Former England U21 defender Richard Rufus 'conned clients out of £5.3m by saying he would invest it for them but using it to fund his lavish lifestyle' after injury cut short his career
Richard Rufus, now aged 44, was capped six times for the England U21
The former Charlton player has been charged with fraud by false representation
Rufus appeared in City of London Magistrates' Court on Thursday morning
He spoke only to confirm his personal details and gave no indication of his plea
Former Premier League defender Richard Rufus is accused of defrauding numerous victims out of millions of pounds in an investment scam and spending 'a large proportion on his personal expenses and lifestyle', a court heard.The former Charlton player has been charged with fraud by false representation, possessing £5.3million of criminal property and accepting deposits without being authorised to do so between 2007 and 2012.The 44-year-old, who was capped six times for the England Under 21s and spent his whole career at Charlton, appeared in City of London Magistrates' Court on Thursday and spoke only to confirm his personal details. He gave no indication of his plea.
So sad when some one you so admired in his professional life ends up like this.cannot offer any sympathy as innocent people would have suffered and they are the ones to feel sorry for."If" found guilty I hope he gets whats coming to him.
I wonder what his side of the story is? I’m prepared, as he was a fine Charlton player, to give him the benefit of doubt until proved otherwise and not pre-convicted by the Daily Mail.
My take on it , from the little I’ve heard , is that he was trading and making dough. He then offered friends etc the chance to come on board and make some dough with him (without checking the legality of being able to invest other people’s money ) first year or two he continues to make and returns are had and people like it and more want in for more action and then it goes tits up . markets change “past performance is no guarantee of future results” and money is lost . Should be easy enough to follow the trail of where the money has gone , has he lost it trading or gone on a spending spree .
My take on it , from the little I’ve heard , is that he was trading and making dough. He then offered friends etc the chance to come on board and make some dough with him (without checking the legality of being able to invest other people’s money ) first year or two he continues to make and returns are had and people like it and more want in for more action and then it goes tits up . markets change “past performance is no guarantee of future results” and money is lost . Should be easy enough to follow the trail of where the money has gone , has he lost it trading or gone on a spending spree .
The courts will decide .
Probably both. Living a good life thinking he was coining it, then it all went tits up. I opened his first bank a/c for him, when he joined Charlton.
My take on it , from the little I’ve heard , is that he was trading and making dough. He then offered friends etc the chance to come on board and make some dough with him (without checking the legality of being able to invest other people’s money ) first year or two he continues to make and returns are had and people like it and more want in for more action and then it goes tits up . markets change “past performance is no guarantee of future results” and money is lost . Should be easy enough to follow the trail of where the money has gone , has he lost it trading or gone on a spending spree .
The courts will decide .
If you are investing normally then even if things do go tits up you very very rarely lose everything. The crash of 1987 markets lost 25% over a 2 day period....by made most of that up again over the next few days .
If peoples money has all gone then it's either been embezzled or invested in a really really dodgy scheme. Only real traders like Nick Leeson can lose all investors money - and he was dealing in really big bucks & trying to chase the losses by shorting - not something the average punter can do.
My take on it , from the little I’ve heard , is that he was trading and making dough. He then offered friends etc the chance to come on board and make some dough with him (without checking the legality of being able to invest other people’s money ) first year or two he continues to make and returns are had and people like it and more want in for more action and then it goes tits up . markets change “past performance is no guarantee of future results” and money is lost . Should be easy enough to follow the trail of where the money has gone , has he lost it trading or gone on a spending spree .
The courts will decide .
If you are investing normally then even if things do go tits up you very very rarely lose everything. The crash of 1987 markets lost 25% over a 2 day period....by made most of that up again over the next few days .
If peoples money has all gone then it's either been embezzled or invested in a really really dodgy scheme. Only real traders like Nick Leeson can lose all investors money - and he was dealing in really big bucks & trying to chase the losses by shorting - not something the average punter can do.
I think I read he lost around half the money invested with him not the lot (which is clearly reckless and unprofessional) you are talking about proper investment people, firms etc which would have safeguards in place rufus was an individual punter of limited experience who was trading futures as well as other stuff which can be shorted/ longed etc and move double violent and chips and if he got in to the position of cancelling stop losses it can all spiral very quickly . if I was him I’d have done the lot chasing it all to get it back -but then I’m a failed gambler for a reason .
One things patently clear....if he isn't authorised by the FCA 'then he isn't allowed to "advise", "market" or "transact" financial business. Can't defend that one my son....
One things patently clear....if he isn't authorised by the FCA 'then he isn't allowed to "advise", "market" or "transact" financial business. Can't defend that one my son....
But the court need to determine was it deliberate fraud or just incompetence?
One things patently clear....if he isn't authorised by the FCA 'then he isn't allowed to "advise", "market" or "transact" financial business. Can't defend that one my son....
Correct
Why's the trial not until next June now? This whole case has already been going on for years
One things patently clear....if he isn't authorised by the FCA 'then he isn't allowed to "advise", "market" or "transact" financial business. Can't defend that one my son....
But the court need to determine was it deliberate fraud or just incompetence?
Doesnt matter. It's a crime to conduct financial services business if you are not FCA regulated. No idea what the sentence is for that.....probably fairly low in comparison to fraud, but once it is established that he wasnt regulated & therefore not allowed to be doing any investing or holding client money then it's a moot point whether he was just incompetent.
For those that may not know the offence of acquiring criminal property he's facing is one of money laundering. If he goes guilty on that he's in for a whole world of pain defending a subsequent confiscation hearing, assuming he's retained some of the assets he earned while with us.
For those that may not know the offence of acquiring criminal property he's facing is one of money laundering. If he goes guilty on that he's in for a whole world of pain defending a subsequent confiscation hearing, assuming he's retained some of the assets he earned while with us.
For those that may not know the offence of acquiring criminal property he's facing is one of money laundering. If he goes guilty on that he's in for a whole world of pain defending a subsequent confiscation hearing, assuming he's retained some of the assets he earned while with us.
One things patently clear....if he isn't authorised by the FCA 'then he isn't allowed to "advise", "market" or "transact" financial business. Can't defend that one my son....
But the court need to determine was it deliberate fraud or just incompetence?
Doesnt matter. It's a crime to conduct financial services business if you are not FCA regulated. No idea what the sentence is for that.....probably fairly low in comparison to fraud, but once it is established that he wasnt regulated & therefore not allowed to be doing any investing or holding client money then it's a moot point whether he was just incompetent.
I disagree. We all know he conducted unregulated business. The bigger crime imo is did he do this with misguided good intentions or was he deliberately money laundering/making known fraudulent transactions.
Richard Rufus still doing his own defence with his Lord as his CB partner.
How did the softly spoken Rufus persuade the articulate intelligent Paul Elliott to part with his cash ? I accept Elliott wasn't articulate when Rufus told him his money had vanished, and Paul used the "N" word. (Allegedly)
I would imagine that his best defence would be if he used money from family as well to prove that it was more lack of experience than a criminal act.
I'm not sure if he can clear this charge into row Z.
My take on it , from the little I’ve heard , is that he was trading and making dough. He then offered friends etc the chance to come on board and make some dough with him (without checking the legality of being able to invest other people’s money ) first year or two he continues to make and returns are had and people like it and more want in for more action and then it goes tits up . markets change “past performance is no guarantee of future results” and money is lost . Should be easy enough to follow the trail of where the money has gone , has he lost it trading or gone on a spending spree .
The courts will decide .
Probably both. Living a good life thinking he was coining it, then it all went tits up. I opened his first bank a/c for him, when he joined Charlton.
My take on it , from the little I’ve heard , is that he was trading and making dough. He then offered friends etc the chance to come on board and make some dough with him (without checking the legality of being able to invest other people’s money ) first year or two he continues to make and returns are had and people like it and more want in for more action and then it goes tits up . markets change “past performance is no guarantee of future results” and money is lost . Should be easy enough to follow the trail of where the money has gone , has he lost it trading or gone on a spending spree .
The courts will decide .
Probably both. Living a good life thinking he was coining it, then it all went tits up. I opened his first bank a/c for him, when he joined Charlton.
My take on it , from the little I’ve heard , is that he was trading and making dough. He then offered friends etc the chance to come on board and make some dough with him (without checking the legality of being able to invest other people’s money ) first year or two he continues to make and returns are had and people like it and more want in for more action and then it goes tits up . markets change “past performance is no guarantee of future results” and money is lost . Should be easy enough to follow the trail of where the money has gone , has he lost it trading or gone on a spending spree .
The courts will decide .
Probably both. Living a good life thinking he was coining it, then it all went tits up. I opened his first bank a/c for him, when he joined Charlton.
Comments
... but a dodgey Ponzi style investment scheme will give you that back up if 'he' ⬆️ can't. 😇 ... allegedly.
Former England U21 defender Richard Rufus 'conned clients out of £5.3m by saying he would invest it for them but using it to fund his lavish lifestyle' after injury cut short his career
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7336993/Former-Premier-League-defender-Richard-Rufus-accused-running-investment-scam.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490
He then offered friends etc the chance to come on board and make some dough with him (without checking the legality of being able to invest other people’s money )
first year or two he continues to make and returns are had and people like it and more want in for more action and then it goes tits up .
markets change “past performance is no guarantee of future results” and money is lost .
Should be easy enough to follow the trail of where the money has gone , has he lost it trading or gone on a spending spree .
The courts will decide .
I opened his first bank a/c for him, when he joined Charlton.
If peoples money has all gone then it's either been embezzled or invested in a really really dodgy scheme. Only real traders like Nick Leeson can lose all investors money - and he was dealing in really big bucks & trying to chase the losses by shorting - not something the average punter can do.
you are talking about proper investment people, firms etc which would have safeguards in place
rufus was an individual punter of limited experience who was trading futures as well as other stuff which can be shorted/ longed etc and move double violent and chips and if he got in to the position of cancelling stop losses it can all spiral very quickly .
if I was him I’d have done the lot chasing it all to get it back -but then I’m a failed gambler for a reason .
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11850248/former-charlton-defender-richard-rufus-denies-fraud-charge
Why's the trial not until next June now? This whole case has already been going on for years
amen
How did the softly spoken Rufus persuade the articulate intelligent Paul Elliott to part with his cash ? I accept Elliott wasn't articulate when Rufus told him his money had vanished, and Paul used the "N" word. (Allegedly)
I would imagine that his best defence would be if he used money from family as well to prove that it was more lack of experience than a criminal act.
I'm not sure if he can clear this charge into row Z.
Not certain :-), but I doubt that they offered the 5% a month growth that Rufus is supposed to have done. If it looks too good to be true.....