Guildford, England
On the website of the Capital Markets Authority in Uganda is a public notice. This states that the public should not deal with anyone selling offshore funds and investment plans in the country, and those persons doing so would not be protected by relevant Uganda legislation.

Thats clear.

Why, then do {{{Redacted}}} have an adviser operating in the country - one Mr Niekerk - who is openly promoting and marketing his services in Kampala and also via Youtube / Twitter and other sources??

If you look behind the gloss of the {{{Redacted}}} website, the flowery language used and material you can find elsewhere, you may be surprised by what you see. Everything stated above is in the public domain.

The regulator has been informed.

------------------------------------------------ />


On March 30, 2016, Complainant submitted a complaint in accordance with the Legitimacy Verification Program (“LVP”). The complaint alleged posts # 308709, 370884, 437762, 440080, 443749, and 453772 (the “Posts”) contained statements in violation of Pissed Consumer’s Terms of Use. The Posts’ authors (“Posters”) were offered an opportunity to respond to the complaint, as provided in LVP Rule 9, but each failed to do so. Thus, the Posts and the supplemental information provided by Complainant’s general counsel constitute the LVP Record. Having considered the LVP Record, the Third Party Neutral finds and holds as follows: It is more likely than not that the statements in each of the Posts are defamatory, untruthful and inaccurate and, therefore, violate Pissed Consumer’s Terms of Use. Accordingly, Complainant’s name should be removed from each post at issue, including in all comments to the Posts, and the URLs should be changed to remove reference to the Complainant.
Dated: May 13, 2016
Do You Have Something To Say ?
Write a review


You will be automatically registered on our site. Username and password will be sent to you via email.
Post Comment


Please take notice that Complainant has initiated a Complaint against this Post due to alleged violations of Pissed Consumer’s Terms of Use ( pursuant to Pissed Consumer’s Legitimacy Verification Program. To receive a copy of the Complaint send an email that includes the review number for this Post to requesting a copy.

You, the Poster, have a right to respond to the Complaint to establish the truth of the Post’s statements. If you intend to respond, you have 20 days from the date this Notice was posted to answer the Complaint. The Answer Form ( must be submitted to within 20 days of this Notice being posted. Failure to submit an Answer within 20 days waives your right to participate in the Legitimacy Verification Program as to this particular Complaint.

All Legitimacy Verification Program disputes are decided by an independent attorney who is not an employee of Pissed Consumer and whose firm has contracted with Pissed Consumer to provide attorneys who will serve as Third-Party Neutrals in conformity with the rules of the Legitimacy Verification Program.

Pissed Consumer WILL NOT reveal your identity or email address to Complainant without your express consent or pursuant to a subpoena or court order.

For more information regarding the Legitimacy Verification Program, please refer to the program’s rules found at

LVP ID: 16-v0010.


@ odd thing to post - you are right about the qualification standards. this is one or many comments made by {{{Redacted}}} which is not entirely accurate. Another is the fact they are a "well-regulated company" and this is the point of this posting.

@ the man - the Act provide a definition of 'unit' but the is silent on its application throughout the rest of the text. AES have a platform product which may fall under the definition of 'unit' The regulator was therefore contacted and this query raised to see if the 'platform' is caught by the Act. However your posting has got me thinking so I have read the Insurance Regulations Act.


a. requires all brokers who sells life insurance to be duly authorised and

b. Is silent on whether individuals who are working alone can be authorised or whether authorisation ca only be applied to legal or corporate bodies.

Further investigation leads to the quote - "life cover may include investments depending on the structure of the product"

Also a review of the Uganda Assoc of Ins Brokers - - shows that a number of firms are properly authorised under the Insurance Act to sell life and pension products.

Either way AES have some serious questions to answer.....

I am not a ex-employee of the company (or an ex-IFA) but there is an increasing body within the industry who are trying to take action against blantant misrepresentation, especially fom those firms who seek to hold the moral high ground.

Awards? Not is a position to comment, that is one for the awards panel.

@the man - you will find that the message behind my postings is sincere and the comments I have made worthy of investigation. there is no mud slinging, name calling or anything similar. You have proved the point of many business leaders that those who come onto pissed consumer to rant, rave, use juvenile icons in their comments are really only suitable to have their views disregarded.

I will make no further comment on this site


@ The Man

I just had a look at the links you posted. Have you seen the comments on the Economist article?

There appears to be a little confusion as to the qualification requirements needed. On the one hand the article states that the advisers must meet UK qualification standards and yet the comments suggest that that is not the case.

What are the qualification requirements? If they are not at UK standards, then someone needs to talk to the Economist and correct this error.

And, what on earth does it matter what the UK rules are or what some UK compliance officer says? Uganda decides what is suitable for Uganda. :roll


hahaha, The Truth Spreader, mmm, it must be a new kind of "Super hero" because I’ve never seen him in any of the SmallVille episodes...

After reading your post (good thing you didn't put your name down ! lol) ,the "I am a TOOL" spot is however still open for auditions, sounds like they were waiting just for you to come along and we have to all concur...a perfect match. :grin

Actually, the poster can be your sidekick...aka, the freaky stalker or something.

Can you both still be reached at *** HQ...what was it again?? oh yes: ?

This is the sandbox for the big children, you're clearly out of your league bucko...are you like 5 ??

Have you bothered reading the act properly and interpreting the act? "Doh...what is an act?" you ask? Well, not quite the same as the comedy act your portraying here, that I can assure you, but let's try get down to your level.

Offshore adviser activities can be "limited" to or construed as advising on the sale of insurance products. I have it on good authority that ALL {{{Redacted}}} business must be processed through {{{Redacted}}}’ London office, where they have an active and alert UK compliance function, so an advisor cannot provide advice other than in relation to such products.

Turning now to the analysis and the Act: in this regard, section 33 of the Act seems irrelevant. That section prohibits acting as an investment representative (i.e.: in broad terms assisting an investment adviser) without a licence. The advisor in this case is not doing so, f& rom what I can tell your friend in Uganda seems to work alone? :eek

Section 32 of the Act prohibits a person acting as an investment adviser in Uganda without him/ her having the appropriate licence. “Investment adviser” is tightly defined under section 1(t) of the Act. Within that section, subsection (iii) concerns the “management of a portfolio of securities”. As indicated above, it can strongly be argued that this is not what he does. His actions would then be limited to advice on insurance products, not so? :x

Subsections (i) and (ii) (and indeed (iii)) of subsection 1(t) state that being an investment adviser means (inter alia) carrying on a business of advising concerning securities (and therefore not any other product). “Securities” are themselves tightly defined under section 1(hh) of the Act. They include government-issued stock (etc.), debentures, stocks, shares (etc.) issued by a corporate body, rights warrants, options and futures, and instruments commonly known as securities. he could easily claim that NONE of these descriptions appears to fit the products that the he advises on, which are (to iterate) insurance products. :p

Dude again, are you SURE you're not 5? Just way, it will explain everything.

I wonder how they came by all of these...? (copied from an online post)

Latest awards from Virgin's SIR Richard Branson:

? The field-marshal of finance: (The Economist)

? UK Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year announced

? Bringing out the BIG GUNS:

? ADVISORS: The good, the bad and the downright ugly !

? Some older news but good history:

? Our International awards: and

C'mooooooon, you're 5 !!! :) I just KNEW it !! lol :zzz


I am grateful for being pointed in the direction of a comment from the adviser named above which shows the contemptuous attitude {{{Redacted}}} appear to have toward being properly regulated in all countries where they operate.

"Being regulated by a licensing authority is a joke........"

This is a direct quote.

And for the joker who thinks this is *** then refer to the following link -

This posting does not contain lies, innuendo, slander or anything similar. It is the truth and is posted because the lies and misrepresentation MUST STOP in the offshore financial services industry.

The regulator has been informed and more truthful, verifiable comments will follow.

Aes International Reviews

  1. 2 reviews
  2. 0 reviews
  3. 0 reviews
  4. 0 reviews
  5. 0 reviews
Aes International reviews