As one of the Currie brothers enters the witness box it’s revealed that as early as October 2016 the FCA had concerns that the peer-to-peer finance firm Collateral was being “potentially misleading” in aspects of its work.
Jurors also heard of Peter Currie’s “devastation” when the FCA finally took action in January 2018.
Collateral (UK) Limited was a finance company which facilitated investments crowdfunded by members of the public. The firm and two related companies entered administration in April 2018.
The two defendants, Andrew Currie, 57, and Peter Currie, 59, both deny two charges under the Fraud Act 2006 and one charge under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in this criminal prosecution brought by the Financial Conduct Authority.
For further information about the case, and to see our reporting of other days please visit our main trial information page.
Coverage of this trial has been generously funded from donations to our gofundme page. Please consider adding an amount to support crowd-funded journalism of the peer-to-peer lending sector.
Contemporaneous reporting by Alex Varley-Winter who tweets @avwinter
Peter Currie is cross-examined by his defence lawyer Colin Aylott KC
The day started with the judge and lawyers discussing whether train strikes on Friday would impact proceedings. HHJ Griffith said he was having to juggle cases because of longstanding court delays, and so he is still finishing sentencing on another case “my head’s full of sentencing, I can’t think about strikes at the same time.”
Jurors for the Currie trial come in at 11.45am at which point HHJ Griffith explained the delay and told them that Mr Aylott KC “can wake them up for the day“.
Colin Aylott KC, the barrister representing Peter Currie, apologetically told the members of the public who will decide the fate of the defendants – “I promised [a discussion of] Article 36, I don’t think that will wake the jurors up!“
He said they will start with the discussion of an FCA rule ‘Article 36A’ and the lawyers that the Peter Currie’s firm Collateral had consulted: “DWF were on board, is that right?”
Peter Currie: “Yes.“
“And then a response was drafted” Aylott said, referring the jury to an e-mail.
Correspondence between Collateral and the FCA dated 23rd July 2016, with Mr Tall [DWF lawyer] and Mr Kershaw [of Simply Biz] copied in, was shown to the jury.
“Richard Tall was responsible for the contents of this document” said Peter Currie.
Email: “We’ve taken further advice on whether our business model falls within the definition of Article 36H” [they believe it does not] … “We would welcome your response to the above, prior to making further provision of documentation to ensure that our [… view …] of our operations and the regulator’s views align”
Aylott asked if Peter Currie was dialoguing with the FCA.
Currie: “I don’t know whether I was seeking dialogue … [explains what he was doing]”
Judge: “That’s dialogue.”
Aylott: “No response in fact comes from the FCA until several months later“
Peter Currie said it had been received in October. At this point, case handler Pickles is replaced by case handler Dodds at the FCA.
Aylott paused at this point to refer to a question from the jury that came up “a little while ago now“.
The jury’s question had to do with “Company Structure and the use of different companies by Collateral [the firm]”
It was said that various companies had been incorporated by Peter Currie. These were displayed on a graphic shown to the jury.
The mouseinthecourt has requested a copy of this graphic and will update this blog post when it is received.
The graphic showed that Peter Currie had four directorships, and 13 companies related to him.
Peter Currie [explaining]: “This was on the [advice] given by DWF, what those companies’ roles would be in the group.“
Aylott then referred to a schematic for the business that the court was told was authored by Richard Tall, the DWF lawyer advising the company, in September of 2016.
Peter Currie testified that Richard Tall’s schematic provided “a clarification of what each company’s roles would be in the business“.
Aylott then referred to the advice of Mr Tall given in December 2016, later that year.
Tall’s advice appeared to set out how the platform had to be the conduit between lenders and borrowers.
Peter Currie: “The advice that we had was that the agent had to sit in the middle. The platform couldn’t be the lender.”
Aylott asked where the idea for this structure came from.
“Richard Tall”, Peter Currie replied.
Aylott referred back to the correspondence that Collateral had with Mr Dodds at the FCA, on 12 October 2016, after silence from the FCA since July.
Dodds introduced himself in the e-mail: “I’m the case officer that has been assigned to assist your application.”
Dodds wanted “quite a lot of documentation” Aylott says.
Dodds was asking questions like – “can you explain the purpose of the Bond Purchase Instrument and how it fits with Article 36H?”… there was also an “asset backed secured bond instrument opportunity” question.
Dodds wrote on 12 October 2016 that Collateral is being “potentially misleading” in aspects of its work.
Peter Currie commented on what he did with correspondence that came in from the FCA in this period stating “It was always forwarded on to the professional advisors …”
Aylott referred the jury to a specific response from Peter Currie responding to a query, from the FCA, about the website – “I can confirm that all requested changes have been made to the website” [&, to the FCA] “Collateral raised a total of £65,000 from four investors … they have all received their investment and interest back in full”
Meeting with the FCA on 18 November 2016
Aylott asked “who took the lead role in this meeting?”, said to be between the FCA, Peter Currie, Richard Tall and Gary Kershaw.
Peter Currie: “Richard.”
Aylott said there is “limited references to you in the [transcript of the meeting]”
Peter Currie is asked about his understanding of ‘Peer2Peer’ and whether that phrase could only be applied to regulated activity.
Peter Currie: “I believe that the Interim Permission covered whatever you were applying for at the time“
Aylott referred to a document – an e-mail from Dodds at the FCA, dated December 2016 which said among other things “… as the firm has no permission to carry out these activities the firm should only …“
Aylott: “’permissions for credit broking and not P2P‘ – how did you square that with what you’d been told in the meeting in November?”
Peter Currie: “At the time the application was made this was the application for an electronic platform.“
Aylott asked if there was an apparent conflict in the position of the FCA expressed there?
Peter Currie: “The whole team shared that view. I believed that we were undertaking activities with an electronic platform. … Richard Tall said ‘it’s not Peer2Peer’ he was always consistent with that advice.“
Colin Aylott asked if he felt the situation was one of the FCA themselves “not knowing how to deal with this?“
On this topic, the court is shown an email sent out after that FCA meeting, on the 18th of November 2016. Andy Kershaw of Simply Biz is wrote that the FCA “don’t fully understand P2P as a market”
Peter Currie, commenting on Andy Kershaw’s ‘don’t understand P2P as a market’ remark, said the FCA told Richard Tall this in the meeting as well. Currie testified that he “instructed Richard Tall to provide advice on the grey areas that were covered with the FCA.”
On 5th December 2016 Richard Tall gave an opinion on whether Collateral were accepting deposits under Article 5. “He was of the view that we were not.”
The court was shown Richard Tall’s opinion document in which he divided Collateral’s work into what he referred to as two streams – … “None of these activities are undertaken in the first or second stream. … we don’t consider the arrangements under the first stream to amount to a Collective Investment Scheme“. The document said “our opinion may be provided to the FCA for their review.”
It’s said a response from the FCA was received “quite quickly” with Mr Dodds having acknowledged the receipt of the opinion on 06 December 2016.
Dodds expressed a concern that they may be operating “an unregulated collective investment scheme“.
Aylott asked if Peter Currie’s attitude was: ““We are going to put this opinion to the test”? Was he “expecting the FCA’s counter-opinion to be provided to you?””
Peter Currie: “Yes“.
Aylott said that a fully comprehensive counter opinion was later set out in emails from the FCA.
On the 15th December 2016 Dodds, of the FCA, replied saying “you should be made aware we have yet to be convinced that the firm [is compliant] … continues to operate an unregulated collective investment scheme.” A subsequent section cited a “… lack of awareness of your own regulatory responsibilities, an example of that being the firm’s client money arrangements”.
Later in the same email Dodds highlights “treating customers fairly”.
Peter Currie told the jury he sent this opinion from the FCA “to Richard Tall for a response…we wanted to progress the application and it just seemed to be a stumbling block.”
Aylott referred to “the internal discussions taking place between you and Tall and Kershaw.”
On 6th December 2016, Peter Currie asked his advisers – “In your opinion can we continue as a P2P platform but outside A36H ”
Richard Tall advised that “P2P and 36H are not one and the same” and that he didn’t think that they are operating a collective investment scheme.
On 28 December, just prior to the FCA’s deadline to respond, Tall wrote to Peter Currie and Andy Kershaw asking “am I missing something? … surely not where we have a limited company and no individual or relevant recipient of credit is involved…“
On the deadline of the 29th Dec 2016, Collateral’s response was sent to Howard Dodds.
Separately, the court had heard that Howard Dodds stepped off the case because he felt he did not know enough about the rules outside of Peer2Peer.
On Monday 22 May 2017, the FCA raised concerns about Collateral’s communications, Collateral replied – “we think you may be referring to external [forum] posts that are not authored by Collateral”.
Aylott asked Peter Currie to comment on what happened next, which is that Peter Woolls-King took over the case at the FCA. Peter Currie commented that he believed that the changeover of staff was a sign that they were making progress.
Peter Currie: “I thought we were moving through departments. I thought we’d passed all the criteria for Mr Dodds’ department and had passed through to Mr Woolls-King’s department.”
Aylott referred to an FCA email from May of 2017 – “The same sorts of issues were being raised — by this point more than a year on from the application being submitted.”
He asked Peter Currie to comment on what he felt:
Peter Currie: “Frustration. Frustration with everybody, because we were trying to find the way forward but we always seemed to be one step forward one step back.”
Aylott: “Was it the case [of] you not caring now because of this … what did you want to do?“
Peter Currie: “We wanted to adhere to all their requirements.“
Aylott referred to correspondence ‘between you and Mr Tall’.
On 5th May 2017 Peter Currie wrote “Peer2Peer or not Peer2Peer keeps coming back.”
Richard Tall “I don’t know how you feel below about the response [to the FCA], I know it’s pretty full on but I am just trying to think how we may water it down and that is not immediately obvious.”
Aylott said that on 26th May 2017 Peter Currie attended this FCA meeting with Mr Tall. It was said Kershaw was not present as he had another commitment.
During the meeting the FCA asked what interim permissions they had. It was said Collateral confirmed it was unregulated lending.
During the meeting the FCA requested that the company should “stop taking deposits in relation to Collateral … did that happen?”
Peter Currie: “Yes.“
Currie added: “This [e.g. the report of the meeting ref’d above] was an internal FCA document, it was never [provided] to Richard or myself.”
Aylott asked him to comment on how much money was coming in from lenders on the Collateral platform.
Peter Currie: “A million pounds a month.“
Aylott: “What was that money going into?“
Peter Currie: “Property, bridging loans …“
Aylott asked if he can give an example. Currie referred to one of the examples that had been covered by the prosecution in court before – “there was a residential apartment in Chelsea.”
Aylott: On 29th Jan 2018 – “you get the letter from the FCA. This is directly relevant to count one of the indictment that the jury is dealing with“.
The letter considers the registered status of Collateral (UK) Limited. It said: “It is not possible to transfer an [Interim Permission] granted to one legal entity to that of another legal entity. As a consequence CUKL does not currently have IP to conduct any FCA regulated activities.”
Aylott asked Peter Currie what he felt when he read that letter.
Currie: “Devastation. It was shock. I didn’t see any problems prior to it, it was shock, total shock. I sent it straight on to the compliance and legal advisors.“
Aylott: “Do you accept that you hadn’t told them about the change to the register made in December 2015?“
Currie confirmed this.
Aylott asked if he stood by that decision.
Currie: “When you see the devastation that it has caused to me and my family, there’s no way that I would have done anything untoward. I didn’t think that I’d done anything wrong, the changes were made, the changes were accepted. The application went in from Collateral [not Regal]. If I felt like we’d done anything wrong I would have said ‘I think there’s a problem here’ but I never did.“
Aylott: “We all have the benefit of hindsight … knowing what we know now.“
Peter Currie: “I would have just changed the company name [e.g. Regal Pawnbroker’s].“
Aylott asked why he didn’t speak about it to Mr Kershaw?
Currie: “If I thought there was a problem I would have told him.“
Aylott referred to the 31st January 2018 FCA document. This is a note of a call between the FCA and Collateral, for which Richard Tall and Andy Kershaw were not available. Peter Currie later confirmed he took the meeting without advisers present.
“In relation to that note did you accept the contents? [is it] accurate record of what was said, is there anything fundamental that you disagree with?“
During the call Peter Currie was first asked directly about the name change on the interim register. Fiona McMillan, FCA, asked the question. The regulator noted the answer that “they decided to move away from pawn to bridging loans … he [Peter Currie] was surprised with the letter as the FCA’s system had allowed him to make the amendments”
Colin Aylott asked him why they moved away from pawn to bridging loans?
Peter Currie explained they “couldn’t get a bank account with a mainstream bank”
It was said there was a “reputational risk to the banks by doing business with a pawnbroking business…”.
Currie: “It was easier to move away with the name Collateral.“
Aylott: “What then in the days after that meeting, how did things develop from there?“
Peter Currie: “Emails started coming in thick and fast. Richard Tall seemed to want to distance himself a bit from the company. … Felt as though I was a little bit on my own.“
Aylott: “Internally within the business what was the mood?“
Peter Currie: “Everybody was shocked and we was trying to find a way for the business to continue.“
Aylott asked about his approach to work in general terms: “How long were your days [typically]?“
Peter Currie: “Anything up to 18 hours a day 7 days a week“,
Aylott asked what happened with any FCA correspondence.
Peter Currie: “Every email I got was forwarded on … [we had] an internal compliance guy at this time so he was involved in it.“
Aylott asked about the impact.
Peter Currie said: “I struggled, I wasn’t sleeping at night, I struggled and I’m still struggling now.”
Aylott referred to an email by Richard Tall to the FCA around this time. Mr Tall had written that he had been instructed that “… the change of the details was done simply as a matter of corporate expediency …”
Peter Currie confirmed that this reflected what he had told Richard Tall.
Aylott asked “do you stand by those words to this day?“
Peter Currie: “Yeah absolutely.“
Aylott took Peter Currie through what happened next. Collateral went through the process of removing “all references to being authorised and regulated by the FCA”
Aylott asked Peter Currie about intent.
Peter Currie said he had “no intent to cause harm…operating under the belief that the FCA permitted it.”
By the 8th February 2018, the court heard that the firm sought to “continue to trade outside of the regulations.“
On 12th Feb 2018, they responded to requests from the FCA to update their terms and conditions among a number of other requirements. Peter Currie wrote “I also confirm that we will cease carrying on any lending activities.”
Aylott asked if all of this was done.
Peter Currie: “Yes.“
A question from the jury was asked – “How did you come to know Mr Tall?”
Peter Currie gave the answer that Andrew Currie recommended DWF as a law firm, but did not know Richard Tall who was matched to Collateral by the them.
Judge: “Do you think that he believed that you were regulated?“
Peter Currie: “Yes.“
Another question from the jury: “Did you blindly trust him?“
Answer was ‘not blindly’ but that Peter Currie believed Richard Tall was the ‘head’ when it came to ‘regulatory services’.
Peter Currie confirmed, at HHJ Griffiths’ prompting, that his having changed the name of the company on the interim register — the misrepresentation referred to on the jury’s charge sheet — was done ‘before he [Richard Tall] came on the scene’.
Aylott asked about the regulatory advice given after Tall came on the scene, e.g. some time after the name change was made: “Did you believe that you were operating in accordance with the advice given by Tall?”
Peter Currie: “Yes.“
Aylott: “Did you consider it to be good advice?“
Peter Currie: “Yes.“
01.10pm – COURT BREAKS FOR LUNCH.
Aylott: “We were looking at the issue of amending the Terms and Conditions and providing a notice that would be put up or sent to investors.“
Peter Currie confirmed that this is what he “wanted to do” and that he had “asked Richard Tall to draft up a document” to that end.
An e-mail from Richard Tall, dated 12th February 2018, to Peter Currie was read to the jury. “I would get the notice up now, get it to the FCA and tell them it has gone up … it can be amended of course.”
Peter also sent Tall’s draft notice to the FCA asking for approval.
On Thursday 1st March 2018 the FCA responded, the firm now has a new case handler (once again). “Dear Mr Currie, your contact details have been passed on to me …” this time the e-mail is from the ‘unauthorised business department’.
Aylott suggested that the FCA took some time to respond to the draft. “Did you know why it took them so long to get back to you?”
Peter Currie: “No, I didn’t. … “
Aylott: “At no point did the original draft notice [to investors] go up because you were waiting for FCA approval?“
Peter Currie: “Yes.“
Aylott asked about what happened on the 14th of February 2018, “your brother was reappointed as director of the company. Why?”
Peter Currie: “He could see the problems I was having with my health, I was struggling, he signed on as a director to help me.”
The court was shown a ‘wind down policy’ document.
Aylott: “What was your understanding of the wind down policy …?“
Peter Currie: “… it would be another party that would take that forward.“
They look at Refresh Recovery
Aylott: “Whose contact was Gordon Craig [the first purported administrator]?“
Peter Currie: “Someone that Andrew knew.“
Aylott asked him to clarify his understanding of the administrators. Peter replied that Refresh Recovery was “a business continuity company” who could “take it forward and get the best results for investors.“
Aylott: “Did you meet with Gordon Craig in November 2017?“
Peter Currie confirmed they had “for them to write our wind up policy for us.“
Aylott: “Did they do that?“
Peter Currie: “Yes … it got submitted to the FCA.“
Aylott: “Any prior involvement with Gordon?“
Peter Currie: “No.“
Aylott asked how many times he had met Gordon Craig?
“2 or 3 times” came the response.
He added that the appointment of the company at the time “gave me a lot of comfort … at that point when I was being attacked from all angles.”
Aylott read out a list of criteria for a company entering into administration “which of those criteria did you hit?”
Peter Currie: “None of them.”
Aylott outlined that one criteria for administration is “if the company is or is likely to become unable to pay its debts. Did you satisfy that criteria?“
Peter Currie: “No. It was for protection. That was the only comfort that I was getting … ‘we’ll take it we’ll protect it, we’ll manage it, you’ll continue, the staff will continue,’ and that was exactly as it was sold to me.”
The court heard that the Refresh Recovery team were paid £40,000 plus VAT by the company for exercising the wind down policy. Aylott asked “when was it agreed?”
Peter Currie: “October 2017.“
HHJ Griffith: “What were you protecting the company from, by going into administration?“
Peter Currie: “Attacks from the FCA. They were saying it was an unregulated space. We wanted to protect the loan book … the loans would have been unenforceable and that wouldn’t have been in the interests of any of the creditors, any of the investors. We wanted to protect the loan book.”
Peter Currie said his view was that it was “Gordon’s responsibility to inform the FCA” about Refresh Recovery’s administration of the company.
Aylott then moved on to payments out of the Collateral bank accounts.
Aylott: “Each client didn’t have their own client account, it all sat within one account. There would be transactions in and out of the client account.“
Peter Currie confirmed his. Then: “Every day we’d do a balance in. How much was in uninvested funds, which would be the balance at the end of the [day] …”
Aylott: “Who carried out the action of doing that balancing?“
Peter Currie: “It was manual … every time someone filed a transfer into the bank account you had to fill in a form and match the two.“
Aylott asked him about company money in the client account.
Peter Currie: “It shouldn’t have happened but it was how our system worked, it was in the un-invested sum of the funds.“
Aylott then asked Peter Currie to walk through an example: “[say] someone’s borrowed £50,000 as a bridging loan, … and paid the £50,000 back, is that loan then considered to be redeemed? What then happens to the £50,000, where does that go?“
Peter Currie: “That goes into the client account from a solicitor’s account … My view was it was always better to have more than the clients’ money in the client account. Rather than the other way around.“
Aylott: “When the business folded you provided BDO with a list …“
Peter Currie: “A list of uninvested funds.“
Aylott referred to the so-called agreed facts – what was found to be in that account was that sum within about £25,000-£28,000.
Aylott – “£398,000 isn’t Client money you’re taking out?“
Peter Currie – “It’s company money... Refresh recovery asked what it would cost to retain the staff and suppliers for six months and I estimated £48,000“
Aylott: “Refresh Recovery had access to your bank account and control of your bank accounts, why wasn’t the money just left there?“
Peter Currie: “That is probably what should have happened…Andrew had become a director, he should have been responsible for making payments to the staff.“
Aylott: “Presume nothing. Were you aware of the payment being made …?“
Peter Currie: “I paid for some furniture for Andrew [for an investment, and] half of the payment to KW.“
Aylott asked Peter Currie to explain what he means by ‘creditors’ – “when you say how you wanted creditors to be paid, who do you mean?”
Peter Currie: “HMRC, PAYE, accountants, anybody who wasn’t secured, software, [IT].“
Aylott: “Did the staff … include yourself and your brother?“
Peter Currie replied yes adding that there were four staff at that time, and himself.
Aylott asked Peter Currie what salary he had paid himself.
Peter Currie: “£200-£250 per week, which rose in 2018 to £500 a week.“
Aylott: “From 2016 to 2018 payments to you ran to about £70,000“
Peter Currie confirmed this adding: “That included expenses.”
Aylott: “Any dividends?“
Peter Currie: “No.“
Aylott: “Anything else?“
Peter Currie: “No.“
Aylott: “Who else was owed money?“
Peter Currie: Andrew… Broker fees … “Almost all the business that came [into] the platform came through Andrew. Through contacts of Andrew, through his network of people.”
Aylott: “Did he get his money? … why not.“
Peter Currie says he “deferred it and deferred it and deferred it” and in 2018 “when he realised that the business wasn’t going to go forward he wanted [paying] like everybody else”
Aylott: “What sort of pressure was being applied to you by him to get what was owed to him?“
Peter Currie: “I always resisted pressure. There was funds there to pay him, he didn’t get all of what he was owed.“
Aylott: “How did [his payments] get actioned within Collateral?“
Peter Currie: “Myself, my son and Gordon went through … and agreed to that one, agreed to that one, agreed to that one… he probably got 50%, 60% [of his invoices]“
Aylott: “in relation to these payments they were made directly from the client account, should that have happened?“
Peter Currie: “No.“
Auri Devolepments
Peter Currie: “The idea here was to do our own property developments.“
Aylott: “Who introduced this to the business?“
Peter Currie: “Andrew.“
Had he and Sarah Gayton [the director of Auri] “met at the outset“? “No.”
Judge: “Do you think the pressure [referred to earlier] came from your brother coming in every day asking for money?“
Peter Currie: “No, having the company shut down … other people trying to have the business going to them, Gordon’s got three daughters and he was the only earner in his household as well. … I authorised the payments to go into Andrew’s account.“
Aylott took Peter Currie through the Auri property purchases – the Spanish property represented “a little less than a million upside for your company.”
Regarding the Harlequin’s Nightclub, Peter Currie said he was not aware that Auri didn’t in fact own it at first – “we know that £275,000 was paid over” (towards that sale) “to exchange contracts”.
He agreed to it “on the basis that they could continue the business”.
Peter Currie was asked if he was aware that “£120,000 had been paid …”
He says he was not aware.
Aylott: “Did you [Peter Currie] know anything about ND Holdings … did you know Sarah Gayton was a director of ND Holdings“
Peter Currie: “No“.
The court was shown an email about the 9th March 2018 payment involving ND Holdings.
Aylott: “Andrew is copied into this. … When did you become aware of this transaction?“
Peter Currie: “Just recently.“
Aylott asked if he was aware that it was not Auri but ND Holdings that bought it?
Peter Currie says he wasn’t aware.
Aylott: “Are you content with this?“
Peter Currie: “No, it should have gone through lawyers.“
So why didn’t it?
Peter Currie: “At the time, it was the pressure we were under at the time, I thought it was a good deal, I thought it would have gone through, I thought it would have added massive value.“
Payments to Auri totaled £275,000, and these form the basis for count 2 on the indictment.
‘The second count of fraud claims the Curries abused their positions, in which they were expected to safeguard, and not act against, the financial interests of the company by transferring £275,000 from Collateral to Auri Developments Ltd.‘
Peter Currie confirmed that he was aware that Sarah Gayton had purchased a property in Spain but not that it had been bought using that money.
He said that “sometime in 2018” he was told by Andrew that she had purchased a property.
Aylott: “Were you aware of that expenditure at all until these proceedings?“
Peter Currie: “No.“
Peter Currie was interviewed by the FCA. “The jury has got a transcript of those questions”
Peter Currie confirmed he did that interview without legal representation.
Aylott: “In 2018, are you happy with what you did?“
Peter Currie: “No. If I’d known that the company wasn’t going to continue, I wouldn’t have sent any payments to Auri, but I truly believed at that time that the company would continue.“
Peter Currie argued he was “not dishonest”, and had “no intent to defraud” —“There was £800,000 in the two bank accounts. … I didn’t take anything myself.”
Aylott: “Did you act in a dishonest way?“
Peter Currie: “No.“
Henry Grunwald OBE KC, the barrister representing Andrew Currie took to his feet to ask Peter Currie questions.
Grunwald: “He’s your older brother. You’ve just told your own counsel that you didn’t act dishonestly in what happened.“
Peter Currie affirms this.
Grunwald asked that when Peter Currie had said Collateral UK “had interim permission and that full permission was being applied for, did you believe that to be true?“
Peter Currie: “Yes I did.“
Grunwald: “You were permitted to do it by the register?”
Affirmed by Peter Currie.
Grunwald: “You didn’t think you’d done anything wrong in that regard.“
Affirmed by Peter Currie.
Grunwald referred to the “very high percentage of business that came through the platform” connected to Andrew. He had “never had control over … the company bank accounts did he?“
Peter Currie: “No he didn’t.“
Grunwald: “That didn’t change when he became a director of the company?“
Peter Currie: “True.“
It was established that Andrew would come to the office ‘once or twice a week’
Grunwald: “Andrew wasn’t doing what he didn’t for the business for nothing … He was always going to be paid for the business that he’d introduced.“
Peter Currie: “2% of an initial loan and 1% if it was extended.“
Grunwald established that during the life of the company “he never took any action against you to obtain outstanding fees; he would ask for them … He didn’t get them.“
Peter Currie agreed.
Grunwald: “You felt however an obligation that he should be paid. … that obligation increased, became stronger in February 2018?“
Peter Currie: “When I could see there might be some difficulties keeping the company going, yes.“
Grunwald: “You know that it’s money he was owed and you wanted to do what you could to pay him what you could. …That’s not because he demanded any particular sums. You sat down with your son Matt, and Gordon White, and went through the invoices. None of which had been paid, and decided that he should be paid and I think you said it was only a percentage of what was owed.“
Peter Currie said that Andrew got approximately 50% of the 2% (of business he introduced) … and a little of the 1% extension.
Grunwald: “Did he play any part … in the decision that money should be paid from a particular account into a particular account?“
Peter Currie said that would be Gordon and, “Matthew, unfortunately”.
Grunwald: “So far as introductions that your brother Andrew made for professional advisors, you’ll go through them if I may?“
“DWF, a very well known, big firm of solicitors in Manchester, he’d suggested you go to them.“
Peter Currie (confirming): “I said we need a lawyer, a corporate lawyer. We’ve got to speak to somebody in London.“
Grunwald: “He didn’t know Richard Tall did he.“
Peter Currie: “No.“
Grunwald: “Simply Biz, Gary Kershaw, he didn’t know them did he.“
It was clarified that Andrew Currie didn’t know the IT team either.
Grunwald: “He’s not very good with I.T., he’s actually quite bad with it?“
Peter Currie: “Hopeless.“
Regarding Refresh Recovery, Grunwald asked “”do you have a Facebook account? How many friends have you got on it? … How many would you say were [face to face] “friends”?“
Peter Currie: “A handful.“
Grunwald: “The others are just contacts?“
Peter Currie: “Yeah.“
Grunwald: “And so far as you’re aware, Gordon Craig was simply a …“
Peter Currie: “I wasn’t aware they were friends on Facebook.“
Grunwald: “He wasn’t a “friend”?“
Peter Currie: “No.“
…
Peter Currie was referred to the year 2018 and asked: “You were in a bad way … it had a physical effect on you didn’t it?“
Peter Currie told the court he had a “nervous rash” and that he’s still on medication for it now.
Grunwald: “You were in a bad way, not functioning properly, or able to function properly, is that fair?“
Peter Currie: “Yeah.“
Grunwald: “You hoped then that the company would be able to continue, that was your desire?“
Peter Currie: “It was yeah.“
Grunwald: “As that month went on, it became clear to you that that option wasn’t going to be likely to succeed.“
Peter Currie: “It would have to change yeah.“
Peter Currie confirmed that his brother Andrew was re-appointed as a director on 14th February 2018 to “help you out”. – “absolutely, yeah”.
And “even after he became a director again he didn’t have control of the bank accounts?”
Peter Currie: “No.“
Grunwald: “You’ve told us a little bit about how in the latter part of 2017 the company Collateral took a decision, that it might go into property development itself. What role did Andrew play?”
Peter Currie said he had brought opportunities for the company to benefit from.
Grunwald: “When the opportunity arose to buy 10-20 Kemp Street, how did you view that for the company?“
Peter Currie: “Positively. … potentially a big profit for the company.“
The court then heard discussions about Sarah Gayton’s property purchases via Auri.
Grunwald: “If someone has an option to purchase a development property, would you expect them to pay something on that option?“
Peter Currie: “Yeah.“
Grunwald: “Perfectly normal?”
Peter Currie: “Yeah.“
Grunwald: “The jury know that £275,000 was paid, why wasn’t the balance of £225,000 paid?“
Peter Currie: “Because the company went into administration.“
Grunwald: “During those later two weeks in February 2018, do you remember Andrew asking … when the balance should be paid?“
Peter Currie said that the intention was “the balance would be an asset to the company”.
Grunwald: “Thank you very much Mr Currie, it’s all I ask.“
The trial continues.
Both Curries deny two charges under the Fraud Act 2006 and one charge under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
The first count of fraud alleges they dishonestly made a false representation to investors and potential investors that the company Collateral UK Limited was authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
The second count of fraud claims the Curries abused their positions, in which they were expected to safeguard, and not act against, the financial interests of the company by transferring £275,000 from Collateral to Auri Developments Ltd.
The third charge relates to converting criminal property, suggesting the Curries converted credits to the total value of £372,299.52 to bank accounts owned by Andrew Currie, knowing or suspecting it to be proceeds of crime, namely fraud by misrepresentation.
Case details:
Court 12 Southwark Crown Court
Before His Honour Judge Griffith
19th April 2023
Case number: T20220056
CURRIE Andrew
CURRIE Peter
The Financial Conduct Authority are represented by barrister Stuart Biggs, assisted by Thomas Coke-Smyth.
Peter Currie is represented by barrister Colin Aylott KC, assisted by Ashley Hendron.
Andrew Currie is represented by barrister Henry Grunwald OBE KC, assisted by Oliver Renton.
The work on this site is protected by copyright laws and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved.
You may print off one copy, and may download extracts, of any page(s) from our site for your personal use and you may draw the attention of others within your organisation to content posted on our site.
You must not modify the paper or digital copies of any materials you have printed off or downloaded in any way, and you must not use any illustrations, photographs, video or audio sequences or any graphics separately from any accompanying text.
Our status (and that of any identified contributors) as the authors of content on our site must always be acknowledged.
You must not use any part of the content on our site for commercial purposes without obtaining a licence to do so from us or our licensors.
Mouse in the Court 
One thought on “The FCA “don’t fully understand P2P as a market”, jurors hear [Day 14]”