The authority sought an order restraining the defendants from operating a pool betting scheme whilst unauthorised. The defendant answered that it was not a collective investment scheme.
Held: Where any property was acquired which was distinct from the contributions made, a collective scheme was created. That extra property might be something as little as a chose in action.Here there was a bet, but that was not a chose in action but was void as a gaming contract. It was enough that the contributors did not manage the scheme.
Judges:
John Martin QC
Citations:
Times 08-Nov-2004
Statutes:
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 235
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bridger v Savage 1884
Void nature of gaming contract. . .
Cited by:
At ChD – Financial Services Authority v Fradley and Woodward CA 23-Nov-2005
The defendant appealed against a finding that the pooled betting scheme they operated was governed by the Act.
Held: Whether such an arrangement amounted to a collective investment scheme so as to be regulated was first a question of fact as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Financial Services
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.219429