Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Pleased to see that the regulator is now tasking ABH to comply.
10th June. ‘The company is to advise shareholders that following a review, compliance will now proceed, with the regulator’.
Will send a note later to the Serious Fraud Office thanking them for bringing cloudtag to the attention of the regulator.
The concern which has now surfaced (as per failure to comply to Monday 10th June notice) is that perhaps ‘blood is thicker than water’ and that young Amit will take a hit from the regulator if it means elder brother’s Hobart Healthcare is bank-rolling Cloudtag [no other healthcare company would entertain Amit’s ridiculous 20th October request to ‘delay payment’] and hence it might then be down to the prosecution service that is the SFO to then facilitate 100% compliance.
The positive is as before, that the website is still open. That positive imo has then actually increased, in that the SFO and the regulator find nothing untoward in their preliminary enquiries, suggesting that the core of the cloudtag notices appear to be sound, ie. that company assets have been sold. The ombudsman though now asking for further details.
There is though as yet, reasons unknown as to why ABH is raising these serious concerns, centred on his inability to process payments. Possible reasons why, involving Shlomo and a US Securities And Exchange Commission court case were then forwarded.
Serious enough concerns for the SFO to ask questions (& is they who likely contacted regulator (I did not trust the FCA’s old-boys networking)) & is apparently serious enough that even the regulator raises a compliance procedure for ABH to adhere to. Question is though, will he? And I just ain’t too convinced he will.. ‘blood in the shape of a billionaire elder bro, being somewhat thicker than plain water’
Thankfully, there are yet still a few more irons in the fire. The Bureau being just one of them. Should be an interesting week. Fingers crossed & we finally get something verifiable.
That entire message is just nonsense.
Makes no sense whatsoever.
“10 Jun 2024 19:32
Hopefully by the end of tomorrow (7th day) then should receive an email from an FOS case officer who will likely give an indication as to how the complaint proceeds. “
Today…
“The Bureau being just one of them. Should be an interesting week. Fingers crossed & we finally get something verifiable.”
Dougie, I was kindly wondering out of interest, also for clarity - have you heard anything verifiable back directly from either the SFO, FCA or the FOS in respect?
Myself as well as perhaps a few others thought you were awaiting a reply from the SFO or FSO?
Simply curious given that the 10th June company update clarifies that Amit was regulated, ‘The Company is pleased to advise shareholders that following an in depth review over recent weeks, the compliance process has now been approved by the regulator’
As we know he was regulated with the FCA until last August last year… also under a strict NDA as stated per every update for quite sometime ?
If there’s any evidence of fraudulent activity… I’m not quite sure what has been unfolded in respect, so perhaps you’re aware of something other shareholders aren’t privy?
Hope you don’t mind me questioning ?
Additionally…
…. As many have perhaps observed - via X (twitter) - @ctagexpose… Amit has been hung, drawn & quartered, based on their opinion without any verifiable evidence… ?
SFO is not in the habit of telling pis what it has or hasn’t found, if there is any ongoing investigation.
zero independently verifiable evidence that any regulator is involved in any meaningful way.
previous delays were supposedly nothing to with regulators or ‘compliance processes’ — was meant to be about cloudtag keeping rubbish records about who it had sold shares to (“anomalies”)
( and unclear why doub chooses to misquote the update at 15:40)
Hanged! A picture is hung, a person is hanged
I simply post that I am confident that shareholders might all hopefully see a cloudtag notice that is then verifiable ie. that is then proven to be true, especially now that Amit Ben Haim has been approached by the regulator to observe compliance with the regulations.
You then try and seek evidence to the contrary ?
''..have you heard anything verifiable back from the SFO, FCA, or the FOS in respect..''
That is not how any enquiries or investigations will proceed.
Any investigation /enquiry will simply start with collecting data, as per this week's request from the FOS and as per the phone call from the SFO. Anything 'verifiable' could literally then take many many months. And as stated below, I did not bring the regulator, the FCA to the table. This was as I suggested, likely done by the SFO [who then will work closely with the FCA, should an investigation proceed].
I suspect that you might be correct and that the information I forwarded to the SFO and to which they seem to be acting upon, inclusive of the recent 'compliance process being adhered to by ABH', is indeed such that you are likely not privy to it.
1984, even a dyslexic knows…
‘Hung’… idiom
“Idioms are phrases which cannot be understood simply by looking at the meaning of the individual words in the phrase. We use idiomatic expressions all the time.
It’s just sloppy, standards are far worse though these days.
Almost everybody under 30 cannot even spell.
"..zero independently verifiable evidence that any regulator is involved in any meaningful way.."
that is 100% correct Spikey.
Just extremely pleasing that after 7 weeks of radio silence from ABH,
that he then responds 7 days after a phone call from the SFO,
high-lighting his new-found compliance.
“… now that Amit Ben Haim has been approached by the regulator to observe compliance with the regulations.”
- which regulator?
- what regulations?
- where is there any *evidence* at all that any of the above is even remotely true? ( …. amit saying something hardly counts as evidence in any meaningful sense!)
“… SFO and the regulator find nothing untoward in their preliminary enquiries ..”
? what is the *evidence* for that claim of yours, doug?
“You then try and seek evidence to the contrary ?
''..have you heard anything verifiable back from the SFO, FCA, or the FOS in respect..''
That is not how any enquiries or investigations will proceed.”
Given that Amit was regulated by the FCA, then they would be contacted perhaps by the SFO or Financial Ombudsmen to verify their role in said regulation?
Though you were expecting reply, which is exactly what I was enquiring as per your 10th June post ?
For the record, I’ve gone down a similar avenue with an official body. They kept me up to date.
No problem if you’ve not had any feedback… as of yet
“… The positive is as before, that the website is still open. That positive imo has then actually increased, in that the SFO and the regulator find nothing untoward in their preliminary enquiries, suggesting that the core of the cloudtag notices appear to be sound..”
As per the above, Spikey : the website imo would likely have been closed down and in addition, ABH would likely not continue with the notices, if as suggested, the deals were a sham.
In the UK there are two regulators, the FCA & the PRA (Bank of England).
Compliance is the state of being in accordance with regulations.
The SFO are technically not regulators (but their recent introduction of DPA's, Deferred Prosecution Agreements, then has some external investigators suggesting that they have 'lowered' themselves to becoming regulators)..
1984… mostly your posts have a tendency towards crassness also vulgar… so yes a tad “sloppy” imv … nor does one need to be under 30 years old to recognise… irrespective of their ability to spell
You’re being rather naive, doug.
for example, just because an agency doesn’t immediately mount a prosecution or shut someone down does not mean they have not found any evidence of wrongdoing …. it might, for instance, mean, that further material is still being gathered, or might mean that some suspected wrongdoing has indeed been found, but not seen as likely to meet evidential thresholds for a likely successful prosecution in the public interest.
bear in mind too, that different regulators/ agencies would have different powers. (?who do you think would actually have any power to shut down amit’s website?
21:32, doug, cloudtag is *not* a UK company.
“Compliance is the state of being in accordance with regulations.”
Which the company - Cloudtag (Amit) - updated shareholders that they conform to compliance also regulations… (As also said in his bio)
The problem is Dougie, given the timescales which have come and gone, many have for a good fair few months now pushed fraudulent activities re Amit/Cloudtag, as a means to instigate official interaction to find answers to this ongoing saga.
So while not only you - but every Tom, Dick and Harry have allegedly made official complaints via every official body known to man… then shareholders can perhaps expect significant delays whilst said investigations are being carried out? Which seemingly we are now experiencing… ??
I would have hoped the FCA - should there be any concerns whatsoever - as you’ve mentioned - would have resulted in the website being closed down. (The FCA have the powers to do this… )
So perhaps some shareholders will take some solace that it’s still up and running…
Could just as easily argue that you too Spikey are somewhat naive and it would again just be similarly as monotonously dull & boring.
There is no suggestion being made that an agency has found any evidence of wrongdoing.
That would not be a necessary requirement for ABH to then close the website.
My post suggested that if the deals were indeed a scam, that i would then expect the website to close, but i did not state that this was the action of any agency. That is yourself seeking such an argument. You sad old chap.
I simply suggest that imv it is a good positive for shareholders that the website is then still open.
& as per Whispering’s, the FCA could do so should they find reason, but that this would likely take many many months.
I doubt that the UK FCA has the power to compel every web server everywhere in the world to shut a site down, just because FCA doesn’t like it.
FCA would not want to be sued for restraint of trade, so one should *not* assume that just because FCA has not immediately shut down a company, that it means the FCA has no concerns.
… perhaps more importantly, UK FCA does not regulate st vincent companies.
Doug, you made the very specific claim in your 15:40, that “the SFO and the regulator find nothing untoward in their preliminary enquiries”.
you are simply guessing - there is no evidence to back up your assertion.
Spikey, is that you naive and obtuse.. slow to get it together ?
Had there indeed been anything other than untoward ie. substantial,
then I could probably guess that I would likely be called in as a witness.
There is no assertion being made (other than your obtuse arguments) when the above is immediately followed by “..suggesting..”
Do try & behave, you sad old chap.
Doug, your 15:40 was crystal clear: you stated as a factual matter that the ‘SFO and the regulator have found nothing untoward in their preliminary enquiries.”
you then went on to speculate that you thought that would suggest cloudtag’s notices were “sound”.