Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Land banking product

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Land banking product - views of two investors

View of investor 1
An investor bought a land banking product said: There is also a similar group of investors - who has hired a corporate investigator in New York - to file a class action suit against X. I received a phone call from New York sometime ago. In Malaysia-KL, X office was raided by the authorities,.investigations still pending. It appears to those who are suspicious - that X is a very cleverly-crafted "legal cheat".

View of investor 2
This investor bought into another land banking product, which carried the name of a reputable legal firm in Singapore. The name of this legal firm gave him the confidence that the product was sound. He learned later that he was cheated, and was not able to take action as the land banking company is based outside Singapore.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...: Investments like Minibonds are also
approved and vetted by the MAS, and
yet they got burned. What do you
expect of landbanking,carrying
reputable legal names, even by
Lee and Lee law firm is the same,
the big bosses would say - you went
in with your eyes opened.
Cheats from abroad are eyeing our
money, so only trust yourself, and
no one else. If something is too
good to be true, it probably is.; March 24, 2010 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...: wow, soo much negative comments about LAND-BANKING. I wonder how they still manage to do business in a place like Singapore soo freely and above the law? Isn't it soo obvious that some of their websites show pictures of their "proposed project" which look like it was photoshopped to the extent of looking fake. And yet we have educated people still investing in these 'scams'? These land-banking ppl also have our local property agents coming from ESTABLISHED REAL ESTATES COMPANIES selling their investments for them and claiming it is not a scam. I dont know, it all seems soo confusing sometimes. How does the government allow such things to happen if they are 'cheating'?? Can anyone explain to me as to how they can get away with something so brazen??; March 24, 2010 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: It is rather sad that we viewers of this Blog, do NOT know the name of the company mentioned by Investor 1 & 2.........It is all a guessing game!

Any Clues???; March 24, 2010 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: My personal view on Investor 1, is that Company X has got the "X" Factor to be in Business inspite of all the negative report and so called "Prophet of Doom" 'cause the Investor 1....... must have missed the boat to reap handsome windfall during their recent EXITS if any?; March 24, 2010 9:26 PM
Steve said...: More UK Land Banking news -5 companies forced to liquidate.

http://www.creditman.biz/uk/members/news-view.asp?newsviewID=11496

....were all involved in operating an unscrupulous land investment business. The companies falsely claimed to provide the best land and property in the UK with future development potential and the capacity to deliver maximum returns to investors including selling land they had no right to.

The grounds for winding up the companies were that they made misleading and unfounded statements in marketing the plots of land to the public; sold land on two sites (Worplesdon and Thorndon) that they had no right to sell and that over a third of company receipts were found to have gone to those involved in the running the business, namely.....

In ordering the companies into liquidation Registrar said: “This is a very serious case where considerable amounts of money have been obtained from members of the public. I am satisfied that the evidence, based on a very full report, substantiates all of the allegations. The evidence shows diversion of funds and the intermingling of funds by the companies that can’t be unravelled. I am satisfied that Mr .... and Mr ..... have demonstrated complete lack of co-operation and that this is very obviously a case where winding up orders should be made.”

The investigation also found that the companies had failed to keep proper accounting records; had failed to comply with Companies Act requirements; failed to co-operate fully with the investigation and operated with a serious lack of transparency as to who controlled the companies and with a lack of clarity regarding the structure and roles of the companies.; April 01, 2010 8:09 AM