Muhammad Nadeem Arshad v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Upper Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Arshad and Others (Tier 1 applicants – funding – “availability”) [2016] UKUT 00334 (IAC)

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Listed at The Manchester Piccadilly Tribunal Centre
On 18 April and 04 May 2016

Before

The President, The Hon. Mr Justice McCloskey

Upper Tribunal Judge Dawson

Between

Muhammad Nadeem Arshad

Aamir Ahmed

Ume-Ruman Ali

Rani Gul

Javed Mehmood

Marrium Javed

Mohammad Diaal Javed

Sadia Murid Ahmad

Muhammad Noman Zafar

Appellants

and

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent

and

Profectus Venture Capital

Interested Party

Representation

At the appeal hearings before the Upper Tribunal all Appellants, except Kashif Nazir and Muhammad Usman Qayyum, were represented by Mr Z Jafferji, of counsel, instructed by direct professional access.

Mr H Ali from Wiseman Solicitors appeared on behalf of a former Appellant, Kashif Nazir (to confirm his client’s withdrawal of his appeal).

At the first appeal hearing on 18 April 2016 the interested party was represented by Mr Z Malik, of Counsel and at the second appeal hearing on 04 May 2016 the interested party participated via a written submission only, prepared by Mr D Balroop, of counsel, both instructed by City Law Practice Solicitors.

The Secretary of State was represented by Ms C Rowlands, of Counsel, instructed by the Government Legal Department.

(i) The effect of the amendment of the regime in paragraph 41/SD of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules via HC628, dated 06 September 2013, is that any application for entry clearance or leave made before 01 October 2013 is to be decided in accordance with the Rules in force on 30 September 2013.

(ii) Every applicant for Tier 1 Entrepreneurial status bears the onus of proving satisfaction of all of the material requirements of the Immigration Rules.

(iii) The Rules stipulate that every Tier 1 Entrepreneurial applicant have available £50,000 to invest in the proposed business venture. “Available” in this context denotes that the applicant must be in a position to invest this money in his business consequential upon a positive decision of the Secretary of State. The clear import of the Rules is that the investment must be capable of being made almost immediately thereafter.

(iv) A mere intention on the part of a Tier 1 Entrepreneurial applicant to invest £25,000 at the outset of the business venture, coupled with a further intention to invest the balance of £25,000 at some unspecified future date from some unspecified source, does not satisfy the Rules.

DECISION

This communication purported to attach “the most up-to-date investment management and in force agreement between Providentia and Profectus”: this did not feature in the evidence before us and the supposed predecessor agreement is not mentioned.

Mr Serfraz, in terms which do not lack prolixity or obfuscation, appears to say that the “fund” has no money, a fact which he seeks to explain expansively.

He confirms that the “fund” has only two investors viz Mr Asad Aziz and him, both using “our own capital”.

Mr Serfraz attaches an “asset report” which “…was provided by me to Providentia in the format that Providentia required”. These words are frankly meaningless, serving only to obscure still further who the owners and operators of Providentia were. Furthermore, the document attached does not fit the description given: it is, rather, a statement of assets relating exclusively to Mr Aziz, prepared by a firm of Pakistani accountants (ex facie) and bearing the date 31 January 2013. Mr Serfraz suggests that this was sent to the FCA “in around April 2013” in response to a request. There is no supporting evidence of these assertions.

This lengthy communication is replete with other meaningless statements such as “this can be ascertained from Providentia”, “with the agreement and permission of Providentia”, “Providentia would let me know of …” and “under the supervision and leadership of Providentia”.

The terms of the asset report and statement of assets appear to belie the suggestion that documents of this kind were required by the FCA. The terms of these documents suggest that they were generated exclusively for the purpose of fortifying the Tier 1 applications in which Profectus had an interest.

The only person other than Messrs. Serfraz and Aziz identified as having any connection with Providentia is one Mr Gulambass (spelt with one ‘b’ and two ‘s’s’) Lakha. His role is entirely unparticularised.

58. Mr Lakha’s name does, however, appear in a document, in which his first name is spelt with two ‘b’s’ and one ‘s’. This document is entitled “To Whom It May Concern” and dated 10 July 2014 viz four days in advance of the FtT’s case management review hearing. There is no evidence of the circumstances or context in which it was generated. At the end of the document, following a signature, Mr Lakha is described as “CEO and chief investment officer” of Providentia Capital LLP (“Providentia”). The document is silent on the particulars of Mr Lakha’s role. Furthermore, it suggests that Providentia has been in existence, “authorised and regulated”, since 2005, without providing any evidence regarding previous investment activities. Fundamentally, the document is entirely silent on the issue of actual money in any fund. Mr Lakha did not give evidence to the FtT. Nor did Mr Serfraz, with the result that none of the myriad issues identified above was probed through the customary adversarial mechanisms

59. We juxtapose this with a series of other descriptions of the Providentia/Profectus relationship. These include, variously:

That Profectus was the trading name of Providentia, per the letter from Morgan Reach dated 3 April 2013 and the letter from Profectus of the same date which further claimed that Profectus was registered with the FSA under registration number 426749.

That Providentia was the managing member (see the letter from Mr Tunkel dated 22 August 2014, infra).

That Providentia served as the investment manager of Profectus– see Providentia Capital’s letter dated 10 July 2014 which also states that “in order to build the commercial brand of the fund ‘Profectus Venture Capital’ was previously listed as a trading name of Providentia on the financial services register”.

That Profectus Venture Capital has been the trading name of Providentia Capital LLP since 14 September 2012 and that prior to “this period” Profectus Venture Capital LLP was incorporated but not trading – see the letter from Mr Serfraz on the letterhead of Profectus Venture Capital dated 9 July 2014.

On 5 May 2014 a decision was taken by Providentia Capital LLP to remove the name of Profectus Venture Capital as a trading name from the FCA register – see the letter referred to in (d). This letter also stated that “… in the interests of simplicity and clarity Providentia would continue to manage Profectus directly”.

There was an assertion of a limited liability partnership agreement of 1 February 2013, the parties whereto were Profectus, Providentia, Mr Serfraz, Mr Asram and Mr Aziz, coupled with an assertion of an earlier agreement of 03 September 2012 between Profectus and Providentia, which Mr Serfraz claimed to be still effective: see [30] of the decision of the FtT, summarising the evidence of Mr Tunkel.

The FtT recorded at [34] of its decision that other than registration with the FCA, Mr Tunkel accepted that Providentia added little or nothing to the business of Profectus.

We pause here to observe that it is unclear whether the FtT accepted that the relationship between Profectus and Providentia was sufficient to meet the regulatory requirements of the Rules. There is no specific finding that either Providentia or Profectus was authorised to operate as a venture capital firm.

60. We turn at this juncture to consider Mr Tunkel’s two reports which, we note, were provided to the FtT by Mr Serfraz. We have noted also the letter from Mr Tunkel to Mr Serfraz. We note further that Mr Tunkel gave evidence to the FtT. The first report invites certain observations. First, Mr Tunkel makes no pretence of neutrality or objectivity. Rather, in unvarnished terms, he sets himself the aim of demonstrating that all of the Tier 1 applications relying on funding from Profectus –

“.. should have been accepted by the Home Office as satisfying the condition in the Immigration Rules that funding is obtained from a relevant form of venture capital firm.”

Second, with one minor exception, Mr Tunkel makes no attempt to address the requirements of the Rules. This is compounded by his misrepresentation of what the Rules require, portrayed in the following statement:

“.. The applicable criterion under the Immigration Rules is based upon the need for the applicant to show that he has a firm commitment to funds in the requisite amount (minimum £50,000) …”

[Our emphasis.]

This is not what the Rules say. In the language of the Rules (as we have stressed above), this discrete requirement is that the funds be (variously) “ available ”, “ genuinely available ” and “ made available ”. The second, related requirement is that the source of the funding is viable and credible. Mr Tunkel omits this from his commentary.

61. The unashamedly partisan tone of the report continues. Mr Tunkel accuses both the Home Office and unspecified Tribunals, in unspecified cases, of having reached a “perverse” conclusion. Next, he suggests that Profectus satisfies the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) requirements that the manager of the venture capital fund be licensed and that the firm hold a series of “permissions” required by statute. The report purports to address the relationship between Providentia Capital LLP (“Providentia”) and Profectus. This relationship, it is suggested, is governed by a LLP Agreement (“LLPA”). Objective scrutiny of this agreement is not possible as it is not provided. Providentia is described as the “Managing Member” of the LLP. The LLPA confers on Providentia all rights to use “Profectus” as its own trading name. The immediately succeeding sentence is of note:

“I understand that there is also an investment management agreement under the terms of which Profectus’ business is managed by Providentia”.

The inference that Mr Tunkel was neither provided with nor requested this agreement is irresistible. This is surprising, given the stated purpose of his report.

62. Mr Tunkel summarises certain provisions of the LLPA as follows:

Providentia is both the “Managing Member” of the LLP and the “operator for collective investment scheme operational purposes”.

Profectus is a “client” of Providentia.

Providentia exercises the rights of the “Designated Members and/or the LLP”: Mr Tunkel does not illuminate the reference to “Designated Members”.

Providentia’s powers include evaluation of investments for the purposes of acquisition or disposal, making agreements relevant to investments, executing documents in relation to investments and addressing “outsourcing” issues.

The terminology “the total Commitment” is also employed in the LLPA. This, per Mr Tunkel, is the sum of all “capital” received from investors who, in turn, are classified “A Members”. In this context, the following description is of note:

“It would be common practice for a fund of this nature to accept an investor as a member of the fund only on having assured itself that such investor is clearly able to fund tranches of his Commitment on relatively short notice (say 10 days to 2 weeks from the date of a Draw down request) and is unlikely to default.”

While Mr Tunkel observes that investors have “other uses” for their money until a Draw down request is made, he avoids entirely the key issue of the practical consequences for the fund, and those seeking to rely on it, in the event of investors defaulting.

63. Mr Tunkel purports to analyse the position of Tier 1 applicants generally. He suggests, without particulars or elaboration:

“…. Profectus exists chiefly or entirely to fund successful applicants for their Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Visas. Or it is likelier that Draw downs will be conducted ad hoc.”

He does not attempt to augment or illuminate the highlighted words. He continues:

“It is not until the application is granted (or any initial request is overturned on appeal) that Profectus needs to have the monies committed to it to fund the applicant.”

We construe this to signify that at all stages of the process preceding the grant of a Tier 1 Visa – consisting of funding application to Profectus, interview/s, analysis, due diligence, funding offer and submission of the Tier 1 application to the Home Office – Profectus was not capable of providing the money promised to the applicant. The reason for this is that Draw down requests had not been made of third party investors. Accordingly, the “money” was purely notional, or imaginary, throughout.

64. Mr Tunkel’s main report also touches on the issue of consideration and scrutiny of applications for funding. He begins by noting that an applicant’s criteria must meet the “investment objectives of Profectus” without explaining what these are. He continues:

“We would expect to see that [Providentia] had a discretionary investment management mandate …. [in specified terms].”

Such mandate would authorise Providentia to review and consider each application on its intrinsic merits, to subject the applicant to due diligence, to determine whether the application fell within the remit of the fund being managed and to make the investment requested. The purely abstract terms in which Mr Tunkel expresses himself are striking. This theme continues through the next passage:

“These decisions would typically be taken through some sort of investment committee structure and might in relevant circumstances be informed or assisted by discussion with external advisors. However, the firm would in due course be involved in making the decision to invest, maintaining a record of that decision and reporting on that decision and others like it in periodic statements to the fund’s investors.”

Mr Tunkel’s failure to relate these purely abstract descriptions to the realities, legal and otherwise, of the arrangements, powers and structures of Providentia and Profectus is noteworthy. So too is the later statement in his report where he expressly disavows any knowledge of the Providentia/Profectus due diligence internal procedures. Why did he not proactively seek to arm himself with this self-evidently important information?

65. Mr Tunkel provided a supplementary report, which we have also considered. We have found aspects of this report troubling. For example, on the one hand, Mr Tunkel quotes from the explicit requirement of the Rules that venture capital firms be “regulated by the [FCA]”. However, on the other hand, he makes no attempt to address the implications of Providentia, rather than Profectus, being the FCA regulated entity. He does not address the issue of Providentia being two steps removed from all of the Tier 1 applicants. Furthermore, he fails to address the issue of the Providentia/Profectus “investment management agreement” mentioned in bare terms in his first report. He confines himself to the vague observation that:

“… behind all of these applications there is an FCA-regulated firm involved in the process.”

He follows this by an observation regarding “semantics” in the provisions of the Immigration Rules. He suggests that the “FCA Rules” have –

“… a very broad and non-prescriptive view of what venture capital is and how venture capital investments made by made.”

Finally, the lengthy section in his second report addressing the freedom of Tier 1 applicants to choose their preferred proposed business is puzzling, given that this has at no time been an issue. It bears all the hallmarks of a smokescreen.

66. At the FtT hearing, Mr Tunkel gave a sharply contradictory response about one discrete issue in cross examination. The decision of the FtT records, in [36]:

“Mr Tunkel was aware that Profectus had been closed for new investments since August 2013.”

This is manifestly irreconcilable with his earlier evidence on the same issue, which was, at [30]:

“He had no information about the Profectus fund now being closed but assumed that like most venture capital funds once it had raised sufficient to fund its proposed investments or had raised as much money as it wished, the fund would not remain open indefinitely for further investors”.

Furthermore, the first assertion is devoid of any supporting evidence, whether in the form of documentary evidence or via the witness statements of Mr Serfraz. In addition the suggested date of fund closure – August 2013 – was crying out for a proper explanation and supporting evidence, taking into account particularly the elaborate attempts by Mr Tunkel and Mr Serfraz in their evidence to explain why, in the real world of venture capital funding, Profectus/Providentia would not have been in a position to provide the promised funding of £50,000 (multiplied by 140/187 applicants – both multipliers feature) at the time when the applications for the Tier 1 visas were made viz January to April 2013. The contradictions and discrepancies are many and manifest.

67. Mr Tunkel also purported to give evidence about Providentia. He suggested, vaguely and without elaboration, that there were “a number of individuals working in” Providentia and that these unidentified persons were “regulated”. This contrasts with his main report, which states that only Providentia is regulated. He referred to yet another agreement – an earlier LLP agreement – which he clearly had not seen and evidently had not requested. The following passage is noteworthy:

“ He [Mr Tunkel] had no information about the Profectus fund now being closed but assumed that like most venture capital funds once it had raised sufficient to fund its proposed investments or had raised as much money as it wished, the fund would not remain open indefinitely for further investors. ”

It is striking that Mr Tunkel had neither received nor requested important information of this kind and, further, was prepared to make an assumption about it. His assumption was that the “sufficient” funding, that is to say £7 million, had been raised. There was no evidence whatsoever to this effect.

68. Mr Tunkel was asked about what he would expect a due diligence exercise to entail. According to the Tribunal’s decision, his evidence was this:

“There should be a financial report on the individuals involved in the business and an analysis of any profit and loss account or projected profit and loss account. The fund managers would concentrate on the backgrounds and strength of key individuals such as those who would form the board of management.”

We make the observation that no “financial report” or “analysis” of this kind in respect of any of the Appellants was produced. Next, Mr Tunkel declined to comment on the capacity of Mr Serfraz to manage and oversee some 187 agreements with “start-up” firms during a compressed period of time. He described Mr Serfraz as the “investment advisor” and the “link to the Providentia investment team”. We can find no evidence whatever about the membership of this “team”. Mr Tunkel knew nothing about the expertise or qualifications of Mr Serfraz. He suggested that Mr Serfraz –

“… was not an employee of Providentia but was contracted to them …. was provided by Profectus to Providentia under the agreement between Profectus and Providentia to enable Providentia to discharge its management function to its client, Profectus.”

Strikingly, there is nothing to this effect in Mr Tunkel’s main report. Indeed, neither Mr Serfraz nor any named person features in either of this reports. Furthermore, there is no mention of these inter-company arrangements in either of Mr Serfraz’s witness statements. No Profectus/Providentia “contract” has been produced. Finally, Mr Aziz features nowhere in the evidence of either Mr Tunkel or Mr Serfraz.

69. We highlight one final feature of the evidence of Mr Tunkel. The FtT records the following discrete aspect of his cross examination:

“It was put to him that the type of investment which Profectus intended to make in the business of the Appellants would not yield any income for at least five years.”

We interpose here the observation that the total investment required would be £7 million if the multiplier is 140 and £9.35 million if the multiplier is 187. The FtT’s decision records Mr Tunkel’s response thus:

“He did not consider this in itself to be a matter for concern. Whether an investment produced an income flow depended on the nature of the investment and other factors.”

We find this evidence frankly bizarre.

Third and Fourth Grounds of Appeal – Our Conclusions:

70. Mr Tunkel’s evidence to the FtT, in both written and oral form, was, by some measure, one of the most important components of the overall evidential matrix. Furthermore, in promoting the third and fourth grounds of appeal, the Appellants rely heavily on it. Mr Tunkel’s evidence is the cornerstone of Mr Jafferji’s submission that the FtT misunderstood, to the extent of perversity, how venture capital funding operates in the real world of finance. He pins his submission particularly on Mr Tunkel’s description of how “A” Members fund “tranches” of their commitment to the fund. We consider this evidence to have no bearing whatsoever on the realities of the Profectus/Providentia offers of funding to the Appellants. As we have outlined extensively above, Mr Tunkel testified unequivocally that the fund had been closed for some time. Closure, in this context, denotes receipt of sufficient monies to enable the requisite number of funding offers to be made to applicants. There was no suggestion that the “fund” was notional or fictitious. We can identify no misunderstanding of the type suggested in the FtT’s decision.

71. We add, with some emphasis, that Mr Tunkel’s evidence must be considered as a whole. We have undertaken this exercise in the detailed analysis above. In our judgment a consideration of Mr Tunkel’s evidence as a whole leads inexorably to the conclusion that the third and fourth grounds of appeal have no sustenance. As our analysis demonstrates, the overall evidential matrix was riddled with discrepancies and omissions. In particular, there were repeated oblique references to documentary evidence of unmistakable materiality which was not produced. A single and pertinent illustration of this was highlighted by the FtT in the following passage:

“We find it remarkable that we have not been shown a single document to confirm that any of this investigative work was done in respect of any of the cases now before us …. We would have expected to see a detailed file of documents assembled by Profectus on each of these cases to demonstrate that these proposed businesses really were considered to be viable and worthy of a genuine investment of £50,000. There was no explanation why such documents had not been released to the Appellants to support their appeals.”

See [42]. The expectation to which the FtT refers in this passage is based on a combination of pure common sense and Mr Tunkel’s evidence. In short, there was not a scrap of paper either supporting or verifying the due diligence claims of Mr Serfraz. The Tribunal’s resulting incredulity formed one of the pillars of its dismissal of the appeals.

72. In similar vein, in [103], the Tribunal noted with surprise the absence of “a substantial paper trail”. It considered the letters of offer to be “lacking in the terms and conditions which one would have expected to see in an investor agreement”. It noted further that there was “no evidence of the terms and conditions which were to be incorporated in any share holder’s agreement”. It highlighted the bare assertion, with no supporting evidence, in the Morgan Reach letters that Profectus had “made available” (past tense) £50,000 to the applicants concerned. Nor had Morgan Reach made any attempt to relate this assertion to the actual assets of either Mr Serfraz or Mr Aziz. The Tribunal also considered, separately, the documentary evidence provided in an attempt to demonstrate that Profectus was a genuine, established investment vehicle: see [105] – [108]. Its conclusion was that this evidence was unsatisfactory and insufficient. We find this conclusion unassailable and, in this context, we highlight the absence of any challenge to it upon the hearing of these appeals. To this we add that none of the multiple gaps and question marks was filled or answered by Profectus in its written intervention (at the invitation of the Tribunal) upon the hearing of these appeals.

73. Fundamentally, the Secretary of State reasons for refusing all of the Appellants’ applications were twofold. First, the Secretary of State was not satisfied that there was a genuine intention to establish the business in question. Second, the Secretary of State was not satisfied that the necessary monies were genuinely available, and would remain available, to the Appellants. The FtT, for its part, endorsed these conclusions. In doing so, it found no error of law on the part of the Secretary of State. The Tribunal concluded, in terms, that there was an abundance of evidence justifying these conclusions. We, for our part, can identify no legal flaw in the FtT’s omnibus conclusion to this effect. It was amply supported by a series of pertinent, rational and unimpeachable findings relating to discrete issues. The proliferation of question marks, shadows, omissions, inconsistencies and discrepancies which we have highlighted above rendered this conclusion inevitable.

74. We consider that, taking the evidence at its absolute zenith and in its most favourable light from the Appellants’ perspective, the necessary £50,000 was not available to any of them. The evidence established that the only possible source of the funding was a total sum of approximately £2.8 million held in personal bank accounts of Mr Serfraz and Mr Aziz in Pakistan. The arithmetic is simple. Profectus/Providentia was not in a position to honour the 140/187 promises of funding of £50,000 which had been made. It was no answer for the Appellants to argue (as they did at first instance) that they merely had to demonstrate the availability of £300,000 (i.e. £50,000 x 6), for the simple reason that they had no legal entitlement, contractual or otherwise, to preferential treatment or precedence vis-à-vis the monies in the Pakistan bank accounts. We conclude that these monies were not as a matter of law “available” to any of the 140/187 applicants.

75. To this we add, as regards the separate though related requirement of the Rules, that the gaping chasm between £2.8 million and £7 million/£9.35 million was sufficient per se to sound the death knell on the issue of genuineness. There was, of course, a host of other factors rendering the conclusion of the Secretary of State and FtT on this discrete issue unassailable, as we have held above.

76. Finally, we reject the submission of Mr Jafferji concerning the ninth Appellant, Mr Zafar, that a mere intention to invest only £25,000 at the outset of the business venture, coupled with an intention to invest the balance of £25,000 at some unspecified future date from some unspecified source, satisfies the requirements of the Rules. This submission is confounded by the plain and simple wording of the relevant provisions. Furthermore, it finds no sustenance in Mr Jafferji’s resort to “commercial reality”. The operative “reality”, in this context, is what the Rules dictate. In addition where, as in Mr Zafar’s case, the business proposal is a joint one, based on equal funding contributions, the withdrawal of a partner applicant at any stage has the consequence that the remaining applicant/s must fail. The appeal of Mr Zafar is defeated on this free standing ground, as is that of Mr Nazir (the second appellant).

77. The second discrete matter which we highlight, in conclusion, is that these appeals have featured generic issues only. The permitted grounds of appeal do not extend to any challenge to the assessments, findings and conclusions of the FtT in the individual appeals.

78. We conclude with the observation that, in the interests of certainty and maximum clarity, consideration could usefully be given, if a viable and workable model could be found, to the introduction in the Rules of some time limit or time measurement for the actual investment of monies calculated from the date of a positive Tier 1 decision.

Conclusion

79. On the grounds and for the reasons elaborated above, which both reflect and augment those of the FtT, we dismiss all appeals and affirm the decision of the FtT.

Bernard McCloskey

THE HON. MR JUSTICE MCCLOSKEY

PRESIDENT OF THE UPPERTRIBUNAL,

IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

Date: 27 May 2016

APPENDIX 1

Paragraph 41-SD of Appendix A

Version in force between 31 January 2013 and 30 June 2013 (HC 943)

41-SD. The specified documents in Table 4 and paragraph 41 are as follows:

(a) The specified documents to show evidence of the money available to invest are one or more of the following specified documents:

(i) A letter from each financial institution holding the funds, to confirm the amount of money available to the applicant (or the entrepreneurial team if applying under the provisions in paragraph 52 of this Appendix). Each letter must:

(1) be an original document and not a copy,

(2) be on the institution's official headed paper,

(3) have been issued by an authorised official of that institution,

(4) have been produced within the three months immediately before the date of your application,

(5) confirm that the institution is regulated by the appropriate body,

(6) state the applicant's name, and his team partner's name if the applicant is applying under the provisions in paragraph 52 of this Appendix,

(7) state the date of the document,

(8) confirm the amount of money available from the applicant's own funds (if applicable) that are held in that

institution,

(9) confirm the amount of money provided to the applicant from any third party (if applicable) that is held in that

institution,

(10) confirm the name of each third party and their contact details, including their full address including postal

code, landline phone number and any email address, and

(11) confirm that if the money is not in an institution regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the

Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), the money can be transferred into the UK;

or

(ii) For money held in the UK only, a recent personal bank or building society statement from each UK financial institution holding the funds, which confirms the amount of money available to the applicant (or the entrepreneurial team if applying under the provisions in paragraph 52 of this Appendix). The statements must satisfy the following requirements:

(1) The statements must be original documents and not copies;

(2) The bank or building society holding the money must be based in the UK and regulated by the Financial Services Authority;

(3) The money must be in cash in the account, not Individual Savings Accounts or assets such as stocks and shares;

(4) The account must be in the applicant's own name only (or both names for an entrepreneurial team), not in the name of a business or third party;

(5) Each bank or building society statement must be on the institution's official stationary and confirm the applicant's name and, where relevant, the applicant's entrepreneurial team partner's name, the account number, the date of the statement, and the financial institution's name and logo;

(6) The bank or building society statement must have been issued by an authorised official of that institution and produced within the three months immediately before the date of the application; and

(7) If the statements are printouts of electronic statements from an online account, they must either be accompanied by a supporting letter from the bank, on company headed paper, confirming the authenticity of the statements, or bear the official stamp of the bank in question on each page of the statement;

or

(iii) For £50,000 from a Venture Capital firm, Seed Funding Competition or UK Government Department only, a recent letter from an accountant, who is a member of a recognised UK supervisory body, confirming the amount of money made available to the applicant (or the entrepreneurial team if applying under the provisions in paragraph 52 of this Appendix). Each letter must:

(1) be an original document and not a copy,

(2) on the institution’s original headed paper,

(3) have been issued by an accountant engaged by the Venture Capital firm, Seed funding competition or UK Government Department to provide the information,

(4) have been produced within the three months immediately before the date of the application,

(5) state the applicant's name, and his team partner's name if the applicant is applying under the provisions in paragraph 52 of this Appendix,

(6) state the date of the document,

(7) confirm the amount of money available to the applicant or the applicant's business from the Venture Capital firm, Seed funding competition or UK Government Department, and

(8) confirm the name of the Venture Capital firm, Seed funding competition or UK Government Department and the contact details of an official of that organisation, including their full address, postal code, landline phone number and any email address,

(b) If the applicant is applying using money from a third party, he must provide all of the following specified documents:

(i) An original declaration from every third party that they have made the money available for the applicant to invest in a business in the United Kingdom, containing:

(1) the names of the third party and the applicant (and his team partner's name if the applicant is applying under the provisions in paragraph 52 of this Appendix),

(2) the date of the declaration;

(3) the applicant's signature and the signature of the third party (and the signature of the applicant's team partner if the applicant is applying under the provisions in paragraph 52 of this Appendix),

(4) the amount of money available to the applicant from the third party in pounds sterling,

(5) the relationship(s) of the third party to the applicant,

(6) if the third party is a venture capitalist firm, confirmation of whether this body is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and is listed as permitted to operate as a Venture Capital firm,

(7) if the third party is a UK entrepreneurial seed funding competition, a document confirming that the applicant has been awarded money and that the competition is listed as endorsed on the UK Trade & Investment website, together with the amount of the award and naming the applicant as a winner,

(8) if the third party is a UK Government Department, a document confirming that it has made money available to the applicant for the specific purpose of establishing or expanding a UK business, and the amount, and

(9) confirmation that the money will remain available to the applicant until such time as it is transferred to the applicant or the applicant’s business.

and

(ii) A letter from a legal representative confirming the validity of signatures on each third-party declaration provided, which confirms that the declaration(s) from the third party/parties contains the signatures of the people stated. It can be a single letter covering all third-party permissions, or several letters from several legal representatives. It must be an original letter and not a copy, and it must be from a legal representative permitted to practise in the country where the third party or the money is. The letter must clearly show the following:

(1) the name of the legal representative confirming the details,

(2) the registration or authority of the legal representative to practise legally in the country in which the permission or permissions was/were given,

(3) the date of the confirmation letter,

(4) the applicant's name (and the name of the applicant's team partner if the applicant is applying under the provisions in paragraph 52 of this Appendix),

(5) the third party's name,

(6) that the declaration from the third party is signed and valid, and

(7) if the third party is not a venture capitalist firm, seed funding competition or UK Government Department, the number of the third party's identity document (such as a passport or national identity card), the place of issue and dates of issue and expiry.

(c) If the applicant is applying under the provisions in (d) in Table 4, he must provide:

(i) his job title,

(ii) the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code of the occupation that the applicant is working in, which must appear on the list of occupations skilled to National Qualifications Framework level 4 or above, as stated in the Codes of Practice in Appendix J,

(iii) one or more of the following specified documents:

(1) Advertising or marketing material, including printouts of online advertising, that has been published locally or nationally, showing the applicant's name (and the name of the business if applicable) together with the business activity,

(2) Article(s) or online links to article(s) in a newspaper or other publication showing the applicant's name (and the name of the business if applicable) together with the business activity,

(3) Information from a trade fair(s), at which the applicant has had a stand or given a presentation to market his business, showing the applicant's name (and the name of the business if applicable) together with the business activity, or

(4)Personal registration with a trade's body linked to the applicant's occupation.

and

(iv) one or more contracts showing trading. If a contract is not an original the applicant must sign each page of the contract. The contract must show:

(1) the applicant's name and the name of the business,

(2) the service provided by the applicant's business; and

(3) the name of the other party or parties involved in the contract and their contact details, including their full address, postal code, landline phone number and any email address.

Version in force between 1 October 2013 and 5 April 2014 (HC 628)

41-SD. The specified documents in Table 4 and paragraph 41, and associated definitions, are as follows:

(a) Where this paragraph refers to funding being available, unless stated otherwise, this means funding available to:

(i) the applicant;

(ii) the entrepreneurial team, if the applicant is applying under the provisions in paragraph 52 of this Appendix; or

(iii) the applicant’s business.

(b) Where this paragraph refers to the applicant’s business, the applicant must be registered as a director of that business in the UK, and provide a Companies House document showing the address of the registered office in the UK, or head office in the UK if it has no registered office, and the applicant's name, as it appears on the application form, as a director.

(c) The specified documents to show evidence of the funding available to invest are one or more of the following specified documents:

(i) A letter from each financial institution holding the funds, to confirm the amount of money available. Each letter must:

(1) be an original document and not a copy,

(2) be on the institution's headed paper,

(3) have been issued by an authorised official of that institution,

(4) have been produced within the three months immediately before the date of application,

(5) confirm that the institution is regulated by the appropriate body,

(6) state the applicant's name, and his team partner's name where relevant,

(7) show the account number and,

(8) state the date of the document,

(9) confirm the amount of money available from the applicant's own funds (if applicable) that are held in that institution,

(10) confirm the amount of money available from any third party (if applicable) that is held in that institution,

(11) confirm the name of each third party and their contact details, including their full address including postal code, and where available landline phone number and any email address, and

(12) confirm that if the money is not in an institution regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), the money can be transferred into the UK; or

(ii) For money held in the UK only, a recent personal bank or building society statement from each UK financial institution holding the funds, which confirms the amount of money available. Each statement must satisfy the following requirements:

(1) the statements must be original documents and not copies;

(2) the bank or building society holding the money must be based in the UK and regulated by the Financial Conduct

Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA);

(3) the money must be in cash in the account, not Individual Savings Accounts or assets such as stocks and shares;

(4) the account must be in the applicant's own name only (or both names for an entrepreneurial team), not in the name of a business or third party;

(5) each statement must be on the institution's official stationery showing the institution's name and logo, and confirm the applicant's name (and, where relevant, the applicant's entrepreneurial team partner's name), the account number and the date of the statement;

(6) each statement must have been issued by an authorised official of that institution and produced within the three months immediately before the date of the application; and

(7) if the statements are printouts of electronic statements, they must either be

accompanied by a supporting letter from the bank, on the bank ‟ s headed paper,

confirming the authenticity of the statements, or bear the official stamp of the bank in question on each page of the statement; or

(iii) For £50,000 from a Venture Capital firm, Seed Funding Competition or UK Government Department only, a recent letter from an accountant, who is a member of a recognised UK supervisory body, or other authorised official in the case of a UK Government Department, confirming the amount of money made available. Each letter must:

(1) be an original document and not a copy,

(2) be on the institution's official headed paper,

(3) have been issued by an accountant engaged by the Venture Capital firm, Seed Funding Competition or UK Government Department or other official of the UK Government Department authorised to provide the information,

(4) have been produced within the three months immediately before the date of the application,

(5) state the applicant's name, and his team partner's name where relevant, or the

name of the applicant’s business,

(6) state the date of the document,

(7) confirm the amount of money available to the applicant, the entrepreneurial team or the applicant's business from the Venture Capital firm, Seed funding competition or UK Government Department, and

(8) confirm the name of the Venture Capital firm, Seed funding competition or UK Government Department and the contact details of an official of that organisation, including their full address, postal code and, where available, landline phone number and any email address,

(d) If the applicant is applying using money from a third party, he must provide all of the following specified documents:

(i) An original written declaration from every third party that they have made the money available to invest in a business in the United Kingdom, containing:

(1) the names of the third party and the applicant (and his team partner's name where relevant), or the name of the applicant ’ s business,

(2) the date of the declaration,

(3) the applicant's signature and the signature of the third party (and the signature of the applicant's team partner where relevant),

(4) the amount of money available in pounds sterling, (5) the relationship(s) of the third party to the applicant,

(6) if the third party is a venture capitalist firm, confirmation of whether this body is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and is listed as permitted to operate as a Venture Capital firm,

(7) if the third party is a UK Seed Funding Competition, confirmation that the applicant, the entrepreneurial team or the applicant ’ s business has been awarded money and that the competition is listed as endorsed on the UK Trade & Investment website, together with the amount of the award and naming the applicant, the entrepreneurial team or the applicant ’ s business as a winner,

(8) if the third party is a UK Government Department, confirmation that it has made money available for the specific purpose of establishing or expanding a UK business, and the amount, and

9) confirmation that the money will remain available until such time as it is transferred to the applicant, the entrepreneurial team or the applicant ’ s business.

and

(ii) A letter from a legal representative confirming the validity of signatures on each third-party declaration provided, which confirms that the declaration(s) from the third party or parties contains the signatures of the people stated. It can be a single letter covering all third-party permissions, or several letters from several legal representatives. It must be an original letter and not a copy, and it must be from a legal representative permitted to practise in the country where the third party or the money is. The letter must clearly show the following:

(1) the name of the legal representative confirming the details,

(2) the registration or authority of the legal representative to practise legally in the country in which the permission or permissions was or were given,

(3) the date of the confirmation letter,

(4) the applicant's name (and the name of the applicant's team partner’s name where relevant) and, where (b) applies, that the applicant is a director of the business named in each third-party declaration,

(5) the third party's name,

(6) that the declaration from the third party is signed and valid, and

(7) if the third party is not a Venture Capitalist Firm, Seed Funding Competition or UK Government Department, the number of the third party or their authorised representative's identity document (such as a passport or national identity card), the place of issue and dates of issue and expiry.

(e) If the applicant is applying under the provisions in (d) in Table 4, he must also provide:

(i) his job title,

(ii) the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code of the occupation that the applicant is working in, which must appear on the list of occupations skilled to National Qualifications Framework level 4 or above, as stated in the Codes of Practice in Appendix J,

(iii) one or more of the following specified documents:

(1) advertising or marketing material, including printouts of online advertising, that has been published locally or nationally, showing the applicant's name (and the name of the business if applicable) together with the business activity or, where his business is trading online, confirmation of his ownership of the domain name of the business ’ s website,

(2) article(s) or online links to article(s) in a newspaper or other publication showing the applicant's name (and the name of the business if applicable) together with the business activity,

(3) information from a trade fair, at which the applicant has had a stand or given a presentation to market his business, showing the applicant's name (and the name of the business if applicable) together with the business activity, or

(4) personal registration with a UK trade body linked to the applicant's occupation;

and

(iv) one or more of the following documents showing trading:

(1) a contract. If a contract is not an original the applicant must sign each page. The contract must show:

(_a) the applicant's name and the name of the business,

(_b) the service provided by the applicant's business; and

(_c) the name of the other party or parties involved in the contract and their contact details, including their full address, postal code and, where available, landline phone number and any email address; or

(2) an original letter from a UK-regulated financial institution with which the applicant has a business bank account, on the institution ‟ s headed paper, confirming that the business is trading; and

(v) if:

(1) claiming points for being self-employed, the following specified documents to show that he is paying Class 2 National Insurance contributions:

(_a) the original bill from the billing period immediately before the application, if his

Class 2 National Insurance is paid by quarterly bill;

(_b) the most recent bank statement issued before the date of application, showing the direct debit payment of National Insurance to HM Revenue & Customs, if his National Insurance is paid by direct debit;

(_c) an original small earnings exception certificate issued by HM Revenue & Customs for the most recent return date, if he has low earnings; or

(_d) the original, dated welcome letter from HM Revenue & Customs containing the applicant's unique taxpayer reference number, if he has not

yet received the documents in (_a) to (_c); or

(2) if claiming points for being a director of a UK company, a printout of a Current Appointment Report from Companies House, dated no earlier than three months before the date of the application, listing the applicant as a director of the company, and confirming the date of his appointment. The company must be actively trading and not struck-off, or dissolved or in liquidation. Directors who are on the list of disqualified Directors provided by Companies House will not be awarded points.