Response from Alastair Steadman

We have received a response from Alastair Steadman, who previously contacted us via email without our solicitation, on his mortgage “alternative”. As we stated in our post Beware the mortgage fraudsters, we wanted you to know of any response. We strongly believe that in providing this information, and highlighting what we believe is a scam, that others across the net will not be bilked by con-men and promises of rich rewards, all without merit.

Mr. Steadman, on January 15, 2012, did not divulge the nature or even vague description of his “invention”. Instead we were sent 4 documents that were supposed to endorse the Life Mortgage Product (LMP) – which we assume refers to the product of Mr. Steadman though he never even stated what it is called.

The first was from Robert Davies, of Quantum Advisories, dated April 9, 2009 and which confirms the address of The Life Code Company as the same for Steadman. We have not spoken to Mr. Davies (or any of the “endorsees”), but the document stated

“Thank you for outlining the LMP to me. Whilst I suspect that some modifications might be necessary, it appears to have potential to help prospective homeowners…”

This is not an endorsement. It is not proof of concept. It is a statement that an idea that needs to be developed sounds interesting. No different than stating that betting black on a roulette wheel has potential to win. Yet that does not imply success or credibility of the idea.

Peter Mason, of Neville James Group Limited in a reply dated May 20, 2009 and addressed to a Mark Kober-Smith (no idea who that is or what the connection to Steadman is) stated,

“I have reviewed the LMP and think it is a very interesting concept…”

Which reflects the view of Davies. Lin Casling of Living Time Limited on January 16, 2009 stated a similar view. Trevor Galvin of Mortgagefinders was the only individual of the 4 to have a stronger view of the LMP. Mr. Galvin also stated that he worked on the LMP with Steadman. The document is undated, and again does not provide anything that would be considered proof of concept or even an explaination of the concept.

As for the letter from Alastair Steadman, the only thing that was clearly stated was that the only way anything would be stated to us, was if we signed a non-disclosure act. We declined.

The use of such a document seems to have 2 intentions. It may imply credibility to those unfamiliar with the document and the financial services industry. Secondly it disencourages questions that would reveal credibility. Our experience, which includes working with investors on IPO’s and development stage companies seeking funding, provide clear understanding that an explaination – without revealing proprietory facts – is not only possible but manditory to receive an investment (from accredited investors). Which does not even address the question if the document, apparently hand typed and not written by a legal expert, would apply to American law jurisdictions.

Our reply, on January 16, 2012, to Mr. Steadman was the direct statement that none of the “endorsements” were in fact that, and none provided any credibility to his product or person.

Further we asked if he was indeed Alastair Duncan Steadman, where his location is, and if he is the owner of The Life Code Company and Aruffens Foundation. We asked that he explain his lack of transparency in noting this information on the websites and the emails sent. Lastly we asked that he reveal if the 4 “endorsements” were from individuals identified as contributors on the Aruffens Foundation website – which the site does not provide.

As we stated to Mr. Steadman, none of our questions are beyond the pale for an individual that randomly emailed us with a promise of shared financial success for our investment/donation of funds.

We again state this is part of the proof why random emails for individuals that have never been heard of or solicited are generally scams. These individuals try to feed off of the hopes and dreams of individuals, and prey upon the fact that most people do not know what questions to ask and insist upon having answered.

Credibile ventures are transparent. They want investors – and that is what the “donation” effectively makes you – to know who is involved, where they are, and what is going on. They provide explicit details on repayment, reviewed and approved by appropriate Government and private agencies, all of which can be proven true. Most of all they want to ensure that any investment is made by people who understand the risk being taken and have the financial presence to do so, as is legally required (see the SEC definition of an accredited investor).

Scam artists, on the internet or otherwise, don’t care if they are taking money from widows and orphans or the last funds of a family that is looking for salvation from the current economic downturn. Scam artists use the ease and relatively nominal cost of the internet to cast a wide email net and sieze upon anyone that shows a glimmer of interest. They also pass on information of all the details they get to other shady individuals and organizations, so that they too can profit on the ill-informed.

We suggest that before you ever act on any such email (which we do not recommend) you first contact the Better Business Bureau, speak with a legal and/or investment professional you know and trust, and check out the internet for articles like this one highlighting the scam if known. Any legitimate company will be happy to be verified, anyone else will likely scurry to the shadows for an easier mark.

***Update

In the 3rd letter from Alastair Steadman, we recieved several confirmations. As we had determined from research, it was confirmed that this is the same Steadman that owns Aruffens Foundation and Life Code Company. The address of the companies was also confirmed. Further Steadman confirmed he is a UK citizen.

In terms of transparency, Steadman stated in response to us

“M V Consulting: Further, why do you not list, on any site, ownership of the above companies?

Alastair Steadman: I did not consider this important, but maybe I should – I don’t know!”

Response to our letter for clarification on Jan 16, 2012

You own a company for 17 years, have a site that actively asks for monetary donations, and send out international emails randomly but don’t think that revealing your full name, address, foreign citizenship, or corporate ownership is important?

Which brings us to a clarification. Alastair Steadman noted that he has never once asked for monetary funds. This is true. His email asks for an investment in time to market and promote his undisclosed and unclear financial product. He requested helping gaining access to brokers and corporations to sell his product and gain credibility and support:

Alastair Steadman: “Firstly, I am not asking for funds from you. I don’t want any money from you at all – or anyone else for that matter. I thought I had made that clear in my email to you. All I want you to do is to find a company which can give licences (they are free) to all the brokers and financial advisers in the USA; if you think you can do this yourself then that would be fine – mark you, that won’t be simple.” – January 16, 2012

Yes not simple at all. Though he is directly asking for donations via his internet presence, his email is asking for the random recipient to spend their reputations, time (which is money), and credibility (also a form of money), to advance his mysterious product and imbue him with sales (possibly also sponsorship) for no stated return. While this is not a direct solicitation of funds, it is an indirect one in our opinon. A minor point that works in avoiding some legal issues, but ultimately is the same thing in our opinion.

Alastair Duncan Steadman also stated that he left the RAF (Royal Air Force) in 1974 – he retired, though under what conditions was not revealed. We were also told that he is currently a Systems Analyst, for whom is unknown. A position that does not lend itself readily to financial services products. We also were told that:

M V Consulting: Also, what industry papers have you written that can cite your expertise in financial services.

Alastair Steadman: I have not written any papers. I developed the FAB Product [the new name for the abovementioned LMP] entirely from my life experience.

Thus we determine that Steadman has no expertise, and even less credibility. He does allude to a GP medical product, created by his own “software house”, which is never named – impying success and credibilty without giving any information to verify that credibility. In a similar manner he states that he lectured, on Computer Science apparently, but declines to divulge any specific place or time that he did so.

Steadman also declined to disclose who his team of contributors, noted on the Aruffens Foundation site, were but did state that none of the “endorsements” were from those contributors.

At this point we hope that we have clearly provided the example of why you the reader should avoid shams promising riches on the internet. Our evaluation of Alastiar Duncan Steadman concludes with the same belief we had at the start – this is a scam.

At no point has there been a shred of proof of concept, or even a concept. There has been no transparency. There has been multiple attempts to sidestep and avoid declarations of fact. There is no credibility.

This, we believe, illustrates what is involved with an internet scam. Promises of granduer and requirements of time, money (directly and indirectly), and reputation. A lack of transparency, an absence of credibility, a reliance on lack of knowledge on the part of anyone that responds.

Avoid the Aruffens Foundation’s, the Life Code Company’s of the internet. Delete without response the Alastair Duncan Steadman’s of the spam mail. Disbelieve the vague promises and highly conditional assurances. We feel that these kinds of organizations, emails, and interactions have one ultimate purpose – to seperate people from their money by feeding them hope and dreams of future wealth that will never happen.

Rating 3.00 out of 5

11 Comments

  1. I would turn your vicious and untrue comments on you. How easy is it to sign a CNDA? It surely is the easiest thing in the world. The only reason you can have for not signing a CNDA is because you wish to benefit from my invention – in other words you wish to steal it. I don’t want any money from you, and I have never asked you for any. I thought, wrongly it seems, that you were interested in civil rights and the rights of your fellow citizens and, thus, would be interested in a product that will revolutionise the mortgage market – that is why I contacted you. I cannot reveal to you the mechanics of my product until you sign a CNDA – it is that simple. So, why aren’t you signing it? It is only when you have seen the details of my product that you will be in any position to judge it – until then I suggest you keep your mouth shut, for all that comes out of it is pure venom. I have a suspicion that you work for the banks and that your aim is to kill the FAB Product before it has even been on the market. Is that what the banks are paying you for? I am appalled at your attitude. I am certainly putting this matter in the hands of my lawyers, and you will be hearing from them very soon, unless you retract this ridiculous, contradictory and untrue article. My product is no scam and is backed by professionals within the financial services industry and a prominent UK lawyer.

  2. Threats will not change our opinion. We will not retract what we feel is correct and factually determined. Sue if you want to.

    You still have yet to describe, in any manner your product. We will not sign the non-disclosure document as you can discuss the product without providing materially proprietary information.

    Personal attacks are not new to us, and do not sway us. Rather we feel that we hit the mark based on your response.

  3. I have given you enough information about my product to enable you to see that it has the potential to revolutionise the mortgage market. I have to listen to my advisers on this matter, so if you wish to see the full details you have to go down the CNDA route – otherwise you will be left out of the equation, and you will regret that.

    You are the one who is making personal attacks, not me, for I am just responding to those unjustified attacks. Why you couldn’t reply to my email in a decent, civilised manner instead of adopting your high-handed, morally correct position (when nothing could be further from the truth, for you are not morally correct) is quite beyond me – and then to go public, as though I am some criminal, just completely defeats me. I wrote my email to you in good faith and in the honest belief that you stood for the rights of man – but I was so wrong. I sincerely hope that this reveals you for what you are – a vindictive, selfish man who sees half a truth and believes he knows it all, when, in fact, he is a million miles away from the mark.

  4. Now I can see the true Michael Vass, for you have not printed my last response to you. That just shows that I have hit the mark, for if it was of no consequence to you then you would have printed it. Anyone who wants to read my response has only to email me and I will provide it.

  5. You haven’t said anything about this product. Except claims of granduer. And no advisor would suggest you cannot describe you product in general. We never asked for trade secrets.

    Our opinion is not an attack. Revealing public facts that anyone on the web can find is not an attack – even if you endeavour to keep those secrets hidden.

    As for morality, how morale is it to send out international emails, unsolicitated, to request services to financially benefit you (distributing your product) based on vague suggestions of future benefit, without revealing so much as the fact you are a UK citizen, the corporatios you own, or any other detail that would be considered common details.

    You have switched from threats to trying to justify your actions, again you fall short.

  6. For the last time I will respond. You are not our priority. If we delay in approving what is essentially attacks against us, that is our option. We have not denied you the chance to provide real information, nor altered a word of what you have said. But this is becoming a flame war, and we will not continue that.

    You want to justify your actions. You want to try to vindicate what you are doing across the internet. We will not aide inthat attempt. Our opinion stands, as will every word of these articles. We hope the articles and the blatant attempts by you to obfuscate our determination prevent others from wasting their time. There is nothing more to be said.

  7. I wish to conclude by asking you one question and giving you one explanation – after this you will not hear from me again.

    The question is, why won’t you sign a CNDA? It’ll cost you absolutely nothing, and if you do sign you will at least be able to argue from knowledge rather than from ignorance, which is what you are now doing. What are you afraid of? You have given no logical explanation for not signing except to say that you have ‘declined’, which isn’t an explanation at all. The only conclusion anyone could sensibly draw from your refusal to sign is that you hope to be able to steal (or get someone else to steal) my product.

    The explanation is:
    I wrote to you for the following reasons:
    1. You are an American, familiar with the laws, procedures and customs of the USA, and I am not.
    2. You are a man of influence in the USA.
    3. You are reputed to stand for the rights of man.
    These are the only reasons I wrote to you, and I had no ulterior motive other than to make my product available for every ordinary citizen in the USA. There was no scam or spam intended, and I did not write to countless people in the USA, as you have implied. I wrote to you in honest, good faith, and that is why I find your attitude incomprehensible.

  8. For petes sake. Do you understand the definition of a non-disclosure document? Which does not prevent a general description of whatever your product proposes.

    This is beyond ridiculous at this point. You have no background in financial services, by your own admission. You have no endorsements, just people saying an idea from 2009 sounds good. You are not credible, as you have only disclosed information after being confronted with questions, and multiple questions remain unanswered. You solicited me, and who knows how many other people across the world (regardless of your unverifiable protests otherwise). You own at least one corporation asking for donations for products vaguely described with a promise of undetermined reward, in an undefined timeframe. You filed for a patent that appears to have been rejected by your Government, which you have not disclosed.

    Yes I am aware of US law. And I formerly worked in the financial services industry and am aware of the proper legal procedures for investments and other requests from reputable companies and individuals. All of which led to the determination of the articles published.

    Our opinion is unwavering. The responses from you to our articles are now fully circular and demonstrative of why we chose to warn the general public about our concerns. There is nothing more to say.

  9. Alastair Steadman was jailed for 9 years on 30th September 1975 for attempting to sell military secrets to the Russians for a million pounds .
    He had been a Vulcan Bomber captain in the RAF and was asked to resign his commission in August 1974.

  10. M V Consulting has no information on this and cannot confirm or deny this is true. We are allowing the comment to provide a public forum if the information is wished to be disputed. We would suggest that any such future comment should be accompanied with a first source link or other means of proof.

  11. The record of Steadman’s trial is held at the National Archive Kew.

    discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11265462

Thank you for lending your voice. We appreciate hearing what you have to say.