A man has been found guilty of acting as an illegal money lender in a case brought to court by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Dharam Prakash Gopee described himself as “a lender of last resort” and engaged with consumers who were vulnerable and in difficult circumstances.
He regularly registered charges over the homes of borrowers to allow him to take possession of a property if the borrower failed to pay the debt.
The offences related to Gopee’s operation of money lending businesses from August 2012 to December 2016 despite neither having a consumer credit licence from the Office of Fair Trading, nor any authorisation from the FCA.
Mark Steward, director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: "Unauthorised money-lending is a criminal offence and causes serious harm, often to vulnerable communities.
"Mr Gopee’s actions showed utter contempt for the law. The FCA will continue to take whatever action is necessary to stop this misconduct."
Between August 2012 and December 2016, Gopee entered into 147 new credit agreements with new consumers, for sums totalling over £1m.
He also continued to collect on pre-existing loans with no authorisation to do so, sending ledgers applying high rates of monthly compound interest, making demands for payment, registering charges over consumers’ properties and pursuing court actions for money judgements and for possession.
In an effort to avoid the relevant regulations, Gopee invented a complex new type of agreement for his lending which the prosecution alleged was simply a work of fiction.
Under this agreement, consumers would purportedly sell their home for the value of the loan, often as little as £2,000 - £5,000, to one of Gopee’s companies.
Another company owned by Gopee then purportedly loaned the purchase money to the first company to finance the transaction.
The consumer was given a licence to remain at the property on the condition that they pay the monthly liability under Gopee’s intercompany loan. In this way, Gopee claimed he was not entering into consumer credit agreements directly with consumers.
In reality, the complex new agreement was a cover for Gopee to continue lending to often vulnerable consumers in the same way that he had before.
The inter-company mortgage between his companies only existed on paper, and none of the consumers who gave evidence in court understood or believed they were selling their home in order to obtain the loans that they were seeking.
The case has been listed for sentencing for tomorrow.