Former Nasa Scientist Ordered to Repay £655,951 After £1 Million Fraud
John Burford, 86, defrauded over 100 investors, facing a default five-year jail term if funds are not returned.
Image: Eddie Pollard / AI
Callum Smith
John Burford, an 86-year-old former Nasa scientist, has been ordered to pay £655,951.40 after defrauding more than 100 investors out of £1 million.
Between 2016 and 2021, Burford operated Financial Trading Strategies, offering trade alerts and investment opportunities in 'managed funds' without proper authorization. This period of illicit activity followed his 2014 publication, 'A practical guide to swing trading with tramlines, Elliott Waves and Fibonacci levels.'
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) asserts Burford repeatedly misled investors about fund performance, concealed significant losses, and diverted their money for personal gain. Prosecutor Fiona Jackson confirmed Burford generated in excess of £1 million from over 100 individuals across three years.
Mr Burford scammed investors to fund his own lavish lifestyle.
The Crown sought a total benefit figure of £1,250,946.22 in the case. Prosecutor Tom Godfrey indicated Burford received £450,000 from his subscription services and nearly £1 million in direct investments.
However, Burford traded only £760,000 for his clients, losing almost all of it. The court claims he used the remaining funds to acquire a new home, finance holidays, and pay for dinners at high-end restaurants.
Specifically, £250,000 reportedly funded his new home, though the exact cost or location of the property remains undisclosed. Steve Smart commented on the outcome, stating, "Mr Burford scammed investors to fund his own lavish lifestyle."
Smart added, "Clawing back stolen money from fraudsters and returning it to victims sends a clear message that crime doesn’t pay." This action by the FCA resulted in a confiscation order for £1,250,946.22.
This aggressive recovery aims to deter similar financial misconduct, with the FCA initiating 15 such proceedings in the last year alone. The case highlights the inherent risks associated with unauthorized investment schemes, particularly those promising high returns without regulatory oversight.