Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Investing in land abroad

Monday, May 17, 2010

Investing in land abroad

Read this letter.

My comment
When several people lodge complaints with the authority that they have been misled into purchasing these investments through misrepresentations of the facts, the authority should investigate if there were intent to to defraud the public. The authority should also report the results of the investigation, even if no conclusive evidence could be found about the alleged misrepresentations. This would at least warn the public about the dangers of investing in these products.

This type of actions were taken in Malaysia and the UK leading to the closing down of the companies involved in the fraudulent activities and the prosecution of the perpetuators in court.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...: It was diffcult to protect someone from their own greed; May 17, 2010 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: REX commens as follows,

I think if an important document such as the "Land Registry Guide 2008" was publised by UK, did the Authorities concerned in Singapore made some publicity of it, so as to give fair chance for Singapore investors to be wary of cheats? It seems so easy to blame the investors now that everything is over.

Let me give another example. If china discover that the Po Chai pills may be contaminated, immediately the concerned authorities, the newspapers would carry some warning messages to alert the public.

This is the fair duty of the regulatory authorities. Citizens must be wary of cheats, but at the same time, authorities concerned have a duty to make public any issues which they (as experts) are reasonably considered to be ahead of the common folk.

The strong letter from the authorities concerned puts the blame 100% on the investors. However, i think we need to examine whether they have done their fair share of work by virtue of their being paid for the service of being an authority or watch-dog.

If a watch dog is sleeping and a thief gets in, (because the house door is not locked) can the watch dog say that the owner is 100% responsible and its got nothing to do with whether he barked or he slept when the robber entered?

rex; May 17, 2010 9:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Is Walton in trouble as well?; May 17, 2010 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Good Morning to Dear All;

me posits that there exist great inertias in many Governments and World Organizations such as the United Nation. The Later is a body formed by almost all sovereign nations to uphold peace, human rights and to ensure and provide the best possible for the wellbeings of humans anywhere on Earth.

Many Government have turned corrupt and despotic, leaders became tyrannical and nepotic. So have some of the World Organizations that make use of the plights of nations and people to make money in the name of social and charitable enterprises.

The Thais are suffering from political disputes between its people and the leadership. Violences have erupted with death and fatal injuries. Live are at stake and many are expose to dangers for no part in the dispute. Whilst the Thais desperately called upon the United Nation to mediate in their domestic problems and did so repeatedly, the UN sent officials to SIN, for purposes that were not needed.

The UNITED NATION REMAINS DEAF AND DUMB with the pleas of the Thais but its staff were in SIN; whatever for???

Me am cynical of many leaderships, be they that of nations or world organizations. There were/are too many like Hitler and AhbiSHIT.

patriot; May 17, 2010 11:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Investing abroad and Po Chai pills are two different situations. One concerns the health and lives of local residents and it is the responsibility of the relevant authority to ensure that lives within its jurisdiction are protected from harm.

Investment abroad concerns the interests of individuals and properties abroad are located outside the purview of local authorities who have no control over transactions. It is the responsibility of authorities in the country concerned to regulate, not that of our country's authorities.

Investors should approach the respective bodies of the jurisdiction concerned and be 100% responsible for their own decisions if they do not bother to do their own homework and when things turn sour.; May 17, 2010 11:32 AM
Tan Kin Lian said...: Reply to 11:32 am

Although these are "investments abroad", they are actively being marketed in Singapore through advertisements in the media.

When many people complained that they have been cheated, the authority should investigate to see if any wrong doing has been done, e.g. if they was an intent to misrepresent the product and mislead the investors.; May 17, 2010 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi,
I doubt our CAD will take any action against the land banking firms as one of them was awarded Enterprise Award 2008. If really take any action, will there be credibility issue? If the land banking firm operates financial schemes of promising 6-8%, can't the MAS take them into control?; May 17, 2010 2:36 PM
Anonymous said...: REX comments on 11.32 am

I do not see a difference with the Po Chai pills and the example we are discussing. The critcial point is, are these stuff being transacted in Singapore? In both cases YES. If they keep a close watch on $1 pochai pills, should they all the more keep a close watch on advertising schemes that suck $6 mill worth of money from citizens?

So I still think that the authorities concerned cannot transfer 100% of the blame to the investors as per the straits times reply. The authorities are paid to be watchdogs. It is possible that they heard about the UK document at a late stage too, if they had not been alert to the world situation. This is possible, Mr Lee Kuan Yew already said our people have spurs stuck in their hides, in other words, complacent lazy civil servants. LKY is right i think.

In Malaysia, according to TKL's article, their regulators nipped in the bud the problem. They don't boast about it but they are efficient and doing their job humbly.

Here our watchdog appears to be arriving at the fire after everything is burned and then after that add smoke to the fire. If the tone of the message in the straits times was a little bit more reasonable, it may have been acceptable, but after reading it i felt so sad. Just like when Mas Selamat escaped, we are scolded and we are told that "singaporeans cannot remain complacent".

This is just my personal opinion based on the information at hand.

rex; May 17, 2010 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...: hmm, like that if some company was to be setup in Singapore selling title deeds to Myanmar golden triangle poppy farms, with "guarantees" of high returns via partaking of international drug trade, then is still OK in Singapore.

Coz you are not actually carrying the drugs and crossing into Singapore, but merely buying overseas land which just happens to grow poppy plants. Just like investing in landbanking, ostrich farms, timeshare in obscure "resorts" etc.; May 17, 2010 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: To those who hold the government responsible, will you then allow the government to control and regulate what you can or cannot invest anywhere in the world?

You can't have your freedom to do anything you wish but at the same time expect the government to clean up after the mess you made.; May 17, 2010 11:40 PM
Anonymous said...: REX comments as follows on 11.40 post;

I heard this black and white argument numerous times. It is either you are wrong or I am wrong. This is the kind of thing that makes tension in society. Nobody wants to be wrong.

No one has said that the government is totally wrong in this land bank stuff. No one has said that, for the government to function, it must have 100% clamp on all investments, control all our lives. For that matter, no one should ever conculde that just because PAP takes good care of our National Wealth, an opposition will squander away 100% of it.

In life there are shades of grey and red and blue, all the wonderful colours. Never use black and white argument.

Back to the point. In the land banking scams, we cannot blame the government 100% there is no doubt that investors must do their due diligence to the extent that is possible.

My contention is that an important document is now highlighted by the authorities. The authorities is very simply and conveniently using this as the thrust of the argument to slam down on investors as in "hey, you didnt read this document. that is why you lose your money".

IT is not fair, the investors might not have seen this document, how are they supposed to read something they are not aware of? It is even worse than the minibond case, at least it comes with a Prospectus.

There are so many ways for the authorities to answer.

Blaming each other 100% is definitely wrong. IT is a lose lose situation. A black and white solution is always a lose lose situation.

rex; May 18, 2010 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Hi,
We never ask the government to clean up our mess! We merely ask the MAS to check on the Grand Max or the financial schemes offering by the land banking firms without operating financial licences. Don't you think this is the job scope of the MAS?; May 18, 2010 10:26 AM
Unknown said...: Does anyone know about ths company, Profitable Plots ? or Profitable Group ?

What's the latest about them ?
Legitimate or Fraud ?

Thanks; May 18, 2010 5:47 PM
Anonymous said...: It is not the job of MAS to do background checks on investors' behalf. MAS sets standards and regulates, it is not a customer service centre.

I hope MAS does not waste resources doing what it is not meant to do. Otherwise, other taxpayers will have to pay for additional resources to cater to the whims and fancies of negligent investors.; May 18, 2010 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi,
Like what you said, since the MAS sets and regulates, then shouldn't it be regulating the financial schemes offering by the land banking companies? What makes you think that this is not part of the job scope of the MAS?; May 19, 2010 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi,
Since this Land Wealth Centre is operating Grand Max financial scheme of promising 6-8% of returns, why no authority question whether it is a Ponzi scheme? How can a land banking company promise such high return when they are only selling land without investing in other financial products?
Most likely they are using the new proceeds from the sales of land to pay off the investors in the Grand Max? Is it legalized? Moreover both the Singapore subsidiary and the UK parent company are pointing fingers at one another for misappropriation. Can't the authority step in to investigate whether such unlawful activity indeed going on and who should be responsible?; May 20, 2010 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Rex comments as follows,

It is interesting to note the discussion above, "is it in the job scope of MAS to monitor these kind of products??".

Two readers differ in their viewpoints.

What is the answer? Well, i went to MAS website and found a thick document which defines its functions and obligations:

QUOTE. Clause 4.
4. The principal objects of the Authority shall be:

(a) to act as banker to, and financial agent of, the Government;

(b) to promote, within the context of the general economic policy of the Government, monetary stability and credit and exchange conditions conducive to the growth of the economy;

(c) to foster a sound and progressive financial services sector; and

(d) to exercise the powers and to perform the duties and functions that are transferred to the Authority under section 21.

UNQUOTE
I also checked Section "21" as mentioned in 4d above. conclusion: Nothing of interest to the subject we are discussing.

In summary, there is nothing in the Government document to say that MAS is responsible for monitoring rogue products, ponzi schemes and fake bonds eg. minibonds. So it seems that anon.6.55pm is correct, it is nothing do do with MAS. They are not bound at all to do this kind of watchdog activities.

Who then is responsible? Nobody!!

Unless we change the statutory obligations of MAS, or any specific government department, there is not a single responsble party in the government which defines a job scope covering monitoring of rogue, deviant and unscrupulous financial products. Sad, sad, sad and sad again.

rex; May 22, 2010 9:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi,
Read the following article from the Malaysia Star Papers. This only shows how comprehensive the laws our neighbouring country is having. Haha!

Published: Saturday October 25, 2008 MYT 1:30:00 PM
Updated: Saturday October 25, 2008 MYT 2:35:17 PM
Three firms offering foreign land investments raided

KUALA LUMPUR: The Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) raided three companies suspected of offering investments in illegal land investment schemes.

The raids were conducted simultaneously on the UK Land International (M) Sdn Bhd, Profitable Plots Sdn Bhd and Edgeworth Properties (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, Bernama said, quoting a SSM statement on Saturday.

The companies had allegedly contravened sections 94 and 363 of the Companies Act 1965.

In the statement, SSM said it had conducted surveillance on the companies over the past couple of months.

It said the companies offered to the public investment in plots of land in foreign countries, notably England and Canada, and used attractive marketing strategies, among others, promising extremely high rate of returns.

"Any company offering investments in interest schemes must comply with Division 5, Part IV of the Companies Act and other relevant provisions of SSM's Policy Guidlines and Requirements before they can start offering such investments to the public," added the statement.

Noncompliance of Division 5 Part IV of the Companies Act is an offence under section 94 (1) of the Companies Act and carries a penalty of imprisonment for five years or RM100,000 fine or both whilst section 363 (5) entails a penalty of 10 years imprisonment or RM250,000 fine.

The statement advised the public to verify the status of schemes by contacting SSM at 03-40476111/6222 or fax at 03-40476317 or via email to enquiry@ssm.com.my. Bernama; May 24, 2010 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Hi,
Read from the yesterday Wan Bao（晚报）that there were 12 investors went up to the company office of the Profitable Group to demand their $700,000 capital back. This land banking company seems to have a wide of financial services / products available for the invesotrs to park their money. May I know whether this land banking company has got any financial licence to market their so called financial services/products? Whether their sales staff are certified financial planners to sell financial products or give financial advices? If the MAS or the CAD still reluctant to step in, then if all these companies were discovered to be involved in financial scams, they will have to give an explanantion to the public.; May 26, 2010 8:38 AM
Unknown said...: hey,..what is the latest developments ?
how come no response from profitablr plots / group ?

Issit true that they liuiddated profitable plots, and use profitable group to run the business now ?; July 22, 2010 11:05 AM

Monday, May 17, 2010

Investing in land abroad

20 comments:

Blog Archive