The Gazette 1974

Section 34

the 1961 Act.

Sections

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,

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,

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.

£2m Lost

•

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

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

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

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.

The Daily

TelegTaph~

3 October 1973