header-logo header-logo

27 April 2016
Issue: 7696 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Boiler-room fraudsters

Two men who perpetrated one of the largest boiler-room shares fraud schemes ever pursued by a UK authority have been ordered to pay £11m in compensation.

Judge Gledhill QC, in Southwark Crown Court, told Jeffrey Revell-Reade, 51, to pay £10,751,000 and Anthony May, 60, to pay £250,000. The pair sold shares in US-listed companies from Madrid, but when investors came to sell the shares they found they were worthless, placed in shell companies or in companies not operating. Both men must pay up within three months or go to prison: ten years for Revell-Reade and three years for May.

Their convictions were linked to seven other individuals, also convicted and sentenced following a seven year investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

In June 2014, Revell-Reade was sentenced to a further eight years and six months in prison. May was sentenced to seven years and four months.

Mark Thompson, head of the SFO’s proceeds of crime division, says: “These individuals benefited substantially from their crimes. Their lavish lifestyles featured numerous overseas properties, wine collections and a luxury yacht. We welcome these orders which the pair now need to pay or face a further period of imprisonment.”

Joanna Dimmock, white collar defence specialist and senior associate at White & Case, says: “Following the recent Libor acquittals, the confiscation sums in this case may indicate much needed success for the SFO. However, on closer analysis, the sums agreed, in fact, suggest significant success for the defence.

“The SFO had been seeking to recover £43m from Revell-Reade. This would have been the biggest order it had ever obtained in such a case. The burden was on the defence to satisfy the SFO that their client did not have the hidden assets they claimed he possessed. This was a substantial hurdle that Revell-Reade's legal team were clearly able to meet and a much lower figure of £10.75m was ultimately agreed.”

Issue: 7696 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll