The scammers that tried to sue me

Tony Levene
by Lovemoney Staff Tony Levene on 07 July 2012  |  Comments 29 comments

This firm bullied publishers with threats of legal action for exposing their scam.

The scammers that tried to sue me

Last year I was on the receiving end of an onslaught after I wrote an article about Tullett Brown, a company that had coldcalled me to sell carbon credits, then and now the subject of a Financial Services Authority (FSA) warning. I wrote that Tullett Brown had moved into carbon credits from landbanking, about which the FSA (and many others) had also issued red light alerts.

The piece was hit by a legal barrage which claimed libel, defamation and threatened an immediate injunction. even though every word was true. The article was pulled. It wasn't just me that 'enjoyed' this attention. Two national newspapers dropped planned stories about Tullett Brown on legal advice.

I took to Twitter. And for my pains, I was threatened yet again with personal libel damages which could ruin me. The tweets disappeared.

In the public interest

On 27th June, Tullett Brown, and a number of related companies, were wound up in the High Court on the “grounds of public interest” following a probe by the Company Investigations division of the Insolvency Service (on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business).

The court found that Tullett Brown had taken £3.2 million from investors who received “unsolicited phone calls inviting them to invest in land and carbon credits, comparing this to gold”. Land and carbon scams had netted £1.6 million each.

The judge, Ms Registrar Derrett, said the carbon racket ripped off 128 consumers including one who handed over £138,121.50. Had my warnings not been attacked by lawyers acting for Tullett Brown, at least some of the 128 might still have their money. Instead of searching the internet for Tullett Brown and finding only its own self-serving lies, they might have found alerts.

The judge said: “The evidence demonstrates that misleading selling techniques were used. I am satisfied that customers were misled as to the likely return on their investments and the period over which that return might be realised and led generally to believe they were buying an asset that was appropriate for investment.

“I am satisfied that misleading statements were made in the brochures to induce investment and that there was no real prospect of any returns.”

The investigation showed that land was sold for up to 37.7 times what Tullett Brown had paid.

The carbon credit scam was a carbon copy. The judge said: “The investment was compared to gold but the investor could not access the credits online as promised. It sold the credits at inflated prices. That they were wasting assets was not made clear. And it was difficult for investors to sell credits. They were told that 'the sky is the limit' and that it was 'virtually guaranteed' that the investment would increase in value between 50 and 100% in one year.”

Where did the money go?

Where did the £3.2 million go? A small part went on buying the land and the credits. A larger slice went to the sharp-talking phone crew. And the court was told that £1,584,061 went to associated companies and associated individuals “in substantial and unexplained payments”.

The judge continued: “Tullett Brown's records were inadequate to explain the purpose of the transfers to associated companies.” In winding these up, she said: “There has been a lack of commercial probity in benefiting from the mis-selling carried on by Tullett Brown and a failure to co-operate with the investigation.”

She concluded: “On the uncontested evidence before me it is in my judgement entirely appropriate to wind up the companies on the public interest grounds sought and I do so order.”

Of course, some of the missing investor money went in paying lawyers to prevent the truth being told. Lawyers had threatened to sue me over the term “cold-calling” yet Ms Registrar Derrett uses the expression.

After Tullett Brown and the associated companies were shut in the public interest, Chris Mayhew, Company Investigations Supervisor at the Insolvency Service, said: “I would urge anyone contacted out of the blue by someone they don't know to simply say no to such confidence tricksters and not invest in their hot air. Be green, not gullible.

“We have recently highlighted the increasing number of such companies using dubious and high pressure sales tactics, particularly directed at the elderly who are seen as an easy target. We are determined to stamp out unscrupulous companies that prey on the vulnerable by cold calling and persuading them by misleading statements to invest in unsuitable products.”

Both law firms which threatened me now say they are “unable to comment as they cannot take instructions from the client as it is in liquidation.” I don't think further comment is needed.

More on scams

This scam will leave you with nothing but overpriced hand cream

This scam is just a simple confidence trick

And the winner is... the scammer!

How your details end up in the hands of cold callers

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (29)

  • windlesham1
    Love rating 14
    windlesham1 said

    These guys used to phone me frequently claiming they could make 20% p.a. When I explained that I make 20% a month they seemed to get a bit confused. I then suggested the salesman could borrow at 7% from Alliance And Leicester and get his 20% from carbon credits and have a nice life. Again that caused some confusion.

    I love it that 99.9% of these imbeciles are so stupid,and have no knowledge of my type of trading(options). It is not libel or slander if you are telling the truth,and most solicitors are not too smart either!

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • fenemore
    Love rating 205
    fenemore said

    Carbon credits are an "intangible" conjured up out of thin air by various governments on the back of "climate change". They are simply "permissions to polute". If you wanted to come up with a method of generating money out of nothing, you couldn't do better than carbon-credits.

    I consider them unethical, yet when I put this to a CC cold caller his response was "why the hell do YOU care as long as you make a profit?" This rather sums up the whole "climate change" industry - "we want to save the planet - but only by making loads of money".

    Whatever your feelings on the "climate change" debate - carbon credit trading is beneath contempt.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • joncl
    Love rating 0
    joncl said

    I was contacted by a carbon credits company this week (I won't mention them by name in case I get sued !!). The guy on the phone was obviously reading from a script and was very forceful. I checked with companies house; the company had been going just over a year, and had changed its name 6 months ago (I wonder why ??), with authorized capital to the sum of £1. They were not registered with the FSA. The funniest thing is that their 'About Us' web page contained long gushing statements on their high level of business ethics, principles and service guidelines, which I discovered via Google, had been copied and pasted word for word from a national Estate Agent's website.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Alan14
    Love rating 16
    Alan14 said

    You wrote: "Both law firms which threatened me now say they are “unable to comment as they cannot take instructions from the client as it is in liquidation.” I don't think further comment is needed."

    One further comment might be useful.

    Their names.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • T5P8
    Love rating 33
    T5P8 said

    Fenemore - you make an excellent point.

    It seems to me this is what happens when politicians find a way to write some legislation to get their hands into some money.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    The legal profession needs investigating and regulating just the same as banking and the press. Maybe it's time for all professions to be subject to investigation when they make huge sums of money for very little work. That includes pay-day loan companies, buy to let parasites, their lawyers, 'care services' providers, companies that install 'traffic calming' and any other businesses that are associated in any way with politics, national or local.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • grayfield18
    Love rating 1
    grayfield18 said

    I am a Solicitor and can assure you that we are far more regulated than either the press or bankers. I don't do libel etc so can't comment on their practices particularly. I do know however that when a client comes to me to make a complaint or initiate action i need some proof of their case before i proceed. I also know that like most other walks of life their are some who are more scrupulous than others. The other problem is that i have met clients where i act in Criminal matters where i have thought on this evidence you are guilty given them advice which is declined we fight the case and the evidence falls to pieces. So who know's whether if the wound up Company had walked into me with their glossy brochures whether i would have acted or not. There should certainly be an exception to being liable for libel in the case of press freedom with a caveat of being able to show reasonable grounds for the comment. At that point costs should be severely restricted !!

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    The legal profession is pretty well regulated if you stand up to them. I've had one solicitor struck off and £32K in negligence payment and other well on the way to being struck off (I stopped keeping track once I got back all the money I paid him plus £1700 compensation).

    The second solicitor was supposed to be dealing with the negligence claim against the first solicitor plus outstanding damages for a road accident. I ended up dealing with the road accident claim myself and got more than the solicitor would have.

    Mike -

    You seem to want to investigate anyone who makes more money than you do, there are plenty of people who make a lot of money for very little work and who aren't ripping anyone off, it's called being smart. Please list which professions you consider to be making an honest living. Is anyone sparing a thought for the 99.9% of bank staff who don't make a lot of money or the vast majority of MP's who are trying to do a good job even if we don't agree with their politics? I also have friends who own buy-to-let properties; they don't make a fortune and they look after their tenants.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • sharkeyW
    Love rating 7
    sharkeyW said

    why not name the legal firm who acted for the scammers?

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • thenikjones1
    Love rating 8
    thenikjones1 said

    If "every word was true" then why did you not publish? To be libel, the statements need to be untrue and damaging.

    I understand why you do not want to mention the names of the legal firms, but am still disappointed. I wonder how many other firms you know are operating dishonestly but will only reveal too late to be of help.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 265
    oldhenry said

    Private Eye do take on these awful law firms that threaten libel when they know full well they are working for a dishonest cleint and willing to pocket any money whether it is dirty or clean. That publication which has been sued , and has won some of teh cases, is brilliant in my mind as being true to its journalistic traditions of naming and shaming. It is a pity this column does not follow that tradition but lets these law firms 'off teh hook' to carry on earning their funds from possibly corrupt clients.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 362
    CuNNaXXa said

    I used one solicitor to sue another who had failed to protect my interests properly during a property purchase, so solicitors, just like everyone else,, can cock up.

    Just because someone has studied an element of law doesn't mean that they are infallible. Anyone can make a mistake.

    On the subject of this topic, the simple fact that Tullet Brown threatened anyone who made the merest hint of a negative comment with legal action shows just how perverse our legal system is. It wasn't that long ago that a famous football player (Brian Biggs, if my memory serves me well) got the legal system to enforce a gagging order, so that no one was allowed to spread the news.

    (The question of whether we had a right to know about this affair is different from the question of censorship. Anyone who is in the public eye is subject to scrutiny. If they want anonymity, they remain anonymous, rather than earn millions from being a spectacle).

    So, it would appear that Tullet Brown used the law to censor opinion, whether it be public or private. There is a distinct difference between defamatory comments and opinions. Whereas defamation is NOT allowed, the right to air our opinions should be, provided that we can substantiate those opinions. If you buy a burger from a burger van, and it tastes rotten, you should be allowed to voice your opinion to other potential consumers, provided you can demonstrate the burger is rotten. If you state the burger is rotten when it simply isn't, that is defamation, and the burger man could sue you for disrupting his business.

    On saying that, the law isn't about what is wrong or right, but who has more money. Tony Levine could have published his article, then have been ruined by a ruthless company hell bent on squashing public opinion of their operations. The simple fact of whether Tony Levine was being honest or defamatory would have no bearing on a court case that is fought with CASH!

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • hopefultom
    Love rating 43
    hopefultom said

    Tony, ( do you ever read these comments ? ) As has been pointed out by windlesham1 and thenikjones 1, it is a great pity that you lack some backbone.

    You cannot be punished for telling the provable truth.

    You may wish to refer to last Sunday's Financial Mail On Sunday where you will find a fuller description of events in relation to this company. Unlike yourself, their reporter has been warning the public about this company for some time and gave a current update, including the fact that an apparently unrelated company is operating from the same address as Tullet Brown and operating in a similar way.

    If you cannot find the courage of your convictions perhaps, instead of continuing with your self regarding articles, you may be more suited to burger-flipping.

    @grayfield18

    If you are a solicitor, I'm just grateful you are not working on my behalf; your grammar and punctuation leave a lot to be desired.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rsharp
    Love rating 8
    rsharp said

    For those who are interested, it would appear that the names of the legal firms can be found here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jun/08/green-investment-turned-hazardous

    The article was written by Tony Levene on 8 June 2012.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MikeHoath
    Love rating 4
    MikeHoath said

    hopefultom, it would be so nice if "You cannot be punished for telling the provable truth." was the case in reality. Firstly remember that this is a civil matter, so if it went to court it would be "balance of probabilities". Also remember that the people doing the threatening are usually fairly well-off individuals or companies and can afford the most persuasive advocates. Also, even if you do win you can easily be out of pocket - you may not be awarded all your costs, however accurate and justified the offending statements were. The lawyers heavily involved in the libel industry know this very well.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    Far be it for me to agree with Hopefultom, but my company makes a special tool for Toyota which makes a great burger flipper. If any Lovemoney journalists want samples they need only ask......

    @MikeHoath - you should check your dictionary as to the meaning of 'provable' as per hopefultom's post and also your facts as far as awarding of damages in such a situation. In the case of fraudsters trying to smokescreen their actions with vexatious threats it's pretty easy to shoot both they and their crooked solicitors down in flames before anything got near court if you know what to do.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MikeHoath
    Love rating 4
    MikeHoath said

    electricblue - I am perfectly well aware of what "provable" means. It can, however, cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to defend yourself against a claim of libel however valid your case. This is exactly what the bullying lawyers rely on. And if their client then disappears, goes into liquidation, or whatever, then you are out of pocket, and possibly financially destroyed. You claim that you know how to "shoot both they and their crooked solicitors down". Perhaps you could enlighten us.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    If there is you think that the bullying party (not being an individual) is likely to be unable to pay damages, the first thing you do is go for a court order making them pay money into court to cover your potential costs and damages if they lose. If they can't do this the case will not be allowed to proceed. In these fraud cases if you are sure of your facts and know that the offending party is already under investigation, there is little likelihood of anything actually reaching court before they are shut down.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MikeHoath
    Love rating 4
    MikeHoath said

    electricblue - provision for paying potential costs into court is usually for foreign litigants with few local assets (UK is very popular for libel cases for the reasons that have been under discussion).

    Now would you explain why the journalist's articles were pulled if (as we know) they were correct. The likely explanation is that their own lawyers know the problems and costs. I see that you haven't given an explanation of "shoot both they and their crooked solicitors down", unless the very restricted circumstance of the offending party being under investigation is what you meant - and just hoping it goes away is a lot less proactive than your claim. And by the way, calling a large established legal firm "crooked" would probably result in additional very painful proceedings as well.

    Report on 07 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 362
    CuNNaXXa said

    How many cases have been lost because of lack of funds? I am sure that many have given up trying to get compensation simply because they are not in a viable financial position.

    Also remember that if you have legal insurance, they will only pay out your legal costs if they are convinced that the chances of winning the case are almost, if not, 100%. In my own case against my conveyancer, my lawyer had to send a letter to my insurer stating the probability of winning the case before they would agree to fund my case, even though it was highly likely that we would be able to recover the costs from the conveyancer (which we did, eventually).

    We have to remember that while the law is there to protect the innocent, there are enough loopholes to allow those with criminal intent to bend the law in their favour, especially if they have bottomless wallets.

    I have no faith in the legal system, simply because your innocence can be proven by how deep your wallet is, or who you know (connected people always seem to shake off the responsibility for their actions, such as high ranking bankers).

    Report on 08 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • grayfield18
    Love rating 1
    grayfield18 said

    @hopfultom i is a solicitor m8 n this is a blog.

    I think the point that is being made by the author of the piece is that the costs of defending a case are the problem. I represented a person in a passing off dispute. The consultation with the QC cost more than 2 x our costs. The culmination of the advice was exactly what i had said; you should win, but the other side are a multi-national and will not roll over so make sure you have deep pockets !

    Report on 08 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • majortruth
    Love rating 159
    majortruth said

    It's not rocket science, global warming (alias climate change to protect the guilty) is a scam, carbon credits are a tax hiking scam as are wind follies and solar sillies.

    The whole basis for these green investment scams and taxes is that human emitted CO2 induces significant warming. Judge for yourself:

    The Earth has only warmed, on average, by a mere 0.7 deg C since the industrial revolution. Between 1997 the last full year (2011) there has been no warming with mean global temperature being the same 14.34 deg C in 1997 as it was in 2011. Yet make no mistake, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 8% in the past 15 years, the largest CO2 increase in the past 150 years.

    The temperature change is well precedented as are the timeframes in the geological record. Scam scam scam.

    A Couple of excellent videos to watch to learn the truth about "Global Warming."

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) sometimes referred to as man-made climate change is a very weak hypothesis, more bandwagon than science:

    Professors Richard Lindzen, John Christy and Pat Michaels

    http://tinyurl.com/dy4ppjf

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Professor Bob Carter

    http://tinyurl.com/catonem

    Report on 08 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • logical_one
    Love rating 46
    logical_one said

    Please note: if the links on the previous previous post from Major Truth give problems opening please use the direct links below:

    Professors Richard Lindzen, John Christy and Pat Michaels

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uarxRaa0h4w

    Professor Bob Carter

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

    Report on 08 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • yodasapprentice
    Love rating 0
    yodasapprentice said

    I hope those that lost there money can now sue the lawyers involved. If the law firms were put out of business as a result, it would reduce the chance of criminal scammers being represented again. I request a list of the involved solicitors so they can at least lose some trade via a boycott

    Report on 08 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • PDB11
    Love rating 72
    PDB11 said

    A number of people here have accused Tony Levene of lacking backbone by not publishing when threatened with a libel action over something he knew was true. No doubt Tony will come and reply here, but I think it's worth pointing out that he nowhere says that he withdrew the articles.

    He published an article. He was threatened with a libel action. The article "was pulled" - presumably by the publisher.

    Since he couldn't get the article published, he tried to expose the scammers on Twitter. Again the threat of libel action. The tweets "disappeared".

    I don't use Twitter, but I'd be surprised if most users have the power to make their own tweets "disappear". Tony seems to have been using the means at his disposal to expose the scammers, but publishers and internet site owners refused to keep his articles and tweets on their sites. Since their job is to publish material, not to expose scammers, they have a right to decide to refuse material rather than get into legal battles. Disappointing, but that's the way it works. Lacking backbone, possibly.

    But whatever you think of publishers pulling articles and Twitter deleting posts, I don't think you can accuse Tony of lacking backbone.

    Report on 09 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • hopefultom
    Love rating 43
    hopefultom said

    @PDB11

    As one of the contributors accusing Tony Levene of lacking backbone,I think you make a good point. If his failure to print appropriate warnings was due to the vagaries of his publishers, then I withdraw my criticism.

    Presumably the continuous warnings about Tullet Brown, given by The Financial Mail On Sunday related to the depths of their pockets.

    @grayfield 18

    " i is a solicitor m8 n this is a blog "

    I do understand that this is a blog but you may have noticed that the vast majority of contributors tend to use standard English.Perhaps it's something to do with our age, but it is what most contributors are comfortable with.It has just taken me 5 minutes to work out that m8 = mate !

    A " solicitors letter " is something that many of us have commissioned, or received and we expect it to be perfect in respect of punctuation, grammar, and spelling, especially in view of the cost. The point I was making is that a person capable of this could be expected to express their views on this " blog " in a more presentable manner.

    Report on 09 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • thenikjones1
    Love rating 8
    thenikjones1 said

    @PDB11 - on reflection, I may have been harsh on Tony, if it was the publishers that pulled the articles. I guess we will never know, though.

    Report on 11 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Phyrefly
    Love rating 5
    Phyrefly said

    However:

    The title of this article "The scammers who tried to sue me" suggests a brave fight against a suit brought by scammers that was defeated by standing up to their threats.

    Not a letter from a lawyer threatening a suit, that resulted in an immediate backdown (let's forget the issues of who's backdown it was...). To "try" to do something means actually commencing the action, not threatening to do it, and usually implies failure (especially in context), not achieving the desired result without even having to follow through.

    So at the very least, Tony has used this title to set himself up as a small hero here - an untrue depiction.

    Report on 13 July 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • roughdiamond
    Love rating 0
    roughdiamond said

    Worse still, it now appears it was Tony Levene himself who scuppered publication of a newspaper report into Tullett Brown. Some hero! See here http://boards.fool.co.uk/hi-alextaylor100-i-was-wondering-where-you-got-12624568.aspx?sort=postdate

    Report on 22 August 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV2