Ross investors seek $75 million from ANZ

The Ponzi scheme unravelled in 2012 and took $115 million of investors’ money with it.

Liquidators have been working through a process of requiring investors who withdrew money from the scheme to repay fictional returns they received.

Now investors are taking a class action against ANZ, which was Ross’ banker.

“ANZ Bank was David Ross’ banker and profited for over 20 years from this relationship,” said group spokesman John Strahl.

“As the largest bank in New Zealand and one of the biggest fund managers in Australasia we believe ANZ Bank knew how client accounts should have been operated and should have known that the way the RAM accounts were being operated was in breach of the laws.

“This was the finding of the New Zealand Financial Markets Authority and is why the regulator fought the ANZ Bank in New Zealand for three years so it could bring this to the attention of RAM investors.

“Banks just can’t turn a blind eye when it suits them. What we are seeing in Australia is that it is unacceptable not to know and understand your client.

“So whilst the ANZ Bank might be saying that it has no material issues in Australia, the RAM investor debacle is a clear example of failures in its New Zealand subsidiary to detect and act upon clear fraudulent behaviour. As a result the bank’s customers have been let down.”

The action against ANZ Bank is being fully funded by LPF Group, a New Zealand based litigation funder.

ANZ had been involved in a long-running court case with the Financial Markets Authority.

In April, ANZ lost its court bid to stop the Financial Markets Authority sharing its Ross files with third parties.

Comments from our readers

On 3 December 2019 at 10:55 am Pragmatic said:

Silly question: why would the action group seek damages against the Regulator? Didn't the RAM incident occur during the infamous Sean Hughes "No Cowboys" campaign?

On 3 December 2019 at 3:25 pm Murray Weatherston said:

Yes silly question Pragmatic. Not like you at all.......You're normally on or close to the mark.
Where does the article say the action group is taking a class action against the regulator?
It is clear they are taking a group action against RAM's banker ANZ.
Or are you subliminally telling us that ANZ is really the regulator?

On 4 December 2019 at 7:21 am Pragmatic said:

Cheers Murray. What a difference a typo can make - as I meant to say "wouldn't" rather than "would". Nevertheless I'm comfortable with the way that the question stands (even with the typo), and appreciate the response...

On 4 December 2019 at 11:45 am Murray Weatherston said:

@Pragmatic
I just feel a need for some humour so here goes.
I just dreamt the regulators' response. It went like this
"No regulations will ever be watertight. A determined malfeasor will always find a way to offend. Our success or failure should not be measured by the one or two Ponzis who have slipped through - rather it should be measured by the 108 would-be Ponzis who have been deterred from acting out their plans over the last 8 years because of fear of the Regulations."

On 6 December 2019 at 8:52 am Graeme33 said:

A lot of post motums.I have never seen much discussion..on the ability of advisors who have control of the money and decisions around Investment to be able to offer an investment style around a true mark to market daily reporting schedule,where the money held by a larger Instuition...not some dubuios entity..even if they say AFA or similar.Graeme Adams

Ross investors seek $75 million from ANZ

Investors who lost money in Ross Asset Management are suing ANZ for more than $75 million.

Tuesday, December 3rd 2019, 5:17AM 5 Comments

Comments from our readers

www.GoodReturns.co.nz