Feeds

back to article Regulator can chase liquidator over phone scam fine

A High Court judge has told the liquidators of a premium rate phone scam they can be sued over a huge fine levied by regulators before it went titsup in 2005. PhonepayPlus, the watchdog formerly known as ICSTIS, won the right to sue for a debt of £1.9m, which covers a £1.3m fine it imposed on the now defunct Allied …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Stop

Numbers?

they are chasing £1.6m , which is £1.3m plus costs/interest i assume

so where does the £1.9m figure in the 4th paragraph come from?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

The regulator doesn't know the law

Why isn't the regulator going after the directors of this firm? Limited liability does NOT apply if you're involved in criminal activity.

A better outcome would be for the regulator to sue them surely? It would certainly be fairer to other creditors.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

And this is helpful how, exactly?

Surely all this does is reduce the money available to other legitimate creditors, without acting as any kind of discouragement to the *individuals* who set the scams up in the first instance? Lock em up and throw away the keys.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: And this is helpful how, exactly?

and if the main other legitimate creditors are the people setting up the company!

0
0
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: Numbers?

SNAFU in the edit there. Fixed now, thanks for the catch. The full amount is £1.9m - £1.3m plus costs. Cheers,

- Chris

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Is this criminal?

> Limited liability does NOT apply if you're involved in criminal activity.

Right. But is this criminal activity? Maybe it would have been if they had been convicted of fraud, but I think that the fines were for breaches of the ICSTIS "code". (Section 121 of the communications act, 2003.)

The money goes to ICSTICS, who will be able to charge a smaller "membership fee" to their other "legitimate" premium rate operator members.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Anon Coward

"These services are simply unacceptable," said ICSTIS director, George Kidd. "They are intrusive, misleading and almost certainly illegal."

That's what El Reg reported. Now perhaps it was a civil offence rather than criminal but the same principle applies - you MAY NOT use limited liability to protect yourself from financial penalties imposed due to a breach of law, especially not one where the breach was completely intentional :-)

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.