.png){kind=small}
A prominent Regulatory Hosting and Fund Manager Services network operating in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, Sapia is involved in answering mis-selling claims relating to its ‘Appointed Representatives’. The firm, which operates under various trading names including Sapia Investment Services, Sapia Investment Management, and Sapia, has faced significant regulatory restrictions from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). As of 21st October 2022, the firm was limited to conducting only corporate finance business with retail clients, a specific restriction against its dealings with private individuals that underlines the severity of regulatory concerns.
Investors rely on financial firms to guide them towards sound investment choices that align with their goals and risk tolerance. However, not all financial institutions match this responsibility.
The controversy revolves around a specific investment issue: the Blackmore Bond. This investment, which was marketed as a ‘high-yield’ opportunity, was often purchased with funds from Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs). These ISAs were managed by Goji (Goji Financial Services Limited) at the time an Appointed Representative of Sapia Partners. Blackmore Bonds crashed and entered Liquidation in 2021.
Goji Financial Services Limited, a London-based entity incorporated in June 2016, played a pivotal role in the Blackmore Bonds distribution. Acting as the ISA manager under Sapia Partners FCA permissions until 19/10/2018, Goji facilitated the transfer of clients' funds into various investment issues, including the controversial Blackmore Bonds.
The fallout from the Blackmore Bond investment failure and subsequent mis-selling allegations has led to a flow of claims against Sapia Partners. Clients who invested their hard-earned money, or switched their ISA funds based on often flawed information, find themselves facing significant losses. These claims would be channelled through the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), as Sapia Partners LLP continues to trade despite the FCA restrictions.
In representing our affected clients, CP Financial Claims have had compensation claims upheld against Sapia. We have successfully secured compensation for clients, who were affected by the mis-selling of Goji, vs Sapia Partners. For instance, only last month (August 2023), claims against Sapia Partners resulted in settlements of £19,349.00 and £26,042.19.
The Goji-Sapia Partners LLP claims and the Blackmore Bond failure underscore the need for enhanced transparency, ethical practices, firm regulation and investor protection in the financial industry. Clients should be able to trust that their chosen investment managers have their best interests at heart and will guide them towards sound investment decisions.
If you believe you've been affected by the mis-selling practices of Goji or any other Sapia Partners LLP brand or representative, or directly by the Blackmore Bond investment failure, it's essential to take action. Claiming CP Financial Claims can provide you with the benefit of knowledge from successful claims, to seek compensation for the losses you've suffered. Our experienced team is well-versed in navigating the complexities of mis-selling claims.
Sapia is still authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) but the removal of its IFISA permissions suggests that it will no longer act as a principal for peer-to-peer lending platforms. Despite holding IFISA permissions, Sapia Partners never launched an IFISA of its own. However, it continues to work with 48 appointed representatives, including several fintech companies, as a principal and business consultant.
This article was edited on 23/10/2024 to correct inaccuracies in our description of:
We apologise for any of these earlier editing lapses.
You are not obliged to use our service. It is possible for you to present your claim for free, either to the firm, or person against whom you wish to complain, or to the statutory ombudsman (Financial Ombudsman Service or Pension Ombudsman Service) or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, whichever is applicable to your claim.
