PPT watcher here, I come in peace.
I have been reading the carnage from the previous pages, I can see both sides of the arguments.
Just to clarify, the following supposition from Rob Roche on Steem is FUD ?
https://steemit.com/populous/@rob.roche/populous-fraud-the-habitual-lying-of-ppt-ceo-and-convicted-fraudster-steve-n-ico-williamsExample scenario - not PPT.
Hypothetically and only hypothetically you see why an individual (in this example any individual) being convicted for 4 years for 'Obtaining money transfer by deception' is a problem when you are running a $1bn USD company that's single purpose of existence is money transfers.
And the other problem is that this situation would not be workable if the company was liable to follow 'fit-and-proper' persons law under U.K financial services regulations which is where PPT is registered. You need to consider if such a discovery was made at a company which was under such regulations.
If the steem post is FUD then such example scenarios are not even a consideration and PPT can continue on its way to becoming a multi-billion $$$ company and good luck to the PPT team as Crypto needs a success story.
Oi cockbag, As far as I am aware the only things that can stop you being a company director are being personally bankrupt or being banned by the courts from being a director.
Before using personal insults please consult the U.K Financial Conduct Authority fit-and-proper handbook. The handbook is to be used as a guide for U.K based financial services companies which fall under the jurisdiction of the FCA such as, lending companies and companies involved with the movement of capital.
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/FIT.pdf"The FCA will have regard to a number of factors when assessing the fitness
and propriety of a person to perform a particular controlled function, as
more particularly described in ■ FIT 2 (Main assessment criteria).
The FCA would expect firms that are required to assess the fitness and
propriety of staff being assessed under FIT to have regard to substantially
the same factors as those outlined in ■ FIT 2.
In the FCA's view, the most important considerations will be the person’s:
honesty, integrity and reputation;
competence and capability; and
financial soundness.
In assessing fitness and propriety, the FCA will also take account of the
activities of the firm for which the controlled function is or is to be
performed, the permission held by that firm and the markets within which it
operates.
A relevant authorised person assessing the fitness and propriety of staff
being assessed under FIT should consider:
(1) the nature, scale and complexity of its business, the nature and range
of financial services and activities undertaken in the course of that
business; and
(2) whether the candidate or person has the knowledge, skills and
experience to perform the specific role that the candidate or person is
intended to perform."
Hence, I will stick to my original hypothetical conclusion that if indeed a CEO or Managing director of a company had been placed under her majesty's pleasure for 4 years for fraudulent money transfers and was then put in charge of a $1bn USD listed company which primary function is money transfers then, yes this would be perceived to be a major governance issue.
This is all hypothetical.
I am simply asking the question, which remains un-answered - is the Steem article (which I have not written) FUD ? and if so what evidence can be presented to demonstrate it is FUD? the longer the question remains un-answered the bigger the problem gets.
If it is FUD then good luck to the PPT team and all the best.
Oi smarty pants, its a good thing that the industry is NOT regulated by the FCA then innit?
