The Gazette 1974

Section 34 of the 1961 Act. Sections 12 and 13 give the Board additional powers relating to the redemption of charitable annuities charged on land, and for the authorisation of certain Leases of such land. The Board are empowered to act in cases where there are no trustees, or where trustees are unknown. Section 14 re-enacts Section 43 of the 1961 Act in an improved form. Under the former version of Sec– tion 43, the Commissioners' power to appoint new Trustees of charity property was confined to property comprising land. They had no power to appoint Trus– tees of cash or securities. The new version remedies this, and moreover, it has streamlined the rather pro– tracted procedure laid down by the old Section, for example, a months public notice was required before the Commissioners could make an Order appointing now Trustees. This period is now reduced to fourteen days. The Board must publish notice of orders appoint– ing new trustees within ten days. Any interested party may appeal to the High Court against an order of the Board within 21 days of publication, and the High Court may extend this period if necessary. Section 15 strikes a sombre note. It provides that where the Board orders a bill of costs to be taxed, the Solicitor concerned shall not be entitled to any costs other than these so taxed. Finally, I come to what appears to me to be the most radical change effected by the Bill, namely, the almost virtual abolition of publication of charitable bequests. Section 16 substitutes a new Section for Section 52 of the 1961 Act. In effect, the new Section reverses the previous rule requiring Executors to publish a notice of charitable bequests unless exempted from doing so by the Board. Under the new Section, a general exemption from publication is given, unless the Board require publication to be made in any particular

case. As an alternative to publication, the Board maYj now ask for evidence of payment of a charitable bequest or in the case of a deferred or contmgent bequest a, letter of awareness from the Charity concerned. Under: Sub-Section (1) the Executors are required to comply with such requirement as the Board may specify within six months of the date of Probate, or within two months from the date of the Board's requirement, whichever is the later. This new procedure is identical with that which has been in operation in Northern Ireland since 1964. Our new Act came into operation on the 17th July, 1973, and, pending more detailed consideration of their requirements under the Section, the Board as an interim measure stipulated their present require– ments as follows-they are: (i) That the above memorandum be resubmitted for further consideration at a meeting in the next term. (ii) That by way of an interim arrangement, however, I the Board direct that in any case where the chari– table gift is not given to a named Charity or where the gift is of a contingent or deferred nature and the amount thereof does not exceed £10,000 in value, receipts or letters of awareness, as the case may be, shall be called for. Where any such gift exceeds £ 10,000 in value, the matter shall be sub– mitted to the Board for their directions under Section 52 of the Charities Act, 1961, as amended by Section 16 of the Charities Act, 1973. The penalty for non-publication is increased from a fine of £50 to £100. I t is stressed that these are but interim requirements. In conclusion it is submitted that the operation of the Act is in the teething stage. The Board's staff are as yet inexperienced at dealing with its practical operation, but they are most willing to give any assistance open to them to solicitors in applying the new remedies set out in it. in literature and sales talk as an imposing edifice of important-sounding companies was "a ramshackle col– lection of largely paper dummies". Behind the companies could be seen the figure of Markus, a Canadian, and his associates. Agrifund pro– mised many advantages, but concentrated on imme– diate liquidity and the opportunity to redeem money at once. In January, 1971, it was anndunced to all investors that Agrifund had had all its assets sold by the manage– ment company to a company called Investors Financial Management Corporation, said to be an international holding and operating company. I t was also said that the company would convert, whether investors liked it or not, the Agrifund certi– ficates which had with them the promise of immediate redeemability into "very high-sounding" guaranteed– income certificates. They were not going to be payable until December 31, 1975.

£2m Lost • In Fund Fraud, says QC Investors from practically all over the world were "taken for a very expensive ride" in a $5 million (£2 million) offshore mutual fund swindle, it was said at the Old Bailey yesterday.

Edward Jules Markus, 38, a financial adviser of Green Street, Mayfair, pleaded not guilty to 42 charges of fraud and conspiracy. Mr. William Forbes, Q.C., prosecuting, said that the jury might conclude that money put into the fund was now "lost and gone for ever". In just over a year from the end of 1969 to early 1971, investors from practically all over the world ex– cept the United States and Britain, but particularly from West Germany, were induced to part with a total of $5,800,000 (£2,300,000), said Mr. Forbes. There was no attempt to induce British investment. The proceedings were brought in Britain because for most of the time the vehicle of the fraud, "Agrifund", operated from an address in Green Street. Promised advantages Agrifund was completely bogus and what appeared 24

The Daily TelegTaph~ 3 October 1973