Sign in / up

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

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Chris McFaul
    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
  2. Anonymous Coward
    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
  3. Anonymous Coward
    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
  4. Anonymous Coward
    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
  5. Chris Williams (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
  6. Anonymous Coward
    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
  7. Anonymous Coward
    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.

Other stories you might like