FSA bans brokers for fraud and concealing involvement in firm
Share
The Financial Services Authority has banned Birmingham mortgage broker Mohammed Hanif for obtaining authorisation by giving the Financial Services Authority false information to conceal his involvement in the running of the business.
The authorisation application stated that Hanif’s daughter-in-law, Zaneb Sarfraz, trading as Pak Property Centre, had the necessary competence, capability and business experience to be an authorised person, and that she would be involved in the management and control of Pak Property Centre.
But she had no knowledge of the financial services industry, she was not aware of the purpose of the authorisation application submitted in her name, and she had very little involvement in the running of the business. From the outset Hanif was the controlling force behind Pak Property Centre.
Having obtained authorisation on a false basis Hanif, together with the only mortgage adviser at Pak Property Centre, Anmbur Saddiq, submitted a mortgage application for Sarfraz based on false information about her earnings from the business. Saddiq also made false mortgage applications for himself and for a family member. He has also been banned by the FSA.
Margaret Cole, director of enforcement and financial crime at the FSA, says: “Maintaining the integrity of the authorisation process is essential if we are to keep dishonest people out of the regulated financial services industry.
“This was a deliberate act of deception and exploitation by Hanif. He deceived the FSA by presenting sham governance arrangements during the authorisation process. In doing this seemingly he had no regard for the impact on the reputation of Sarfraz. This misconduct, which is very serious in itself, is compounded by the fact that he went on to use the authorised business to commit mortgage fraud.”
The permission of Zaneb Sarfraz trading as Pak Property Centre has also been cancelled.
Readers' comments (5)
Anonymous | 11 Nov 2009 1:21 pm
Has the FSA informed the police so that he can be prosecuted?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Russell | 11 Nov 2009 2:19 pm
Surely the FSA checked the FSA reference number to ensure the daughter in law had obtained CeMAP?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 Nov 2009 2:22 pm
Also, was this individual's firm directly authorised by the FSA - or were they Appointed Reps?
If they were DA...where's the admission from the FSA that their assessment of individuals is flawed?????
How many brokers have been banned lately?
I would be interested to know how many of those were DA's.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jogga | 11 Nov 2009 11:23 pm
Hi! The thread of argument is too complicated for my litle head...since such complexity can be and has been unravelled by the FSA investigator...could this not have been scrutininsed at application stage to prevent all this...whatever has happened here? Come om FSA you have the investigative talent...in retrospect...could you please apply it PROSPECTIVLY...SO AS TO ADVISE THOSE REGISTERING THE PITFALLS OF THEIR APPLICATION! REGULATE REGULATE REGULATE...AND GIVE SERVICE AND PREVENT PROBLEMS...THAT IS YOUR PUBLIC ROLE!!!!!AS SERVANTS OF SERVICE PROVIDERS...THE FINANACIAL INDUSTRY!!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Nov 2009 1:57 pm
I believe such companies should be struck off companies house, due to their dishonesty in public dealings and therefore, should not be in operation. I would strongly advise the FSA to stop such brokers in all dealings in public sector. It is proven that once a crime or fraud committed will reoccur in other areas of public interest.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment