The younger brother and former director of Collateral was the “driving force” and is as responsible for fraud as his eldest brother who changed the company’s name on the Financial Conduct Authority’s interim permission register, a court heard.
Jurors will be asked to consider “family dynamics” and the relationship between the two brothers as they head in to consider their verdict in this five-week trial.
The 12 men and women at Southwark Crown Court who will be deciding the fate of the former Collateral brothers were also advised that “each defendant has relied upon matters that he did not mention when questioned.”
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 Joe Morgan who tweets @nottherealjoe
AGREED FACTS
The court hearing began with the evidence being closed with one final agreed fact between counsel.
This referenced Sarah Louise Gayton, 41, the former partner of Andrew Currie, who was the director of Auri Developments, which is referenced in the second charge of fraud, which references £275,000 from Collateral to her company.
“Sarah Gayton has never been arrested, interviewed or charged in connection with any offence flowing from the investigation into Collateral (UK) Ltd,” Oliver Renton, who is representing Andrew Currie, told the jury.
LEGAL DIRECTIONS
Jurors were then told by Judge Martin Griffith about the legal directions they should consider when deliberating on their verdict.
“You must decide this case only on the evidence which has been placed before you. There will be no more. You are entitled to draw inferences, that is to come to common sense conclusions based on the evidence which you accept, but you may not speculate about what evidence there might have been or allow yourselves to be drawn into speculation.
“The facts of this case are your responsibility…when it comes to the facts of this case, it is your judgement alone that counts.“
THIS CASE
He said: “Both defendants face three counts. They are each entitled to have you consider the evidence for and against on each of them separately.
“Your verdicts on the counts need not be the same. The Crown’s case is that the two defendants were working together in Collateral but having different roles.
“If they had divided areas of responsibility but both knew what the other was doing and agreed that it should be carried out then, subject to the jury route questions being asked they can both be liable. So for example one may sign a document but if the other is content for the document to be signed, then they are both responsible for the document being signed.
“As we know in this case, with the transfer of sums of money, it doesn’t take two people to do this. Neither of these defendants may have transferred the money themselves, but if it is done with both of their consent and intention that it should be done they may both be liable – these are matters of evidence for you to consider.“
The judge continued:
“There are three counts. Count 1 is an allegation of fraud. The fraud is said to be falsely representing that Collateral was authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. The most important word in the count is ‘dishonestly’ given that the parties agree that Collateral was not so authorised or regulated and that the representation was made on, for example, company stationary.
“Count 2 is an allegation of a different type of fraud. It is alleged that monies were taken out of the client account and paid to Auri Developments Limited in breach of a duty towards the creditors of Collateral. There is no dispute that the sums were paid to Auri, the question appears to be whether they dishonestly abused their positions and duties to creditors in making the payments to Auri.
“Count 3 is an allegation of converting criminal property. The parties do not dispute that the sums were transferred. The issue concerns the nature of those sums which the prosecution allege to be criminal property.
“Criminal property is property that represents, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the proceeds of criminal conduct. It does not require you to be satisfied as to all £372,299.52 to be the proceeds of criminal conduct. There may be no issue as to the amount.
“You must have to be sure that some or all of the £372, 299, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, represented the proceeds of criminal conduct. If you are not sure that there was a fraud by misrepresentation as alleged in count 1, by at least one of the defendants, those funds will not be in the proceeds of criminal conduct and it follows you could not convict either defendant of count 3.
“The final test is the state of mind of the defendant you are considering when they dealt those funds. Did they know or suspect that they were the proceeds of criminal conduct?”
ROUTE TO VERDICT
Jurors were then told abut the route to verdict, the questions they must answer as they determine the whether the Curries or guilty of fraud.
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.
They are asked to consider the following:
“Are we sure that some time between the dates alleged the defendant we are considering made a representation to investors and potential investors that Collateral UK Limited was authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority?“
If the answer is no, then it is not guilty, if it is yes, the next step is “The representation was untrue”, which is an agreed fact.
The next question is: “Are we sure that when the defendant made the representation he: a) was acting dishonestly and b) intended to make a gain for himself or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss?“
If that answer is yes, then the defendant is guilty of the first count of fraud.
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 first point is agreed that both defendants were in a position to safeguard the financial interests of the creditors of Collateral UK Ltd.
Determining the next question, they are asked: “Are we sure that on the date alleged the defendant we are considering was party to the transfer of the sum of £275,000 from Collateral UK Ltd to Auri Developments Ltd?”
If the answer is no, then they are not guilty, but if the answer is yes, the next question to be asked is:
“When he did so, the defendant we are considering was acting disonestly and abusing his position.“
If the answer is yes, the defendant will be found guilty on the second count of fraud.
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.
On this count, jurors were told they must only consider if they have found at least one defendant guilty of count 1.
The first part was agreed that at some time between the dates alleged, that the defendants converted credits to the total value of £372,299.52 on the Collateral UK Ltd account to accounts in the name of Andrew Currie with HBOS and Lloyds.
The next step is to consider: “Are we sure the funds constituted or represented benefit, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, from criminal conduct?“
If the answer is no, then they are not guilty, but if the answer is yes, the jury was told to go to the next step.
That is to question whether “at the time of acquisition, the defendant we are considering knew or suspected that the funds were criminal property namely fraud by misrepresentation.”
If the answer is yes, then the defendant is guilty of converting criminal property.
RICHARD TALL AND JONATHON PATON
Judge Griffith then spoke about two people who came up in evidence during the case, Collateral UK Ltd’s legal advisor Richard Tall and a man named Jonathan Paton, who had accused Regal Pawnbroker Ltd of fraud.
The judge said: “In the course of various emails there have been suggestions of fraud in relation to Regal Pawnbroker Limited (voiced by Mr Paton) and some criticism of Peter Currie by Richard Tall.
“Whatever may have been the background to the Regal Pawnbroker Ltds debts and Mr Paton’s views you may not take those into account. The only relevance of this evidence is to the issue of why Peter Currie may or may not have decided to transfer interim permission from Regal Pawnbrokers Limited to Collateral UK Limited.
“Mr Tall’s comments as to Peter Currie’s explanations for the change of name are not evidence in this case.“
This refers to an earlier hearing where the legal advisor said the brothers would have to be “18 years old” and have never been in business before for people to assume they had made an innocent mistake.
The judge continued: “The only relevance of his email is to establish that Mr Tall had not been aware of the change to the FCA register before receipt of the FCA’s letter on 29 January 2018 and the impact of Mr Tall’s warnings to Peter Currie.
“Anyone who is a party to a case may call witnesses. Neither Mr Tall nor Mr Paton have been called to give you evidence. You must not speculate about why they have not been called or what they may have said, had they been called.“
FAILURE TO MENTION
The judge said: “This topic relates to both defendants who were individually interviewed under caution. The direction applies to each separately and differently.
“Before his interview each defendant was cautioned. Each was told that he need not say anything. It was therefore his right to remain silent. However, he was told that it might harm his defence if he did not mention when questioned on something which he later relied on in court; and that anything he did say might be given in evidence.
“As part of his case each defendant has relied upon matters that he did not mention when questioned.
“The matters which it is said that Andrew Currie could have spoken of in interview are:
– His role in Collateral and the reason for the termination of his directorship in February 2016.
– Whether he knew about changes to the IP register from Regal to Collateral, the email of 15 December 2015 from Peter Currie to Metin Tilki and Andrew Currie…referring to £1.5 million in loans.
– What dealings he had with Collateral lenders and investors in the middle period when he was not a director of Collateral.
– Broker fees
– Payments to Auri Developments
– The appointment of Gordon Craig [to be the administrator for Collateral]
“The matters which it is said that Peter Currie could have spoken of in his interview are:
– That Collateral was to purchase a property (or properties) in its own right
– That Auri Developments was paid £275 as the first tranche of a purchase price for the Fleetwood nightclub site.
– That this payment was made on the basis that Sarah Gayton held an option to purchase the site.
“This may, as each defendant was told in the words of the caution, ‘harm his defence’. This is because you may conclude that he failed to mention these facts in interview because:
– he had no answer then
– had no answer that he then believed would stand up to scrutiny
– has since invented his account
– has since changed his account to fit the prosecution’s case“
Judge Griffith told jurors to only draw that conclusion if they are satisfied by the following:
“Firstly, that when each defendant was interviewed, he could reasonably have been expected to mention the facts on which he now relies.
“Second, that the only sensible explanation for his failure to mention the facts is that he had no answer at the time or none that would stand up to scrutiny.
“Third, that apart from each defendant’s failure to mention those facts, the prosecution case as was put to him in interview was so strong that it clearly called for an answer by him.
“If you do draw that conclusion, you must not convict him wholly or mainly on the strength of it. You may, however, take it into account as some additional support for the prosecution’s case and when deciding whether each defendant’s evidence about these facts is true.
“The defence invite you not to draw any conclusion from Andrew’s silence and Peter’s failure to mention these facts. If you accept their explanation for not mentioning the relevant matters then you should not draw any conclusion from his silence or failure to mention these facts. Otherwise, subject to what I have said, you may do so.
“Andrew Currie was interviewed under caution, gave a prepared statement and then declined to answer any questions. He has given evidence that he did not answer questions on the advice of his legal representative. If you accept the evidence that he was so advised, this is obviously an important consideration, but it does not automatically prevent you from drawing any conclusion from his silence. A person given legal advice has the choice whether to accept or reject it.
“Andrew was warned that any failure to mention facts which he relied on at trial might harm his defence. You must decide whether Andrew could reasonably have been expected to mention the facts on which he now relies.“
GOOD CHARACTER
Judge Griffith concluded the legal directions by saying only Peter Currie is of good character, meaning he has no convictions, cautions or warnings.
“Good character is not a defence to the charge but it is relevant to your consideration of the case,” he said.
PROSECUTION’S CLOSING ARGUMENT
Stuart Biggs, prosecuting for the FCA, in his closing argument said:
“This was a family business and one of the things you might want to consider is the matter of family dynamics. These two defendants were business partners but also brothers. When Peter Currie gave his evidence, and was asked questions by Mr Grunwald KC on behalf of his brother Andrew Currie, he said to him, Andrew Currie, as the younger brother always looked up to you.
“Maybe the case you might think, but that does not reflect the entire dynamic between the two of them.
“Andrew Currie was perhaps the driving force of this business partnership. When Peter Currie went into the witness box, the first question you heard was from his Honour, who said to him, ‘Are you louder than your brother?‘
“He said, ‘Not usually’. That’s about right isn’t it? Andrew Currie is the louder brother and the driving force and it was he who convinced to have the company Regal Pawnbroker Ltd and Collateral in the name of Peter Currie but driven by a great extent by Andrew Currie.
“You’ve seen Andrew Currie and Peter Currie in the witness box and you’ve been able to assess whether they’ve been honest with you or not at each stage. If you are sure that they haven’t, you might want to think why they haven’t and how they help you in your task of deciding what happened here and their state of mind back at the time.”
He added: “They both claim Andrew Currie was distanced from the business but when it comes to the reality that he wasn’t interested in regulated investment and how they might bring in what became a million pounds a month, that he wasn’t really concerned in that or how it happened, but he was distanced similar to how he was distanced to Regal.
“It’s not the Andrew Currie you have seen or heard from or what has been heard from in the documents.
“Peter Currie said that Regal’s sale just sort of ‘fizzled out’. You’ll remember that we went through that on some detail that it was very much a live business at the time he changed the register.
“That, and the debts Regal had, was why they decided to use this old pawnbrokers license to persuade people they were regulated and that they were now claiming to do so in order to take investments for this peer-to-peer, peer-to-business lending venture.”
The prosecutor reminded jurors of an email from Kenneth Wareing, who wanted investment money back from Regal.
He wrote on 24 June 2015: “Last June you threatened to close Regal Pawnbroker… but it was Andrew who insisted he wanted to keep it on because of its potential via the website enquiries and potential funding from several London-based sources.“
Mr Biggs added: “Very much if Andrew Currie wanted to insist that the business was kept on, he was as much of an executive of Regal as his brother Peter Currie was. You might think that chimes rather well with what Mr Wareing was saying in June 2015.“
“We now remind ourselves of the sale…Peter Currie was providing to the buyers proof that he had interim permission for Regal and was being sold as a company with interim permission in August 2015,” he said.
“In October, on the FCA register, Mr Currie goes in using the log-in on the FCA register to change the register of the office’s location and somebody goes to Companies House and changes the address there so any post is going to the London address…because the sale that happened in September.
“There is a conversation about dormant accounts, of finishing off of jobs and Peter Currie stays on as director to help submit the dormant accounts.
“In March 2016, Mr Bonthrone writes to Mr Currie ‘Any info here?’ Because as the address has been changed pursuant to the [sale], the demand for payment had gone to London, the new address.
“The sale hasn’t fizzled away because of an email asking, ‘what am I supposed to do with this letter that’s just arrived’. The historic debt hadn’t faded away and the sale hadn’t fizzled out.“
Mr Biggs said: “Regal was still their company… it doesn’t make sense. You might want to consider why this lie is being told.“
The trial was adjourned to allow a hearing for another case to take place.
Closing arguments are expected to continue tomorrow.
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:
Courtroom 12 Southwark Crown Court
Before His Honour Judge Griffith
15th May 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 “Jurors given ‘route to verdict’ in Collateral Fraud trial [Day 16]”