We review Pardus’ loan notes paying 1% per month

Pardus bond logo

Pardus offers loan notes with a 24 month term which pay interest of 1% per month, with coupons paid quarterly.

At least, that’s what their website says, but Pardus is offering special terms via introducers where that return is doubled to 2% per month, with a 2% initial charge.

As for what this means overall, Pardus’ brochure includes a worked example which calculates that the total returned for a £100,000 investment – if all payments are made successfully – would be £147,040. This is equivalent to an annual compound return of 21.3% per year.

There’s nothing wrong with introducers arranging preferential terms, but doubling the return is an extreme version of this – and anyone getting 1% from Pardus’ bonds who subsequently found out that they could have got double the return for the same amount of risk if they’d responded to a different advert, would be justified in feeling a bit miffed. The rest of this review is based on the above preferential terms which were being offered as at June 2020.

Investors’ money is to be used to invest in arbitrage trading – identifying a mismatch between prices for the same asset on different exchanges, buying assets at the cheaper price and immediately selling them at the higher one.

pardus introducer advert
Facebook advert for Pardus introducer.

At time of writing Pardus’ loan notes are being promoted by Facebook via unregulated third-party introducers who claim that investors should consider Pardus as an alternative to “bank interests at an all-time low” and the “unpredictable stock market”, going onto claim “Security of the capital invested” as a “Key Feature”. For more on these claims see below.

 

 

Who are Pardus?

Pardus is headed and owned by CEO Greg Bryce. Bryce is described in the literature as having “30 years’ experience in banking, broking and the regulatory space”.

This doesn’t tally with Bryce’s own LinkedIn page. While Bryce’s published CV does stretch 32 years (starting from his work as a Booth Manager at Refco in 1989, at age 22), Bryce spent 10 of those years selling bicycles, as CEO of triathlon shop chain Triandrun Ltd. So I make that just over 20 years in banking etc.

A minor point but I’m a stickler for accuracy when it comes to the marketing of investments paying 24% a year.

Both Pardus Fixed Income Bond Company plc and GRMA-Pardus Wealth Limited were incorporated in April 2018. Both are yet to file accounts as an active company.

How safe is the investment?

As described above, Pardus’ bonds are being advertised on Facebook by third parties as an alternative to the “unpredictable stock market” with “Security of the capital invested” as a “Key Feature”.

In reality, as with any loan to an individual company, Pardus is an inherently high risk investment with a risk of up to 100% loss.

Pardus claims that it “will utilise investors capital in connection with contract arbitrage arrangements, therefore the monies are not put at risk”.

However, to return investors’ interest and capital, Pardus has to identify enough arbitrage opportunities to successfully pay interest of up to 24% per year after its costs and any commission paid to introducers.

Arbitrage opportunities are by nature difficult to come by and there is an inherently high risk that it will not succeed.

Pardus’ literature states that “GRMA PARDUS Wealth has guaranteed to indemnify any loss incurred by PARDUS Fixed Income Bond”.

Secured lending is not risk-free as there is a risk that if the underlying borrower defaults, the security cannot be sold for enough to cover the loan.

Investors in asset-backed loans have been known to lose 100% of their money when it turned out that there were not enough assets left to pay investors after paying the insolvency administrator (who always stands first in the queue).

This is not in any sense to imply that the same will happen to investors in Pardus, only illustrating the risk that is inherent in any loan note even when it is a secured loan.

If investors plan to rely on this security, it is essential that they hire professional due diligence specialists (working for themselves, not Pardus) to confirm that in the event of a default, the assets of Pardus would be valuable and liquid enough to compensate all investors. Investors should not simply rely on what Pardus tells them about their assets.

At the time of GMRA-Pardus Wealth Limited’s last published accounts (April 2019) it was a shell company with £1 in assets. This emphasises the need for full due diligence to establish how much a guarantee by GMRA-Pardus Wealth is worth.

Pardus’ bonds are listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. At time of writing no trading of the bonds is visible on the exchange, meaning the bonds are likely to be illiquid and there is a significant chance that investors would be unable to redeem their investment by selling it to another before maturity.

Should I invest in Pardus?

This blog does not give financial advice. The following are statements of publicly available facts or widely accepted investment principles, not a personalised recommendation. Investors should consult a regulated independent financial adviser if they are in any doubt.

As with any individual loan note to an unlisted startup company, this investment is only suitable for sophisticated and/or high net worth investors who have a substantial existing portfolio and are prepared to risk 100% loss of their money.

Any investment paying 21% per year (net of the 2% initial charge) is inherently extremely high risk. As an individual, illiquid security with a risk of total and permanent loss, lending money to Pardus is much higher risk than a mainstream diversified stockmarket fund.

Before investing investors should ask themselves:

  • How would I feel if the investment defaulted and I lost 100% of my money?
  • Do I have a sufficiently large portfolio that the loss of 100% of my investment would not damage me financially?
  • Have I conducted due diligence to ensure the asset-backed security can be relied on?

If you are looking for a “guaranteed” or “secure” investment, you should not invest in illiquid loans with an inherent risk of 100% loss.

70 thoughts on “We review Pardus’ loan notes paying 1% per month

  1. hearing some very disturbing news about this company.
    has anyone heard about them refunding Insurance premiums as they took premiums without providing cover on their first bond. Misrepresentation!!.im sure the FCA will look at this.
    they approached me to invest £25k via their investment platform run by Neil Baskerville.how can they do this when the minimum investment is £100k & minimum redemption £100k.
    Arbitrage can work but i wont be investing with this company

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Felix Earhart, I have a very, very disturbing update. When Pardus Fixed Income Bond launched their bond Greg Bryce and Craig Gabriel both Directors of Pardus told ALL investors that their capital and coupons were insured by an insurance policy placed by Willis Towers Watson. The actually policy document was shown to me in early 2019, I decided not to invest at that time linked to DD run on another Director of Pardus. However, my broker told me earlier this month that he had called Daniel Sails Head of Legal at Willis Towers Watson who confirmed to him formally that Pardus never in fact paid for the insurance policy and it was cancelled from inception in the middle of 2018. Meaning NONE of the investor capital deployed has ever been insured, surely this is insurance fraud, grossly misleading investors and perhaps their lawyers who signed of the IM? My broker has now contacted the FCA and FCO as she has formal proof from Willis Towers Watson that they have totally lied about the insurance. If they lie about such a crucial element to investor protection, surely it begs the questions WHAT else could they be holding back of equal concern. Any Pardus investors or introducing brokers should independently verify this with Daniel Sails at Willis Towers Watson ASAP………

    Like

  3. Thanks profit hunter.
    They are telling me that they have £360m of security for the new bond & don’t need insurance.

    Like

  4. its about time someone put a stop to these shady directors.Profit Hunter what was the problem with the previous Director.

    Like

  5. they have raised funds by misrepresenting the investment ie not providing insurance cover.surely they cant do this!
    does this mean they will have to refund investors & i presume they will have a hefty fine & be struck off as Directors.

    Like

  6. connor – that would be nice but… no. The police have no interest in investigating these types of companies (too complex for them being short of manpower) and neither does the FCA (they are “small fry” in their eyes and besides they only interested in regulated firms). So they are pretty much free to scam, get closed down, then re-open another version straight afterwards.

    It’s depressing seeing the continuous stream of new dodgy companies advertising but until the government decides to take it seriously and until the FCA gets somebody in charge willing to shake things up nothing will change.

    Like

  7. That’s not what the brochure says. The brochure says “GRMA PARDUS Wealth has assets under management in excess of €360M as of March 2020.” (emphasis added) Assets under management = other people’s assets. You can’t borrow money against other people’s assets.

    If I clean houses for a living do you think I can go to a bank and ask to borrow money using the houses I clean as security? That’s the difference between “assets under management” and “assets”.

    Like

  8. Brev is absolutely 100% correct here in my opinion. Having an ‘alleged’ EUR 360M under MANAGEMENT means that the assets are not owned by GRMA or Pardus and therefore belong to the third party-actual owner. Why would this owner allow his/her assets to be directly at risk of third party losses, it makes zero sense and seemingly another Pardus fraud in addition to lying about their insurance.

    I strongly suspect that if you call Christopher Axford at Drucess LLP (Pardus lawyer) on 0207 638 9271 and ask him to confirm on record these assets are firstly REAL and then confirm that he has signed off a legal agreement that formally presents these alleged assets as collateral to underwrite Pardus for any direct losses….I will be amazed.You can also ask him about Pardus lying to him regarding having insurance. Remember to back date any formal agreement is also fraud.

    I understand report and accounts-audit are due end of this month….this should be interesting!

    My broker has more DD to pass to me shortly which I will post.

    I have personally seen emails where Craig Gabriel, a Pardus Director was blatantly claiming to have insurance with Willis Towers Watson in March 2020!

    Brev, if you would like sight of this full DD and copy emails do please email me and I will be happy to share as I fear for the investors whom have invested into this Pardus sham.

    The brokers selling this investment also need to be put under the microscope. I have names linked to my brokers DD that will be revealed.

    Like

  9. hi guys
    i stand corrected.
    this is disaster in the making.i have been involved with offshore brokers for many years but the promotion of this bond is of concern.
    1.Greg Dyce & Craig Gabriel have clearly misled investors &Druces about the insurance cover
    2.the product should only be for professionals & high net worth individuals.
    3.they are promoting this on facebook for retail clients with £20k to invest.
    4.The Investment Platform are allowing investments from £10k
    5.i presume brokers are ignoring these facts due to the very high commission.
    6.are they refunding insurance premiums charged on their first bond.i doubt it

    the FCA will step in& close this bond,best get your money out while you can

    Like

  10. hi again
    lots of unregulated alternative investment salesman such as Craig Gabriel of Meridith Charles seem to be promoting this.Craig is also a Director of Pardus.what is really concerning is that Neil Baskerville,Roger Clarke & Susie head of Satori consultancy are allowing retail clients to invest via their regulated investment platform.what ever happened to Due Dilligence?

    Like

  11. So update following on from the very accurate concerns noted above by Conner, Fraid Knot and David.

    It is fact that Pardus have lied about having a Willis Towers Watson insurance policy in place to protect investors,so, they have issued a grossly miss leading and fraudulent IM, lied to investors and their professional service providers and introducing brokers. When applying for any insurance polices in the future it will now be on record that Pardus and its principals have fraudulently claimed to have an insurance policy in place in order to secure investment capital. This will be on record with the FCA and SFO. So any future applications for insurance require full disclosure from Pardus and it’s principals – any material non disclosure is further insurance fraud. This will follow the principals-directors forwards to any existing and new entities they choose to construct. Don’t forget that Willis Towers Watson are number 3 global broker, so they have a regulatory and moral obligation to inform ALL insurance markets they trade with of the Pardus insurance fraud.

    Add to this the very big and real question marks over the ‘alleged’ £360M of assets under management supposedly guaranteeing all any losses to Pardus investors. Again, can Druces provide confirmation that these assets are real and that a dedicated agreement directly positioning said assets as collateral security to underwrite any Pardus bond losses is in place?

    Taking into account the above, are the compliance heads of Woodside, Avenir and perhaps the Frankfurt Exchange fully aware of the Pardus insurance fraud? They are regulated businesses and I strongly suspect that if they were to be made fully aware, would drop Pardus immediately. Perhaps they should all be made aware?!

    In addition Brev noted that Greg Bryce did in fact sell bikes for a living for 10 years, so his claim of actively operating in the financial services vertical for 32 years by his own admission is false.

    Amusingly but equally concerning to investors is that Michael Bold- Pardus Director is also owner and Director of TARPORLEY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED COMP NO 06700060, this company is a roofing contractor with an unimpressive turnover?!!! So clearly running a roofing contractor brings with it vast experience, expertise, contacts, regulatory and trading knowledge within fixed income bond vertical?

    The above is clearly disastrous, however where is the forensic due diligence that all introducing brokers are duty bound to undertake in order to protect their investors? A direct and factual example of this – Neil Baskerville,Roger Clarke and Susie Head of Satori Consultancy who operate a regulated platform out of Mauritius.

    Satori are heavily selling the Pardus Bond (if you can call it that) and have clearly missed or chosen not to act on the fact that Pardus have lied in terms of having the WTW insurance policy. So not a single investor is insured. Surely basic DD dictates that a simple call to WTW to confirm the policy was-is in force is DD 1.1? As Satori are regulated then I’m sure the Financial Services Commission in Mauritius would take a very dim view of this – we will in fact find out. Then to accept ‘retail’ investors at £10K and above into the Pardus bond where the IM clearly states that the minimum investment is £100K and only open to HNW-Sophisticated investors is surely a further breach?

    I understand that Satori are promoting two UCITS operated by Apollo Multi Asset Management LLP, an FCA regulated business. How would the Apollo compliance head view the Satori DD ineptness relating to Pardus and the fact that Satori are still heavily promoting the bond? You can’t unknow what you know. Would they want their brand and reputation associated to the Pardus sham – I very much doubt it. Perhaps the compliance head at Apollo should be made aware of this?

    Ultimately ALL investors should be made aware of these facts in order to protect them and any capital unfortunately deployed. My recommendation to all Pardus investors is run your DD and redeem your capital ASAP. And to those inept, greedy and malfeasance based introducing brokers………watch this space. Truth will out.

    More DD coming in from my broker sources who wouldn’t touch Pardus with a barge pole every day so more updates to follow.

    Like

  12. Dear profit hunter
    Thank you for your insight. Did you work for Pardus as your information is correct.
    I have now spoken to my main offshore agents &advised them not to touch this as the FCA will undoubtedly close them down & ask them to return clients investments. Let’s hope they have the funds to do this.someone should put this on google to warn investors
    Keep up the good work

    Like

  13. Ha Ha David, I do not work for Pardus as amongst insurance fraud, breach of duty, issuing a fraudulent IM, wrongful representation of assets (and so much more to come out) I hear that Greg Bryce and Pardus have a history of not paying staff!!!

    Just go ask Richard Tapper an ex Director………..he wasn’t paid by Greg Bryce which is I suspect why he resigned. In fact a friend of mine showed me the texts msgs from Richard confirming this. What did Manoj Ladwa resign for from ARJ as a Director?

    Much much more concerning to say the very least behind the scenes that will come out shortly.

    Death by a thousand cuts!

    And by the way Pardus if you disagree with ANY of the FACTS I have stated here then get your lawyers……currently Druces or Jane Sanders who’s ethics and morals can clearly be bought for a fee to connect to Brev.

    Like

  14. Thank you David for your comments, although the answer is NO I do not work for Pardus. Some very good verified sources whom have validated audit trail/evidence tell me Greg Bryce and Pardus have a track record of not paying people from consultants, professional service providers even through to ex Directors!! Go and ask Richard Tapper………Not sure about Manoj Ladwa of ARJ Captial but he did the off very suddenly hhmmmm?!

    Let’s hope this doesn’t now extend to bond holders.

    I hear that the FCA are now reviewing Pardus and all of their ‘activity’ starting with insurance fraud.

    However, Pardus I hear have Jane Sanders representing them legally, YES the same Jane Saunders ‘Barrister’ that per-ports to be the investor champion against the type of rancid and fraudulent bond issuers SHE IS NOW REPRESENTING?! I guess morals and ethics can be bought for a fee then. Why else would she represent them surely she should be working to shut them down and protect investors…..hhmmm!

    Lastly I hear the head of compliance at the Frankfurt Exchange has now been contacted and working with a number of whistle blowers to build evidence and an audit trail to then take action. Very interesting as ANY evidence of false/misleading statements let alone direct evidence of insurance fraud is very bad news for Pardus and it’s Director’s.

    More to come over the next few days as updates, but all must now get the word out as investors need to be protected and get their capital OUT.

    Like

  15. Hmmmmm Mr Willis, thank you for coming out of the wood work. We have been waiting to see if you would use your own name or continue using that of others.

    Secondly, thank you for the marketing. Much obliged.

    Ladies and gents, I AM indeed instructed to Pardus and I am going on record to state that I am in the process of writing to both the SFO and the FCA to clarify the truth in the information that Mr Willis has erroneously put in the public domain.

    LET ME SPELL SOME THINGS OUT

    1 I am an unregistered barrister and I do indeed work defensively on some cases, and for consumers on others. I also tread fine lines in terms of conflicts of interest. See below.

    2 I knew of this matter because Dan Willis brought this to my attention. I then advised him on whistleblowing without knowing anything but the bare facts, and advised him in writing that I would be going to Pardus to seek an instruction, after advising that I knew Mr Bryce from business relationships.

    3 it is far too convenient that Mr Willis has sought and obtained the evidence that he believes makes out FRAUD from his former colleague, Mr Dan Sails, at Willis Towers Watson.

    4 Mr Willis introduced me to a gentleman that he assured me was responsible for investing over 10M INTO Pardus on the basis of a FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION ON THE PARDUS IM. I have spoken to that chap on the record, and that individual has confirmed, in writing that he has NEVER invested with Pardus. The basis of this introduction was to establish to Mr Willis that there had been multi millions of investment based on fraudulent misrepresentation. He was TOLD that this was not the case and HE STILL PUBLISHED the representation.

    5 The policy in question within Pardus DID lapse. This is true.

    6 Mr Willis was an individual, working for Willis Towers Watson, who assisted with placing a policy on a bond issuer, MJS. That issuer turned out to be fraudulent and despite the placing of a policy that was PAID FOR, to my understanding, the policy has NOT paid out.

    7 Mr Willis, around the time that I was responsible for bringing down MJS in conjunction with about 100 of its clients, came to me to introduce me to Ajaz Shah.

    8 Ajaz Shah ran Fortitude Capital – a trader in arbritrage.

    9 Ajaz Shah stated, to the press, that he had not taken any funds into his ‘system’ from MJS.

    10 When MJS was passed to David Ruben, insolvency practitioner, it transpired that MJS DID give Fortitude Capital money to invest.

    11 Ajaz Shah’s company has now gone bust, losing those investors in MJS the money they ought to have received back.

    12 During the early part of that process, Dan Willis asked me to meet with him and advised me that the due diligence that one of his companies had undertaken into Ajaz Shah, along with lawyers and others, made clear that he was fit and proper.

    13 During the same period, it would appear that Mr Willis intended to launch an offering using Mr Shah for his investment algorythms for investment purposes.

    14 That is no longer the case.

    15 HOWEVER Mr Willis does NOT appear to have let all of you good folk know that he runs a competitor offering, Divitias.

    16 That competitor status puts a WHOLE different perspective on the fact that Mr Willis’ friend released information about a client to a ‘friend’ that it KNEW was a competitor, arguably in breach of duty.

    17 Mr Willis has, since I refused to give him privileged information about Pardus undertaken the following:

    Threatened Mr Bryce on WhatsApp at 3am in the morning;
    Called him a c..t in the same message;
    Informed me that he would go to Bond Review and where was his commentary about the inner workings of a competitor offering;
    Used information that ought reasonably to have been privileged to attempt to bring down a competitor offering on the basis of FRAUD without having evidence of FRAUD;
    Called colleagues involved with Pardus on the telephone, perhaps under the influence, and left them messages purporting to be Greg Bryce, advising them that he WAS Greg Bryce, and he was an insurance fraud and a fraudster per se;
    Threatened myself, with big lawyers looking into me as I was bought, no morals no this or that …. ;
    Called many parties associated with Pardus to advise them that it was going down;
    Threatened to go to Bond Review;
    Harassed me for so many hours one afternoon that I had to block him – it is somewhat unnerving to be dealing with an individual that has displayed the same type of conduct that I was subjected to by Shaun Prince when he was challenged on MJS.

    Other facts

    Dan Willis WORKED for Pardus.
    Dan Willis has a previous offering that may have been associated with Ajaz Shah who he said was fit and proper.
    Dan Willis now has an offering that is NOT yet issued and is seeking investment in.
    Prior to my instruction to Pardus – all of which has been properly disclosed to Pardus I might add – it was stated that IF the offering was FRAUDULENT, the likelihood was that the bond would be unwound, meaning that there could be an opportunity for funds invested to need reinvesting if there was consumer appetite for doing so. So, it appears reasonable to believe that he was HOPING that the investment was fraudulent …
    Dan Willis did not pay me and was very concerned about the amount of work that I was doing to advise him on whistleblowing – my response was that i expected to get an instruction from Pardus, on a paid basis, which I did – again disclosing the previous relationship with Divitias.
    I have SEEN the documentation pertaining to the security. Contrary to what is being pushed around Bond Review, the asset (which falls squarely into an asset class that is TRADEABLE) is held in a connected company. Pardus is free to liquidate the ‘asset’ IF anything should arise that requires it. That means that Pardus has control over the asset, to dispose of as it sees fit OR to trade it as it sees fit. I should also add that the sum of security WAY exceeds the investments made.

    So to clarify, contrary to the allegation that I can be bought: I am an unregistered barrister, specialising in financial services, insolvency and fraud. I am, at heart, also a proponent of dispute resolution BECAUSE if a fund goes bust, the only people that lose out ARE the investors.

    FOR THIS REASON I took the instruction, I have investigated and to put meat on the bones I am instructed to put the matter to the SFO and the FCA, simply because this is the easiest way to lay truth to the lies currently being spread about this investment.

    To that I would add: the investors are fully aware of the allegations that have been made, and I am also in the process of drafting a report to the police because when a party moves beyond defamatory statements, and flagrant actions designed to bring down an otherwise legitimate investment, into threats, which Mr Willis, when asked, was silly enough to state that he would never put it in writing – only say it – speaks to me of the calibre of this man.

    I ask you to note that Pardus have stayed quiet. Why? Because you do NOT sling mud unless you are desperate, trying to climb out of a hole, or simply unhinged.

    This is a serious business, clients’ interests are at risk and we are all guns blazing ensuring that the RIGHT message goes to the RIGHT people and if the police believe they have cause, then Mr Willis will find himself dealing with them. Perhaps that might encourage him to think about his own offering and what this behaviour is saying about it in the context of safety for any of HIS investors….

    Like

  16. Dear David, has Mr Willis advised you of his own offering, Divitias, and offered any of your brokers commission rates yet? Is it 35% that you are offering Dan? Or am I mistaken?. Happy to retract if so.
    I think there is merit in the saying: those who throw stones should not sit in glass houses.
    I would also want to know, from a legitimate investment, if:
    There IS a policy on risk PRE ISSUE and/or
    WHEN the insurance goes on risk ask for PROOF that the policy premium HAS been paid
    Then, in 3 – 6 months, ask for PROOF that the policy has not lapsed. If this were to be the case, then of course, the LEGITIMATE outcome would be if there was a sinking fund or security held …
    I would also want to know why, if this IS the case, his own due diligence, using top lawyers, and one of his companies, led to the conclusion that Ajaz Shah WAS fit and proper, when all the evidence in the public domain at the time led to the alternative
    I would also want to know what parties the offering is now using to trade YOUR money
    If there is ANY commission being paid above 30% then my suggestion to any proposed investor is to think VERY CAREFULLY about how the investment returns can possibly be maintained when the investment is paying OUT so much commission and in fact MORE than is being paid to the investor if my source is correct
    JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR: I will be watching, revising and gathering intelligence here – the site is a godsend and well run by Brev Bowen Verdi, and you are all on notice that ANY introducer or broker who does not adhere to the training programme that I am implementing across the board will be dropped, and reported.
    A company is ONLY as good as its brokers/introducers and it should be borne in mind that Pardus now has a specialist well used to assisting insolvency practitioners with going after introducers/brokers, able to advise it and its brokers, on the consequences of abusing the agreements in place. THIS IS ALL ABOUT INVESTOR PROTECTION: SOMETHING THAT THE TEAM AT PARDUS ARE WILLING AND ABLE TO LEARN AND IMPROVE UPON, HAND IN GLOVE WITH THE FCA/SFO AND/OR INVESTORS.

    Like

  17. Dear Jane
    The directors at Pardus PLC Craig Gabriel and Mike Bold also raised money from the bond via a pension liberation scheme that is the subject of a Prnsion Regulator criminal enquiry .
    The two directors I mention also are directors of Meredith Charles that lost 100s of thousands of clients money in the Hudspith FX Ponzi scheme .

    Like

  18. hi Jane
    so it is true that Pardus let the policy lapse & continued to accept investments without cover. are you sure you should be representing such a dishonest Director. Did you report this to the police as potential fraud, at least Divitias premium is paid upfront to cover the current commitments. Druces solicitors have confirmed that they act for the company & i have spoken to the FCA who have suggested that the matter be reported to the Frankfurt stock exchange.i presume you will be doing this as they breached the terms of the IM.We all know that tier 1 Arbitrage can make well over 50% per month.at least Divitias are sharing these profits rather than lining Director’s pockets like Pardu​s.
    have you dealt with Pardus agent who is still claiming that insurance cover is in place.out of interest when & why was the insurance stopped as I was being offered the product in march this year with insurance cover.
    what concerns me is that a Director can breach the terms of the IM for his own benefit.time for you to represent a new company?

    Like

  19. David, hello. I wonder whether you could tell me something? How do you know Divitias are, as you say, sharing anything with investors?

    Like

  20. So Jane Saunders, unless Brev has breached the UK DPA legalities and rules implicit on any all such sites, you have no way of factually verifying that me claiming to be Daniel Willis is actually the real Daniel Willis – correct? Brev have you breached DPA rules, to verify if I were in fact the real Daniel Willis?

    Secondly, before I get to Jane’s immoral, unethical, breaches of client confidentiality, factually incorrect and ultimately vitriolic posts – clearly paid for by Pardus Fixed Income Bond. Have you considered Jane that the posts made in Daniel Willis name, may not in fact have been posted by the real Daniel Willis, rather a third party, with a significant interest, that posted in a deliberate attempt to illicit the very same prescribed response that you have now so brilliantly and willingly posted….??? Not so clever Saunders……………

    What I do know is that if I were the real Daniel Willis, he would absolutely ensure that all posts are based on FACTS and backed by a verifiable audit trail in readiness for legal escalation, remember Jane Saunders an audit trail exists on all including your emails-txt msgs and indeed phone calls!

    Your willingness to throw away all moral, ethical and legal objectivity based on a fat fee from a bond issuer that has clearly and verifiabley for two years perpetuated a fraudulent lie to investors and professional service providers re having a live insurance policy is ASTONISHING AND NOW ON RECORD for all to see.

    So if I were, actually, the real Daniel Willis I suspect he would respond to your grossly inaccurate statements as follows, confident that he has a fully independently verifiable audit trail that has and can be further escalated to lawyers and regulators to fundamentally determine the core FACTS:-

    Sanders says:-

    ‘Ladies and gents, I AM indeed instructed to Pardus and I am going on record to state that I am in the process of writing to both the SFO and the FCA to clarify the truth in the information that Mr Willis has erroneously put in the public domain’.

    Since when has correctly whistle-blowing an insurance fraud been categorized as ‘erroneous’????

    Brev do you have a standpoint on this?

    Clearly only when Jane Sanders has been paid a fat fee from the fraudulent bond issuer, Pardus, to defend their lies and direct deceit. Remember readers this is the same Jane Saunders that per-ports to protect and work in the single interests of investors against such infidels as Pardus – direct confirmation she can be bought for ALL to see……….. Daniel Willis, if I were him, would have to say that he has never before seen such a knee jerk, vitriolic and factually incorrect response from a regulated and supposedly objective professional that throws all professional and integrity based obligations to the wind………Brev?

    Sanders says:-

    ‘2 I knew of this matter because Dan Willis brought this to my attention. I then advised him on whistleblowing without knowing anything but the bare facts, and advised him in writing that I would be going to Pardus to seek an instruction, after advising that I knew Mr Bryce from business relationships’.

    I have it confirmed that Sanders was indeed appointed by Divitias Wealth plc whom sought to see through and gain objective advice on whistle blowing the Pardus insurance fraud to all relevant regulators, professional service providers, exchanges and more PRIOR to Saunders then securing the rancid appointment to act for Pardus. That sequence of events is on record and verifiable, more importantly the regulatory, legal and ethical obligations under the Divitias Wealth appointment of Saunders STILL STAND! Review your audit trail Saunders………………………………………………

    Saunders says:-

    3 it is far too convenient that Mr Willis has sought and obtained the evidence that he believes makes out FRAUD from his former colleague, Mr Dan Sails, at Willis Towers Watson.

    Saunders you of ALL people should know that whistle-blowing obligations are far from ‘convenient’ and independent of any employment history as dictated by FCA rules no? However, you are correct in that I’m aware that Daniel Willis has in the past worked for Willis Towers Watson,top 3 global insurance broker, in the global financial services vertica’ surely a positive professional accolade – better than selling bikes, storage solutions or being a roofer – see Pardus Directors – FACT!

    How you can attempt to make this a negative or nefarious speaks more of your poisoned bent objectivity which we will further expose as we focus on FACTS!

    ‘4 Mr Willis introduced me to a gentleman that he assured me was responsible for investing over 10M INTO Pardus on the basis of a FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION ON THE PARDUS IM. I have spoken to that chap on the record, and that individual has confirmed, in writing that he has NEVER invested with Pardus. The basis of this introduction was to establish to Mr Willis that there had been multi millions of investment based on fraudulent misrepresentation. He was TOLD that this was not the case and HE STILL PUBLISHED the representation’.

    I understand that Daniel Willis has a long and comprehensive audit trail from said individual that precedes connection to Saunders, confirming all investor deployment to Pardus and indeed redemption issues where said individual chose to on trigger lie to Saunders. Again full audit trail is secure and has been shared will relevant entities…….FACTS Saunders.

    Saunders says:-

    ‘5 The policy in question within Pardus DID lapse. This is true’.

    WOW……….this is all Saunders has to say on this hugely significant issue?!!! Whilst we have here an admission of FACT, Saunders conveniently forgets to outline the seriousness and appropriate negative escalation of this from EVERY perspective……! Would this be the case if she represented the investors readers? CLEARLY NOT another direct example that her morals and ethics can be bought by a fat fee. How much Saunders have Pardus paid you to cover this all up….go on record here?

    Brev what is your reaction to this?

    Where is the mention that FACT, the FCA anD SFO are now directly involved on this data entry point? Remember readers it actually takes a significant amount of evidence to get said entities to act which they have in the case of Pardus………care to explain and elaborate Saunders on behalf of your client Pardus?? I’m sure Pardus bond investors would love to see this on record!

    Saunders says:-

    ‘6 Mr Willis was an individual, working for Willis Towers Watson, who assisted with placing a policy on a bond issuer, MJS. That issuer turned out to be fraudulent and despite the placing of a policy that was PAID FOR, to my understanding, the policy has NOT paid out’.

    Again Saunders you of ALL people should work of verifiable facts, yes I understand that the real Daniel Willis did indeed introduce MJS Capital to WTW to assist In their en-devours to secure bond insurance. However the real Daniel Willis and in fact WTW assure me that Daniel Willis did not in fact work for WTW at that time and had no other involvement other than introducing the two entities. At least MJS Capital paid for the WTW insurance policy something YOUR CLIENT PARDUS DID NOT DO AND LIED ABOUT IT?!

    I’m sure WTW will be monitoring this website so look forwards to them escalating your statement Saunders ‘That issuer turned out to be fraudulent and despite the placing of a policy that was PAID FOR, to my understanding, the policy has NOT paid out’. Daniel Sails Head of Group Legal WTW one for you…….good luck Saunders as WTW legal budget is ‘expansive’ especially when employed to protect their reputation and brand…….least that’s what I’m sure the real Daniel Willis will confirm!

    Saunders says:-

    ‘7 Mr Willis, around the time that I was responsible for bringing down MJS in conjunction with about 100 of its clients, came to me to introduce me to Ajaz Shah’.

    I understand from the real Daniel Willis that he did pro actively connect with Saunders to in fact whistle blow MJS and subsequently connect Saunders to Ajaz Shah of Fortitude to ensure straight line recovery of investor capital. Shah had been unresponsive to Saunders communication prior, Daniel Willis’s connection established a direct line of communication. Again Saunders forgets that the real Daniel Willis has assured me he has a full audit trail of this engagement and he acted at all times selflessly in the single interest of investors. FACTS SAUNDERS…………..

    Saunders says:-

    ‘8 Ajaz Shah ran Fortitude Capital – a trader in arbritrage’.

    That’s it Saunders???!

    Saunders says:-

    ‘9 Ajaz Shah stated, to the press, that he had not taken any funds into his ‘system’ from MJS’.

    Confirmed I understand directly from Ajaz Shah to Saunders – zero connection to the real Daniel Willis here?!

    Saunders says:-

    ’10 When MJS was passed to David Ruben, insolvency practitioner, it transpired that MJS DID give Fortitude Capital money to invest’.

    OK Saunders I think we can all see the manipulation you are attempting….but again this statement has zero connection or correlation to the real Daniel Willis FACT.

    Saunders Says:-

    ’11 Ajaz Shah’s company has now gone bust, losing those investors in MJS the money they ought to have received back’.

    See the manipulation yet readers? It’s coming next….

    Saunders says:-

    ’12 During the early part of that process, Dan Willis asked me to meet with him and advised me that the due diligence that one of his companies had undertaken into Ajaz Shah, along with lawyers and others, made clear that he was fit and proper’.

    There we have it readers, she broke cover…………a direct attempt to connect the real Daniel Willis to Ajaz Shah. What Saunders has not qualified is indeed I hear from the real Daniel Willis is the verifiable DD run on Ajaz Shah by SRA regulated lawyers and indeed insurers. Perhaps confirm this Saunders first but anyway we all see your bent narrative and lack of ethics so lets continue shall we readers….

    Saunders says:-

    ’13 During the same period, it would appear that Mr Willis intended to launch an offering using Mr Shah for his investment algorythms for investment purposes’.

    Have you confirmed Saunders with the real Daniel Willis and his lawyers directly, that Ajaz Shah was in fact the only intended trade partner and the verifiable DD undertaken? The real Daniel Willis assures me that the answer is NOOOOO. Lets continue readers….

    Saunders says:-

    14 That is no longer the case.

    BRAVO SAUNDERS….the first FACT you have in fact spewed!

    Saunders says:-

    ’15 HOWEVER Mr Willis does NOT appear to have let all of you good folk know that he runs a competitor offering, Divitias’.

    I understand from the real Daniel Willis Saunders, that he as the CEO of Divitias Wealth plc, does not see the Pardus sham as a competitor on many verifiable levels, not least the key principal being the real Daniel Willis and his fellow board members would not FUNDAMENTALLY LIE TO INVESTORS, professional service providers, introducers, exchanges and more to confirm that a bond specific insurance policy was in force providing real indemnity to protect investors as Pardus have?!

    On that note I understand that the real Daniel Willis and his fellow board members would be delighted to confirm ANY aspect of their unique bond offering to any/all verified requests – supported Saunders by all of Divitias Wealth plc regulated service providers.

    Something Pardus have lied about – again lets not forget the core facts here readers!

    Saunders says:-

    ’16 That competitor status puts a WHOLE different perspective on the fact that Mr Willis’ friend released information about a client to a ‘friend’ that it KNEW was a competitor, arguably in breach of duty’.

    Please expand on this for the readers Saunders, but as you do lets all keep in context your BREACH OF DUTY obligations if you are brave enough to refer to a principal whether regulatory, ethical, legal or moral…….pls remember that the real Daniel Willis comes from a strictly regulated environment and I’m therefore sure he has a full audit trail to ANY ALL engagement. Facts do not lie unlike

    Saunders Says:-

    ’17 Mr Willis has, since I refused to give him privileged information about Pardus undertaken the following:

    Threatened Mr Bryce on WhatsApp at 3am in the morning;

    I understand from the real Daniel Willis that he did in fact msg Bryce and did call him a C@@T. Further I understand the real Daniel Willis stands by his C@@t description of Bryce and is happy to share to content of said msgs where he calls our Bryce as an insurance fraud with whomever requests as these are facts. I’m sure the real Daniel Willis has already shared these messages in context with his lawyers.

    Called him a c..t in the same message;

    I understand as stated above that the real Daniel Willis did state this – correctly.

    Informed me that he would go to Bond Review and where was his commentary about the inner workings of a competitor offering;

    Show all the audit trail Saunders…..Brev who initiated initial contact with BR pls? Saunders the real Daniel Willis assures you FACT is was not him….he is happy to pursue this with real lawyers.

    Used information that ought reasonably to have been privileged to attempt to bring down a competitor offering on the basis of FRAUD without having evidence of FRAUD;

    Now Saunders this is a very disappointing statement ON SOOO MANY LEVELS but perfectly demonstrates for all readers to see, your bent objectivity. I understand that the real Daniel Willis shared proof of the Pardus insurance fraud as verified by WTW and Genralli with you directly. Your responding emails prior to representing the pond feeders Pardus are extremely enlightening – this outside text msgs and mobile calls all of which are logged and recorded. Daniel Willis and his lawyer assures me that they welcome direct escalation on this point. Saunders do you remember your description of Bryce in a txt msg once you had seen the WTW verification that zero insurance in place?? The real Daniel Willis has this remember Saunders so again lets work on FACTS.

    Called colleagues involved with Pardus on the telephone, perhaps under the influence, and left them messages purporting to be Greg Bryce, advising them that he WAS Greg Bryce, and he was an insurance fraud and a fraudster per se;

    Saunders bring forwards your audit trail? See readers she is now using lies to proper-gate her bent and paid for by Pardus non existent objectivity. But wait for the next one blow…………

    Threatened myself, with big lawyers looking into me as I was bought, no morals no this or that …. ;
    Called many parties associated with Pardus to advise them that it was going down;

    I understand the real Daniel Willis has a full audit trail……where is yours Saunders to verify the false and grossly in accurate statements above?! Remember readers this is a supposed balanced, objective and regulated individual here. Real lawyers have the facts the real Daniel Willis and his Board assure me of this ready to deploy.

    Threatened to go to Bond Review;

    And Saunders??????????

    Harassed me for so many hours one afternoon that I had to block him – it is somewhat unnerving to be dealing with an individual that has displayed the same type of conduct that I was subjected to by Shaun Prince when he was challenged on MJS.

    WOW…again the real Daniel Willis assures me you are AGAIN incorrect and that he has a full audit trail of all engagement. Did he perhaps question your morality in acing for the pond feeders as Pardus for a fat fee Saunders?? Remember FULL AUDIT TRAILS……………..!

    Saunders goes on to say (more factually incorrect vitriol):-

    ‘Other facts

    Dan Willis WORKED for Pardus.

    I understand from the real Daniel Willis that Greg Bryce approached his consultancy company (not Divitias Wealth plc) in November 2017 to assist in the creation of the Pardus bond as Greg Bryce nor any of his fellow Directors had any previous experience is creating private offering fixed income bonds and as importantly had zero access to trade partners, lawyers, insurers, security trustees, registrars and more… The real Daniel Willis’s consultancy company signed a consultancy agreement with the sewer rat Bryce and delivered ALL as specified in the consultancy agreement. However, Bryce failed to settle the agreed invoices due in total for a fantastic service delivered. I understand this is ALL on record so NO the real Daniel Willis has never worked for Pardus. Work on FACTS Saunders which are the real Daniel Willis has direct evidence of Bryce not paying for services rendered.

    This also extends to Richard Tapper an ex Director of Pardus. The real Daniel Willis assures me that he has a full audit trail of msgs from Tapper in Feb and March 2018 where Tapper confirms that he had not been paid salary due by Bryce outside many assurances this would be taken care of. Again Saunders remember all that the real Daniel Willis states is underwritten by a full and independently verifiable audit trail – unlike you.

    Dan Willis has a previous offering that may have been associated with Ajaz Shah who he said was fit and proper.

    The real Daniel Willis or Divitias Wealth plc have not taken a single penny of investment from investors Saunders? You can verify this with Divitias Wealth plc lawyers directly. For even you to use rhetoric such as ‘MAY’ is very misleading. But I’m sure the readers are now well calibrated to your totally bent objectivity. Show the real Daniel Willis and his lawyers your full audit trail Saunders.

    On the subject of ‘MAY’ I understand the real Daniel Willis lawyers believe that you ‘MAY’ have directly breached your confidentiality obligations to Divitias Wealth plc and more and are now reviewing pending escalation to the appropriate regulator(s).

    Dan Willis now has an offering that is NOT yet issued and is seeking investment in.

    Well done Sherlock Holmes is Greg Bryce your retarded Watson?!

    Prior to my instruction to Pardus – all of which has been properly disclosed to Pardus I might add – it was stated that IF the offering was FRAUDULENT, the likelihood was that the bond would be unwound, meaning that there could be an opportunity for funds invested to need reinvesting if there was consumer appetite for doing so. So, it appears reasonable to believe that he was HOPING that the investment was fraudulent …

    Again WOW Saunders…truth will out in the full audit trail of emails, messages and recorded phone calls the real Daniel Willis assures me he has. Facts do not lie which is unfortunate for you and the bike sellers, roofers, storage consultants and candle stick makers at Pardus. Interestingly the real Daniel Willis has shown me a number of interesting messages and pictures of Greg Bryce sent to him directly from Greg Bryce and he intends to now circulate these far and wide……

    Dan Willis did not pay me and was very concerned about the amount of work that I was doing to advise him on whistleblowing – my response was that i expected to get an instruction from Pardus, on a paid basis, which I did – again disclosing the previous relationship with Divitias.

    The real Daniel Willis again has a full audit trail Saunders so be very careful to only state facts here – which you have not!!!!!!!!!

    I have SEEN the documentation pertaining to the security. Contrary to what is being pushed around Bond Review, the asset (which falls squarely into an asset class that is TRADEABLE) is held in a connected company. Pardus is free to liquidate the ‘asset’ IF anything should arise that requires it. That means that Pardus has control over the asset, to dispose of as it sees fit OR to trade it as it sees fit. I should also add that the sum of security WAY exceeds the investments made.

    So Saunders in your last feeble attempt to try and bring some sense legitimacy to the Pardus sham, outside the confirmed insurance fraud, you actually reveal your utter ineptness in these matters- I’m sure the real Daniel Willis and readers alike will agree with me. Has Chris Axford of Druces firstly verified said assets actually exist, the actual POA in place, the ‘real’ valuation and subsequently drafted-implemented a suitably strict legal agreement? Have you verified this with him??

    I understand this is not the case so please go on record to confirm this? SOOOOOO many bullet holes in your laughable statement above I not the real Daniel Willis have the patience at this stage to further expose but be assured it WILL be exposed along with your ineptness in this regard.

    SOOOOOO Saunders goes on to say:-

    So to clarify, contrary to the allegation that I can be bought: I am an unregistered barrister, specialising in financial services, insolvency and fraud. I am, at heart, also a proponent of dispute resolution BECAUSE if a fund goes bust, the only people that lose out ARE the investors.

    Saunders you have perfectly described Pardus and yet fail to admit the fraud now verified. All now clear to readers FACT.

    FOR THIS REASON I took the instruction, I have investigated and to put meat on the bones I am instructed to put the matter to the SFO and the FCA, simply because this is the easiest way to lay truth to the lies currently being spread about this investment.

    So if ZERO wrongdoing by PADUS why has Saunders felt compelled to refer to the FCA and SFO? HAs she done this pro-actively or re-actively? Either way it is very, very, very bad please clarify when you say ‘this is the easiest way to lay truth to the lies currently being spread about this investment’. Which lies precisely…..insurance fraud?

    Saunders continues readers, she that does protest:-

    ‘To that I would add: the investors are fully aware of the allegations that have been made, and I am also in the process of drafting a report to the police because when a party moves beyond defamatory statements, and flagrant actions designed to bring down an otherwise legitimate investment, into threats, which Mr Willis, when asked, was silly enough to state that he would never put it in writing – only say it – speaks to me of the calibre of this man’.

    I understand from the real Daniel Willis that he is steadfast in his FACTS, his full audit trail and would welcome direct dialogue with the police in this regard, he stands by his factual opinion that Greg Bryce is a C@@T. THE ACTIONS OF SAUNDERS SPEAKS TO ME AND SHOULD TO ALL READERS AS TO THE CALIBRE OF THIS WOMAN AND HER ABILITY TO BE SWAYED BY A FAT FEE. TO BE CONTINUED JANE SAUNDERS AND OF COURSE ALL IN SIGHT OF THE REAL DANIEL WILLIS LAWYERS.

    Like

  21. Chris Hoole and David and indeed dear readers, can you see how Saunders TOTALLY refuses to address any of your legitimate and I’m sure verified issues??

    Saunders, I understand that the real Daniel Willis will shortly be responding to your secondary post which in all reality is equally if not more factually incorrect yet at the same time magnifies your now non existent objectivity. Pls remember that WTW and many more are actively tracking your posts on this website.

    The real Daniel Willis tells me that he hopes the fee paid to you by the Pardus sewer rats is significant enough, on the basis that your disgraceful and for ALL to now see inept attempts in deflating and defending the Pardus insurance fraud will terminate further legitimate business from ethical businesses.

    To be continued IN EVERY WAY.

    David, Chris over to you to get a response from Saunders……………………….

    Like

  22. Why is it that when unchallenged, Dan Willis spoke. But now someone is challenging he is nowhere to be found.

    So Dan, are you willing to waive privilege on EVERY conversation that we have ever had?

    Ladies and gents, if he waives his right to maintain privilege I will be able to furnish you with the evidence I hold in this regard. As for investors that have come to me about Divitias, I will continue to tell the truth.

    Right, I’m off

    The truth will always out!

    Jane

    Like

  23. this needs to stop.
    to summarize,
    1.greg Bryce stopped the insurance policy & continued to take investments.
    2.FCA are investigating Pardus
    3,Craig Gabriel & mike bold are under investigation for a pension liberation scheme that is the subject of a Pension Regulator criminal enquiry & also lost 100s of thousands of clients money in the Hudspith FX Ponzi scheme
    4.they are in breach of the current IM by accepting investors from £10k

    Caveat Emptor!!!!

    Like

  24. Clearly readers Saunders has a bent agenda, now for all to see, she spends her entire time wrongfully attacking a legitimate individual in the real Daniel Willis and a legitimate bond issuer in Divitias Wealth plc.

    Has Saunders contacted the Divitias Wealth plc lawyers to undertake (nefarious) due diligence in order to report back to the Pardus candlestick makers? The answer I hear from the real Daniel Willis is a resounding NO………

    Equally no response from Saunders linked to her blatant misleading and factually incorrect statements.

    All now in the purview of Willis Towers Watson, Genralli, professional service providers, investors, FCA, SFO, Frankfurt Exchange and many more.

    SURELY she should be spending her time trying to cover up the Pardus insurance fraud and what else is in the closet?

    Saunders has in her earlier posts (along with many other breached principals) waived her own privilege surely?

    Saunders are you aware of any websites that give an independent, direct and true account of your historic actions and dealings with investors????????

    Lastly I refer to David’s posts above! Saunders care to address these independently verifiable Pardus issues as surely this is what the fat fee is for?

    More to follow dear readers…………………..

    Like

  25. The post above comes straight from Mr Willis. How do I know? Earlier this morning I asked whether he agrees to waive privilege in respect of ALL personal comms we have shared. Hence he has just mentioned that i have waived privilege.
    Re David,
    1.greg Bryce stopped the insurance policy & continued to take investments.
    2.FCA are investigating Pardus
    3,Craig Gabriel & mike bold are under investigation for a pension liberation scheme that is the subject of a Pension Regulator criminal enquiry & also lost 100s of thousands of clients money in the Hudspith FX Ponzi scheme
    4.they are in breach of the current IM by accepting investors from £10k
    1 Pardus allowed the policy to lapse and there was a large gap between the date that the policy was incepted and the date that the policy ‘lapse’ took effect.
    2 Pardus’ IM was not updated in a timely enough fashion.
    3 Pardus’ investors have been updated on the gaps in the IM, the insurance and the current position re the security.
    4 Pardus’ investors have confirmed in writing that they understand the status quo.
    5 Pardus corporate lawyers and I are revisiting the IM as there are many more updates beyond those that ARE included in the 2020 version that have been identified.
    6 The report is going to the SFO, FCA and the police because persons are conflating issues and left alone Mr Willis and his cohorts – if there are any other than Mr Willis in this thread – are defaming EVERYONE. Best form of defence is always attack.
    Re Christopher Hoole, I am part way through a judgment in the name of Crown v Quillan and Ors in which you are named as one of 7 defendants charged with conspiring to defraud HMRC. I have not, as yet, reached the bottom of the judgment, but I see no mention of Craig Gabriel or Mike Bold.
    Dan Willis exactly who am I supposed to be contacting as yours or Divitias’ lawyer? Care to share?
    Jane

    Like

  26. Hi Jane

    Let me save you some time , the scheme was judged in the high court to be legal , this was appealed by HMRC to the then Lotd Chief Justice Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd . Who also agreed the scheme was legal . Or are you saying the UKs most senior judge was wrong

    Such a shame you didn’t finish the half page article before commenting on here .

    If it helps you further Jane I am more than happy to share introducers agreements that show agreements between the the directors of Pardus promising returns to non regulated intermediary’s of 6% per month . Leaving the poor investor who makes the investment a met 1% quite usury you have to agree .

    Plus emails that demonstrate the Pardus directors involvement in suspected pension liberation including clients names and invoices .

    Would this assist you ?

    Like

  27. Hi Chris, yes by all means please do. I’m on [removed] – just so you’re aware, the point I raise part way through the judgment is that Craig Gabriel and Mike Bold were not included as defendants. There was no mention by me as to the results, the truth in the allegations or not, or the outcome. And the reason I refer to it is simply because you chose to raise it and someone else has now commented on it.

    Like

  28. Chris, interesting case. As an aside, it may interest you to know that I am currently working with a company that devises tax avoidance schemes – and yes I do think these have a place in society, providing people are made to understand that if challenged, you will need to have put the funds to one side to make the payment on the sums drawn under the APN scheme.
    Similarly, having read the judgment here, asides from noting the defendants as stated previously, I agree that there was no apparent victim to the conspiracy although I note that HMRC may well be seeking the bang for their buck now. That seems to be par for the course in such matters. Did the case affect you per se?
    Jane

    Like

  29. It sounds like this industry is a very small one with the same names being associated with many dodgy companies.
    It seems likely ProfitHunter and Daniel Willis are the same person, they even misspell the word “purport” the same way (“per-port”).
    These huge posts on both sides hide the fact neither Pardus nor Divitias have a convincing business model as far as I can see. Saying “arbitrage can make well over 50% per month” is not credible. If you can make that much money then go ahead, you don’t need investors as you will rapidly become the world’s richest people. Of course if you have to pay investors 24% and introducers a similar amount then you have to pretend the profits are sky high to cover it, but we don’t have to believe it.
    The insurance policies sound daft to me. I can’t imagine any insurance company being reckless enough to cover trading losses and it sounds like the MJS one didn’t cover fraud either so my guess is it isn’t worth the paper it is written on, regardless of whether the premiums have been paid. I’ve never heard of one paying out despite the long trail of failed companies, nor any other supposed guarantee.
    I am a bit surprised Jane Saunders is working for and defending Pardus. I wonder if she has done Due Diligence on the company as part of her work. If so has she been tempted to invest a meaningful amount herself? If not why not?
    Anyway, argue on. I’l get the popcorn.

    Like

  30. Articulate your question properly and I’ll answer it.
    And while we are on will you confirm that you are not Dan Willis, anyone connected with, by blood, company, and/or any other form with Dan Willis?

    Like

  31. I have removed a whole clutch of bullshit from multiple posters which has nothing to do with Pardus loan notes, specifically speculation about my identity.

    I do my best to enable constructive debate but this thread is testing my patience.

    Bond Review is not a safe space for bullshit. Any further nonsense that clearly has nothing to do with Pardus loan notes will result in an instant ban, and if this thread becomes too annoying to moderate it will be removed in its entirety.

    Posters are reminded that they are legally solely responsible for the content of anything they post on this site.

    Like

  32. dear Chris
    maybe you should publish the facts on Craig Gabriel & Michael Bold.as a respponsible Director im sure GREG bryce will take action.
    jane do you agree?

    Like

  33. Felix I’m not sure to what action you refer when the Court found that the scheme in question was legitimate, whereby Chris and his colleagues were exonerated.

    Or am I thinking of the wrong case?

    Like

  34. Hi Jane
    Everyone here is trying to ensure that investors get full information to protect their investment.
    At the moment
    Pardus directors are not appropriate persons to run a Company. Greg Bryce Canceled the insurance cover without telling investors & Craig Gabriel & mike bold have been involved in a ponzi investigation.
    The Pardus bond is suitable for isa & pension the divitias is not
    The Divitias bond can share profits with investors the Pardus bond does not.
    The divitias bond has Lloyd’s cover the Pardus bond does not. Premiums are paid upfront
    Divitias coupon & commissions are better than Pardus as they are sharing the substantial profits with investors & introducers.
    All have good counter parties such as
    Druces & Woodside Trustees but Divitias is insured.
    The Fca are investigating Pardus. I have seen documentary proof.
    If I’ve missed something please let me know but be constructive

    Like

  35. It is very difficult to be constructive when you have drawn conclusions that are not based on accurate fact.

    However, let me be clear; if you are a retail client this is NOT an appropriate investment for you. Nor is any type of such investment.

    Pardus is limited to appropriate categories of investor, specifically to ensure that retail clients, who may have an appetite to risk some or all of their money in exchange for the chance of a high reward, But CANNOT, according to the legislation and, likely, as a matter of fact, likely AFFORD to lose that money.

    May I ask: is Divitias taking investment yet?

    Unless it is, I cannot understand how it is known that it is sharing anything.

    Re commissions, I’m afraid I’m somewhat ignorant of Divitias per se. Is it already paying commission?

    Concerning appropriate, I’m afraid I cannot agree with you regarding this. The court ruled in favour of the scheme in question. Ergo, IF Pardus did promote/sell it was selling a legitimate scheme.

    Holding someone accountable when the court does not is dangerous ground to tread upon. But that is my opinion and it is your money.

    Re insurance, I would, personally, prefer to have access to assets to be liquidated to repay me than rely on an insurance policy. BUT that is because I’ve seen so Many policies fail to react, leaving investors with losses that are unrecoverable.

    Jane

    Like

  36. Hello Jane

    Reference the security and insurance …
    You say …

    “I would, personally, prefer to have access to assets to be liquidated to repay me than rely on an insurance policy. “

    Good ..that’s your preference..

    What about those investors who based their investment decision based on the fact that their WAS insurance ? Which was apparently not true , which as you know very well is the real point .

    Maybe you could help me here Jane but isn’t that misrepresentation?

    And if so that misrepresentation to squire a monetary gain is that fraud ?

    I’ve asked two specific questions here please answer them as if you answer truthfully I’ll assist you .in protecting other investors .

    Thanks

    Like

  37. I can tell you that each of the small number of investors has been contacted, apprised of the situation, in writing drafted by myself, all are happy with the performance of their investment And the facts presented, and all have the opportunity to redeem as they see fit or reinvest.

    The exercise is based on the process that would be undertaken under the FCA in a remediation exercise, and THAT is why I was brought on board after being given the info from the chap in question and THAT is why I am preparing a report, with investor details, to go to the FCA and the SFO.

    There is zero chance of this information not getting to new investors because I AM GIVING it to them and, in addition, I will be liaising with the authorities on this matter as I do on a day to day basis with regulated businesses.

    I would suggest that you not invest here as you consider the directors untrustworthy, HOWEVER, I will always stand with a party who acknowledges a problem – even if that amounts to a misrepresentation be it reckless or innocent – and then, in tandem with the authorities AND the business AND the investors, the solution will be found.

    In my opinion, this is NOT fraudulent misrep or Druce’s would have terminated – and we are both on board with the current position – and I HAVE attested to that AND I WILL do so in writing with the authorities.

    I hope this helps

    Jane

    Like

  38. hi Jane
    i presume you have told Druces,woodside & the Frankfurt stock exchange as they normally take a dim view of Directors acting this way

    Like

  39. Jane
    you mention above that Pardus is only available to
    ” Pardus is limited to appropriate categories of investor, specifically to ensure that retail clients, who may have an appetite to risk some or all of their money in exchange for the chance of a high reward, But CANNOT, according to the legislation and, likely, as a matter of fact, likely AFFORD to lose that money.”
    i was under the impression that the minimum investment is £100k.can you confirm

    Like

  40. hi Jane
    a reply on the last 2 posts from David & Peter will really help investors.i have carried out my own review & like the product but i am concerned about some of the above points

    Like

  41. Only just seen this even though I’ve been involved (unluckily) with all of this for a long time. I invested with Pardus, and with Hudspiths, another product promoted by the fat slug Craig Gabriel and his drunk counterpart Mike Ballbag Bold. Firstly, Hudspiths was a sham, not a complete Ponzi and now we are getting in to the nitty gritty of it we can all see that it was just poor management rather than a scam. Pardus however is a lie and a scam from day dot. Again I was told about the insurance, I was told that this was a no brainer and I would be stupid to NOT invest…..turns out I was just stupid. 16 months on, no return of capital, payments late, people rarely answer the phone so I have resorted to having interviews with the FCA. Like you said we did try the police, but they are overworked and this is too small. There is no 360m of assets, with most bonds or the like these assets will be leased anyway, and yes they are AUM. Hudspiths showed £73m AUM also, but £56m of that was in 3rd party accounts, these guys claim £360m but have sod all. There was also another guy, John Brendan Moran, but I think his first name is Brendan. He runs (don’t laugh) protecting wealth limited. Search Pardus bond on google and this bald slouch promotes the Pardus fixed income bond. In fact, without insurance, it can’t be a bond. It’s all BS and yet again I’m stung, this time I’m livid.

    Like

  42. Manoj Ladwa
    Craig Gabriel
    Greg Bryce
    Dan Willis
    Mike Bold
    Brendan John Moran
    All the above are known to have been dealing in fake documents to do with the false advertising of Pardus Fixed income Bond.
    I can confirm that there was NEVER and completed insurance policy in place, this is a typical scam used in order to receive an insurance document, the policy is then cancelled.
    SFO has been advised, FCA are investigation, Pensions Regulator is investigating.
    My personal advice is to remove all your funds from this company as soon as possible.

    Like

  43. Good Afternoon Everybody,
    To say I am gobsmacked is an understatement. I have been alerted to this by another investor in Pardus who found me on social media, reading through these comments have scared me to my core. I am 68 years old and was introduced to this by John Moran (who I am now told is Brendan?) who said that this was a “no brainer” and would help protect my wealth for my kids. I feel so stupid, I believed him and put in a large chunk of my hard earned savings and then after 2 payments (that were late) I heard nothing from these people again. I feel as though I have been duped by this fraudster Brendan Moran and I cannot afford to lose my money! I will be left with nothing! Has anyone rung the SFO?

    Like

  44. Sorry for my absence, Covid is reaping mayhem on business as usual.

    Can those of you who are purporting to be live investors please contact Pardus direct? Not your introducer, just those of you who have put your money with Pardus. I have alerted the team to those of you who are here stating that you have allegedly been deceived and I will be waiting to see that you have called the company, spoken to them and asked them pertinent questions.

    Once you have rung the company, the team will come back to me and I will be involved with checking the veracity of the investment myself, and whether, purportedly, any late payments have occurred. If they have not, and if Pardus does not receive any calls, then that information will also be reflected here. WITHOUT breaching confidentiality.

    Because only people who are not being honest would miss an opportunity to speak to those who purportedly owe them money – IMMEDIATELY i MIGHT ADD – and ensure that all is well with their investment….

    Speak soon

    Jane

    Like

  45. Mr Drummond

    Please email me on [removed]

    I have direct access to a criminal lawyer investing this, he can arrange an interview with the relevant authorities as this is now an ongoing open case.

    Damien

    Like

  46. Ladies and gents

    Please feel free to refer your criminal and/or any other type of lawyers to [removed]. I will be liaising with both Pardus, the SFO and the FCA on this issue, and my instruction extends specifically to working with any and all genuine investors who are seeking further information.

    It stands to reason that chinese whispers are fruitless, create unnecessary fear and, most commonly, lack merit. So, if anyone would like specific information about THEIR INVESTMENT contact either myself, or Pardus who hold everything accordingly.

    Like

  47. Maybe my 42 years in the bond creation market is inadequate, but one does not raise a bond, with more than likely leased assets behind the bond, and then go out to retail clients in the U.K. trying to raise £10, £20, £100k here and there. The idea is that this bond is monetised when listed or prior to listing at discount by a major bank with a coupon of 4-6% per annum payable to that monetiser. One does not raise a bond, put it on the open market and then look on Facebook or the alike for potential retail clients who will invest £10k.

    My professional opinion is that this is a bond which no major bank will ever monetise, therefore they have used the kudos associated with having a listed bond and abused the system by reaching out to retail clients. I have seen this before and I will happily place a gentleman’s bet on the fact that they will be slowly living from and spending what they are taking from unsuspecting retail clients, hoping that a bank offers them £300-£320m against their £360m ‘bond’ (which isn’t insured).

    I guarantee they won’t and sadly many will lose their investment.

    On that note, one can also imagine they have positioned this as a corporate loan, via a loan note structure. This will be their assumed wriggle room to get out of the grasp of the FCA.

    Anyone with any corporate financial experience will tare this to utter pieces.

    Like

  48. sorry guys, my responses aren’t getting through here. If you are a legitimate investor with concerns PLEASE contact Pardus direct.

    Like

  49. Sorry Jane, as I see this, you are offering an investment bond, you are promoting funds into this ‘bond’ by way of loan notes, so that is a corporate loan, not an investment. Now you are asking ‘legitimate investors’ to contact you (Pardus). There are no investors, there are lenders. Your terminology or lack there off is testimony to the scam you are trying to pull.

    One could say on your bike, but Greg Bryce sold all his bikes a few years back.

    Like

  50. Winston, tread with care. I am not PROMOTING. Neither am I Pardus. My company, JSCS, is appointed by way of a professional instruction TO Pardus. And if you truly had corporate experience that you profess to have, you would know the difference. An unregistered barrister, or a lawyer, or a firm of lawyers do NOT promote an investment. And if they do, one would ordinarily call BS because this is not a realm into which such professionals should step.

    Now, LEGITIMATE means those with live investments, not those who are here to scare monger, tear apart an offering that they are ‘surmising’ on, and casting unwarranted, and unsupported aspersions on a lawyer that has been absolutely clear on this thread EXACTLY what capacity I hold with respect to Pardus.

    Like

  51. Chris,

    Jane is no more than Greg Bryce or Craig Gabriel in disguise. The lack of tonal accuracy spouted from this individual’s mouth is unheard of. A £360m listed bond company would not have someone at the forefront of their business. The comments regarding having assets appears to insurance are irrelevant as this company has neither. This is them trying to get out of the hole they have dug themselves into saying that they have insurance when clearly they do not. Also, ‘Jane’ states this is not suitable for retail investors? If that is the case Jane, then why are people linked to the directors of the company advertising this to retail clients on platforms such as Facebook?

    Have some conviction or knowledge in what you are saying, or simply stop embarrassing yourself.

    I am not an investor but a good friend is, against my advice I must add, hence I will not be contacting Pardus.

    In the meantime, I am reporting factual points against a public article.

    Like

  52. Those of you who already know of me will know that I act in my own name, and I do not hide behind anyone, come what may.

    As regards embarrassment, water off a duck’s back, sir. As regards facts, we disagree on what constitutes facts, but on that note, I must go as I have work to do.

    To your colleague, or anyone who has a problem with an investment, it beggars belief that you would come to a public forum and NOT follow advice to get in touch with the investment house. BUT, that is a matter of choice for your colleague.

    Like

  53. We talk about facts, but you must go.

    You represent a fraudulent company servicing a bond with no insurance which is both a requirement and misinterpretation as your clients were told only recently by Mr Gabriel that insurance was in place.

    Talking to you or Pardus, being lied to further, will not magic an insurance policy out of the air.

    You’ve seriously been caught out, and sadly you’re the foolish person defending the criminals (claiming a listed bond is insured and having no insurance is criminal).

    PS… the reason for one coming to such a public forum, is to stop criminals taking the funds from innocent people, like Mr Drummond above.

    Good day

    Like

  54. No off-site contact details. This isn’t a marketing channel and investors who leave their contact details on an open forum are at risk of fraud.

    Like

  55. The above reminds me of the 1968 Mel Brooks film The Producers. In particular a conversation between a crooked producer and his accountant:

    How could a producer
    make more money with a flop than
    with a hit?

    It’s simply a matter of creative
    accounting. Let us assume, just
    for the moment, that you are a
    dishonest man.

    Assume away!

    Well, it’s very easy. You simply
    raise more money than you really
    need.

    What do you mean?

    You’ve done it yourself, only you
    did it on a very small scale.

    What did I do?

    You raised two thousand more than
    you needed to produce your last play.

    So what? What did it get me? I’m
    wearing a cardboard belt.

    Ahhhhhh! But that’s where you made
    your error. You didn’t go all the
    way. You see, if you were really a
    bold criminal, you could have
    raised a million.

    But the play only cost $60,000 to
    produce.

    Exactly. And how long did it run?

    One night.

    See? You could have raised a
    million dollars, put on a sixty
    thousand dollar flop and kept the
    rest.

    Like

  56. Anyone know who Protecting Wealth Ltd is? They called today from a withheld number and left me a message regarding an online enquiry I apparently made regarding the Pardus Fixed Income Bond?
    However I made no enquiry!
    Fools don’t realise that I was one of those stung by Pardus last year!
    Desperate fools, avoid all!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s