: “All of this will lead to basic unfairness, and any judgment will almost certainly be subject to an appeal. It will be much better to avoid such complications by adjourning proceedings now to allow the proposed course of treatment to take place.”

The FCA counter-argued that a delay was very late in the proceedings, and adjourning at this stage would waste money, court hours and other resources. Also, at the hands of Craig and Lee Lummis, more than £86m was transferred into SIPPs by consumers, with £70m being subsequently invested into failed endeavours.

Judge Adam Johnson believed there to be obvious public interest on these grounds, and delaying the course of justice at such a late stage would be “highly unattractive”.

The Judge was unclear as to how long of a delay would be requested, but he believed it to be around twelve months, with any adjourned trial unlikely to resume before such a time.

Due to one of his doctors stating that Craig Lummis was “of full mental capacity”, Judge Johnson dismissed the request for a delay.