Profitable Group - is it credible?

  • Have you been Scammed?
    Follow this advisory from National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) or call ScamShield Helpline 1799. More info

penelope88

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
2 articles on PP on TODAY and STRAITS TIMES

Hi

There is a full page article in the Straits Times last page (pg D16) by reporter Francis Chan.

Phew! At least now CAD has till March 9 to research before the next hearing to update the court on the status of its probe against PP.

I pray and am hopeful that the truth will be out soon :s12:!
 
Last edited:

pierrerico

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am left with 10 units BORON @ 10kUSD/unit + running interest.

There was such large advertising campaign in Singapore for such investment, Singapore supposedly safe haven for investors. Badly need this money now, and nobody to answer my requests at PG Singapore.

Anybody could advise me on what to do ?

Best
 

anatolian

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I am left with 10 units BORON @ 10kUSD/unit + running interest.

There was such large advertising campaign in Singapore for such investment, Singapore supposedly safe haven for investors. Badly need this money now, and nobody to answer my requests at PG Singapore.

Anybody could advise me on what to do ?

Best

Please understand that Singapore is not a safe haven for investors. PG received Singapore Quality Certificate from government but turned out that this award cannot guarantee that a company is clean or healthy. I myself was one of many foreign investors who got scammed thinking that the award from Singapore government meant that PG doing a proper business and had gone through strict examination to receive Singapore Quality Certificate. As for now our money has gone without trace.
 

probono

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
Two Malaysian Newspaper Articles on Profitable Group

All has a feel of closing the door after the horse has left but yet more Newspaper Articles on Profitable Group, chances of hounslow development and details on the Malysian court case.

-----------------------
http://www.thesundaily.com/article.cfm?id=56279
LONDON (Jan 12, 2011): "Buy UK Land! We did!" No prizes for guessing which celebrities uttered these words, unless of course you are not a football fan and don’t tune in to ESPN/StarSports on Astro. The answers of course are the football pundits – Bryan Robson, Steve McMahon, Jamie Reeves and our own Shebby Singh about four years ago.

All appeared in television commercials endorsing the campaign by Profitable Plots Ltd in their promotional activities.

But early this year, Robson told The Sunday Telegraph that he did a TV commercial for Profitable Plots five years ago. "I have not done anything for them since and I was unaware of any controversy over development of the land."

Shebby who has endorsed other products, in an email to theSun said: "I was a high-profile talent that featured in Profitable Plots marketing and promotions efforts in Singapore and Malaysia. I appeared in a TV commercial, also had my mug plastered all over some buses in Singapore. It was a term contract that lasted one year."

One of Profitable Plots advertisements said: "The land is only two miles from Heathrow" and that’s true.

The name of the area was changed by Profitable Plots from Lower Feltham Lakes to Concorde Village for the purposes of the marketing drive.

It sounded like the perfect business opportunity for Malaysians especially that investors could buy land so close to the world’s busiest airport for £8,000 (now RM40,000 but then about RM52,000) with the promise of a return of 250% within three years.

The company claimed in its website that the Lower Feltham Lakes site was ripe for a housing project comprising 1,000 homes and a previous entry boasted that development proposals had already been submitted.

However, Hounslow Council has confirmed that no application had been submitted.

No development can take place unless a planning inspector can be persuaded to overrule the site’s green belt status against the wishes of Hounslow Council, which opposes building there.

A council spokesman said: "We will develop green belt land only if there were very special reasons. We see no special reasons for doing so on this site."

What can investors do?

Legal action to recover their monies is an option. But yet again, there’s a question as to which company – the UK or the Malaysian – which signed the contract? The Malaysian company has a RM2 paid-up capital and seeking redress may be a lengthy and costly exercise.

Malaysians who parted with their money have little to show – except a piece of paper which states they own a plot of land, which will remain undeveloped because of the strict laws on green belts and agricultural land.

They can offer to sell it, but it is unlikely that there would be any takers. The only consolation is a boastful "I own a piece of land near Heathrow Airport!"

--------------------------------------
http://www.thesundaily.com/article.cfm?id=56280

LONDON (Jan 12, 2010): Many Malaysians have "invested" between RM100,000 and RM500,000 each in land in various parts of the United Kingdom, only to find out that they will not be able to make any returns on their investments.

Actual numbers are hazy but it is understood that with the setting up of Profitable Plots Sdn Bhd (PPSB), an agent for UK land banking schemes, there have been a number of locals who were caught unawares.

They were promised returns of between 250% and 500% after a few years but the titles to the land they are holding are not worth the paper they are written on.

Although they legally own the land, they can do little with it as the land is situated in "green belts" or undeveloped areas which are protected from any form of development or agricultural land where no development is likely to be permitted.

The authorities here have taken action against several firms promoting such schemes but have been unable to prevent them from operating in Southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei.

The UK Land Registry has warned that prospective buyers have been misled about the prospects of approval for development and this in turn "could lead them into thinking that they can sell the plots at an appreciated price when development applications are approved".

Forged Land Registry letters have been produced in some cases to suggest that there is official approval (by the Registry) but it plays no part in the planning approval process as this comes under the local authorities.

On Tuesday, the Kuala Lumpur High Court upheld Companies Commission of Malaysia’s (CCM) declaration in October 2008 that Profitable Plots Sdn Bhd (PPSB), which is involved in land investments in the United Kingdom (UK), had contravened the Companies Act.
CCM said in a statement that PPSB filed its application to the court through an originating summons on Jan 30, 2009.

"In its summons, PPSB claimed that it was in the business of facilitating the sale of UK land owned by Profitable Plots Pte Ltd – a Singaporean incorporation," the statement said.

However CCM's investigations indicated that the company not only coordinated and managed the process with buyers to ensure that they gained legal deeds on the land they bought, but also directly sold the land to these buyers which it was not authorised to do so.

Furthermore, CCM said these buyers also had to sign a 20-year-option agreement that they will not object to any planning development close to their property.

Despite the action in Malaysia and Singapore, similar schemes are still being promoted via the Internet and at private "investment briefings" and through marketing agents.

UK land registry's Westcott-Rudd advised investors to seek professional or legal advice before parting with their money
.
 

anatolian

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
This part of the whole justice system in singapore I don't understand: CAD has yet to prove that the remaining money in PP bank account doesn't belong to PP.

It should be the other way around. PP should prove that all contracts were carried out. Take for example, when you ask your broker to execute buying of some stock and your broker doesn't do that but instead spending your money for something else, does the court ask the client that the client needs to prove that the broker used the money for something else, i.e. checking whether they use it for holiday in A, B, C? No, it's the other way around, the broker should be able to show transaction tickets. If the broker cannot do that then the broker is stealing and doing a fraud.

I got a feeling that this whole process is just a formality show. It's being dragged too long, even more bizzare was the fact that PP could release their bank account. I cannot understand how PP's lawyer could convince Singapore court to do as what PP wanted. I think the only question to ask to PP can be summarized in these sentences:
- Where did all clients' money go?
- For Boron, show to court which shipping documents each contracts relate to?

The answer like "all monies just gone to our own pockets as directors salary package/bonus" and "no shipping for Boron contracts so we cannot show any proof that all contracts were executed. However, all money for PG Dubai Boron division was also gone." are definitely not acceptable and these answers show that the business was setup to defraud all customers.

I hope everyone in Singapore legal system can work more effective and work towards resolving this matter. Playing words over legal terms and trying to find loopholes are just a waste of time. We all know that PP lost customers' money without executing any contracts. Stating that the money could appear in the indefinite future time without any execution of Boron's contracts just doesn't make sense.
 

Commander Keen

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Knowing and proving are different.

PP should prove that all contracts were carried out.
However, all money for PG Dubai Boron division was also gone." are definitely not acceptable and these answers show that the business was setup to defraud all customers.

I hope everyone in Singapore legal system can work more effective and work towards resolving this matter. Playing words over legal terms and trying to find loopholes are just a waste of time. We all know that PP lost customers' money without executing any contracts. Stating that the money could appear in the indefinite future time without any execution of Boron's contracts just doesn't make sense.

I agree with you. This problem is not unique to Singapore. The problem is that everyone signed contracts that probably protect Profitable Group on points of law. The whole business was set up on clever contracts but the presentation of those contracts was completely distorted both in advertising and by the commission based sales people to encourage people to buy.

The advertising said buy back option - the actual contract wasnt any kind of real buy back option. The advert said dont worry you own the land, the actual land is worthless. The advert said you can get 250% returns in 3 years, there is no chance of any returns. The advert said 25% interest in 1 year, the contract said we dont have to pay you anything.

The area where i think the law needs to be tightened is

1: Regardless of contracts there was complete misrepresentation of the opportunity over many years - this can be proven and should be illegal.
2: The business model could never succeed. None of the Profitable group land banking sites has ever been converted or can be, and none of the Boron contracts were real. While a business can genuinely attempt and fail with poor business model it must have been obvious to all involved after a period of 12 months or so that this model could not provide long term returns to investors. Continuing to operate and take investor money over many years with the knowledge that the business model cannot work suggests fraudulent behaviour and should be illegal..
3: The company claimed expertise in the areas of lubricants and land investments. Basic enquiries to relevant authorities heve demonstrated that these investments had no possibility of success. They have clearly demonstrated they either had no expertise or they deliberately ignored the known indicators in both industries. This is either malpractise or misrepresentation and should be illegal.
 

probono

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
176 more upset investors

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/01/21/paying-rm520000-for-unprofitable-uk-land/

KOTA KINABALU: Some 176 disgruntled Sabahans who invested in a United Kingdom land banking scheme are now left with mere paper deeds to their plots of land that may be restricted from development as it is a green belt zones.

They claimed that they were misled into parting with substantial sums of money to buy up undeveloped plots of land in the UK that supposedly had “high potential of capital appreciation” of between 250% and 500% when future development occurred on or around these land plots.

They were “persuaded” into parting with RM 104,000 to RM 520,000 by Profitable Plots Sdn Bhd, a land banking company, to pick up undeveloped property lots in the UK with the view to making big profits.

It was easy for Profitable Plot to do business in Sabah because many local investors, trying to beat the high rate of inflation in Sabah, were looking for opportunities to diversify into real estate investments abroad.

Many investors, however, complained when they realised that their legally owned land were lots in either in green belt zones or green lungs or agrarian zoned lands which did not allow for redevelopment and consequently huge profits as projected by Profitable Plots.

In 2008, the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM), suspecting fraud, took Proftable Plots to court.

CCM found that the firm not only facilitated the land title procurement process but did so without authorisation.

Profitable Plots actually sold the land directly to the investors and collected deposits and sale proceeds.

Earlier this month, the Kuala Lumpur High Court upheld a ruling that Profitable Plots had indeed contravened the Companies Act.


The ruling served to bring home the risk of investing in lands overseas by local investors.

Investments subject to policies
Left with just bragging rights to a property in the UK, mechanical engineer George Ngu and his wife are consoled that the whole transaction was “at least legit” to a certain extent.

“We have checked with the British authorities. My wife’s name and mine are on the master title. It is properly registered. We have our ownership papers in our file… we paid more than RM200,000,” he said.

The Profitable Group was promoting land banking investments in the UK by establishing an independent trust called “The Strategic Land Planning Trust”. The turst was for the exclusive benefit of its plot owners.

A trust is a legal arrangement whereby a person or organisation (in this case Profitable Group) transfers something of value (money, also known as asset) to another person or group called trustees.

The person or organisation transferring the asset is called the “settlor” and it is they who have established or settled the trust.

Those who benefit from the trust are called “beneficiaries” and the beneficiaries of “The Strategic Land Planning Trust” established by the company are the plot owners.

It is the role of the trustee to manage the assets of the trust in the best possible way for the advantage of the beneficiaries.

There are a number of different types of trusts and the one in this particular situation is called a “discretionary trust”.

Here the trustees can exercise discretion on how the assets of the trust are used and allow the assets of the trust to be protected.

It is for the settlor to indicate to the trustees how they would intend for the assets they have transferred into the trust to be used.

Among the risks faced by local investors putting their money in buying plots of land overseas are changes in planning, legislation and taxation structure that will impact on their lands as owners.
 

Commander Keen

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Profitable Plots vs ESPN : SUPREME COURT

Was googling for any news related to Profitable Plots and saw this today. Anyone know what this is about ? Both companies made a lot of money from promoting UK land banking schemes although i'm sure ESPN will claim they didnt know about the tiny chances of any returns from such schemes.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE SPECIAL DATE HEARING IN THE HIGH COURT THURSDAY, 10 FEB 2011,

CASE NO. S926/2010 SUM125/2011

PLAINTIFF/S
ESPN STAR SPORTS (PREMIER LAW LLC)

DEFENDANT/S
PROFITABLE PLOTS PTE. LTD. & ORS (STERLING LAW CORPORATION)
SUBJECT MATTER
TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
 

Shiny Things

Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
9,548
Reaction score
759
Was googling for any news related to Profitable Plots and saw this today. Anyone know what this is about ? Both companies made a lot of money from promoting UK land banking schemes although i'm sure ESPN will claim they didnt know about the tiny chances of any returns from such schemes.

Without actually looking at the documents you can't be sure, but my guess would be something a lot less nefarious - I'd reckon it's just ESPN/Star trying to salvage something from Profitable's unpaid advertising bills.
 

probono

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
ESPN deserve to have this stick to them

Without actually looking at the documents you can't be sure, but my guess would be something a lot less nefarious - I'd reckon it's just ESPN/Star trying to salvage something from Profitable's unpaid advertising bills.

Will ESPN handed some of their gains back to investors ? Basically Profitable Group took investors money. They spent a tiny portion on worthless land, apparently nothing at all on lubricants, stuck most of it away somewhere where it cant be touched and spent the rest on big advertising and defamation lawyers to bury the background noise of those of us who were trying to tell the truth. Apparently neither ESPN or their lawyers ever bothered to ask if this an ethical and legitimate investment and should a reputable company like ESPN be associated with it.

On a related subject I was in Singapore at the weekend and noticed that Steve McMahon seems to be getting an expensive re-branding in the TV adverts as a slightly grumpy yet lovable chappy. It would be nice if as a director of Profitable Group he actually came out and said sorry for his part in this unpleasant mess and perhaps even handed back the money he made from promoting them.
 

lioninvestor

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Was googling for any news related to Profitable Plots and saw this today. Anyone know what this is about ? Both companies made a lot of money from promoting UK land banking schemes although i'm sure ESPN will claim they didnt know about the tiny chances of any returns from such schemes.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE SPECIAL DATE HEARING IN THE HIGH COURT THURSDAY, 10 FEB 2011,

CASE NO. S926/2010 SUM125/2011

PLAINTIFF/S
ESPN STAR SPORTS (PREMIER LAW LLC)

DEFENDANT/S
PROFITABLE PLOTS PTE. LTD. & ORS (STERLING LAW CORPORATION)
SUBJECT MATTER
TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

The pdf is not there anymore. Anyone downloaded it?
 

MagnumWalls

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
There is only $50K plus left in the accounts. After the lawyer fees and all,
probably nothing left.

Guess the best outcome will be for the courts to jail the directors and at least
there is some closure for the victims.
 

tekster

High Supremacy Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
35,989
Reaction score
12
Anyone know of the ostrich egg scam case back in tne 90s?

Heard that pp sg is not under the pp uk. They just bought the right to use their name.
 

Commander Keen

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Same directors - same product

Heard that pp sg is not under the pp uk. They just bought the right to use their name.

Not under it. Profitable Plots in the UK was shut down. 3 of directors were / are the same (Does Profitable Group still exist ?).

This from UK Guardian 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/12/mike-ashley-newcastle-united-singapore-profitable

But could Profitable Group by any chance be a new incarnation of The Profitable Plot Company that was the subject of a 2007 application for compulsory winding-up by the then secretary of state for trade and industry, only voluntarily to appoint a liquidator six months later? The very same! Tim Goldring, Nigel Blanchard and Neil Osborn were directors of that firm and all are now listed on the Singapore firm's website. There is one new face, though: the group commercial director and former Liverpool captain, Steve McMahon. It's a funny old game


However the company traces back to the 1990's apparently . (post at the bottom of this thread)

http://boards.fool.co.uk/green-planet-investment-ltd-11972100.aspx?sort=whole#11972100

I was taken in by a landbanking company by the name of "Profitable Plots", They were a (then) UK company with offices in Leicester. Lots of people at desks etc etc and they were as they called it a cash rich, no credit, no loans or mortgages company. Glossy posters, brochures and website.
I was fortunate and got all my money back before they changed their name and went to Singapore.


And this from 2005
http://mrem.bernama.com/viewsm.php?idm=7027

Commenting on the appointment, Managing Director Tim Goldring said "We are continually receiving enquires from Independent Financial Advisors who want to know how best they may introduce our products to their clients, especially with the advent of new pension legislation in April 2006.


Hope nobody put their pension in this
 

probono

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
I fell off my chair laughing - Land Banking Company wins honesty award

I notice a local Singapore company offering UK Land Banking plots has won an awared for honesty in Malaysia in 2010. I wonder if the organisers of these activities ever bother to check out the companies they give the awards to ? Or do they just take the money to arrange the events.

Also for a look at the money that can be earned from Land Banking and the lies told please see this article from Wendy Kwek - Land Banking is it a scam.
 
Last edited:

FreDeRicK

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
5,175
Reaction score
1

"SINGAPORE: The Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) is at an "advanced stage of investigation" into 229 complaints made against Profitable Plots Pte Limited (PPPL), a District Court heard Wednesday morning.

The complaints were from investors alleging that the company had cheated them into investing various sums of monies, totalling about S$23.5 million, in various schemes promoted by Profitable Plots."

"Investigations began last August, with the Public Prosecutor seeking to freeze about S$55,548 seized by CAD for a further six months, Wednesday morning."

"But Profitable Plots' lawyer, Mr Wendell Wong, argued for the immediate release of the money held by the white-collar police, adding that the company's directors have found it increasingly impossible to conduct its daily affairs."


Only $55k and their directors have found it increasingly impossible to conduct its daily affairs? How about the S$23.5 million? Obviously something wrong here. I smell a rat. Scam.
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top