HWZ Forums

Login Register FAQ Mark Forums Read

Profitable Group - is it credible?

Like Tree21Likes
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 30-08-2012, 05:00 PM   #691
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 146
I would be interested to know how Rachel Teo, senior public servant and PP investor has to say about this.
arty79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 09:02 PM   #692
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 136
Changes to UK planning law = more PP spin

Remember Profitable Plots ? The company that told you the London Olympics was going to make you rich ? Or the UK housing shortage ? Or 3 years ? This is what Profitable Plots are reporting now on their website:-

The UK Government is proposing to change “ludicrous” planning laws to make it more difficult to object to developments and encourage councils to allow building on greenbelt land.

Yes there are proposed changes . The UK house building industry has stopped. These proposals are to allow changes to individual properties to be processed more quickly to add extensions and make small changes to properties. The intention is to try and kick start the building industry. Under the proposals councils will be allowed to use some green belt for building provided they find green belt to replace it.

So imagine a scenario where a UK council has a choice of
A: Enabling building on expensive greenbelt land cut into tiny plots and owned by a disparate group of Asians
B: Developing a single piece of Greenbelt land owned by a local UK developer.

You can read the point of view from both sides here.

Left wing newspaper
David Cameron to unveil year-long relaxation of planning laws | Politics | The Guardian

Will David Cameron's planning reforms create jobs and growth? | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Right wing politics newspaper
Lift the threat to our precious green belt | Mail Online

My opinion. These changes are meaningless to Profitable Plots investors.
probono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2012, 03:48 PM   #693
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 60
Profitable Plots Nafferton 1 of 1600

If you read the Profitable Plots website you may be under the impression that things at the PP Nafferton green belt site are going to be progessing in December.

I got this statement from the UK local authority on the Profitable Plots Nafferton site.

The Profitable Plots site in Nafferton is one of approximately 1,600 sites that have been submitted to the Council for consideration for future housing allocations in the emerging East Riding Local Plan. At this stage we are assessing the suitability of all of the proposed sites. We aim to report this in a draft of our Local Plan. The Local Plan will show which sites the Council believes are suitable for development , and which sites are not suitable for development. This will be presented to the Council's Cabinet in December 2012.

As we are still assessing the sites and have yet to report to Cabinet it is not possible at this stage to issue a public statement for any site. When the draft Plan is published for consultation in December it will provide a clearer steer as to which sites the Council considers are suitable for development.

Last edited by Commander Keen; 19-09-2012 at 03:50 PM..
Commander Keen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-09-2012, 03:48 AM   #694
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 73
I actually read from page 1 to 47.

I hope the ang mohs don't go scot free.. and good luck to all who are waiting for a verdict.
LiquidMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2012, 02:07 PM   #695
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 136
Profitable Plots get access to documents

TODAYonline | Singapore | Profitable Plots directors granted access to documents

Now they get back the documents they can know the name of the people who made a complaint against them and have a "special payment" back to those people to get them to drop charge.

This was the deal they had with the UK authorities to avoid action against the directors when Profitable Plots was closed down in the UK in 2007.

Pay back anyone who wants out and dont sell the products in the UK again. So they transferred to Asia and used some money from Asia to pay back people in the UK who requested refund. Some other people were persuaded to transfer from Colchester and Nafferton into Concorde Village. Perhaps Profitable can now use money from the Philippines to pay back people in Singapore and then use money from Canada to pay back complainers in Philippines.

Eventually will go all the way round the world and back to UK.

Or maybe they will move into Plantation investments and Carbon Credits like Jardin Smith staff.
JUSTHARRY likes this.
probono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2012, 08:42 AM   #696
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3
Plot acquisition

I have been contacted by a HK firm last night to acquire a plot I bought from Profitable Plot. The guy (caller) says they wish to buy over at a fair price, and will email me in the next 24 hr. Has anyone else been contacted too?
hockus79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-11-2012, 03:53 PM   #697
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3
The firm is Cohen & Goldstein which has a branch in New York and one in HongKong. The guy contacted me is Howard Goldstein in HK. The amount offered per plot is reasonably high, depending on location. He provided the contract and just pending my signature to proceed with the land purchase. He also mentioned that an american firm wishes to develop one of the plot, and the others plot would be purchased as an investment by the firm. There is a budget given by the firm hence the proposed price. Is this legal firm legitimate?
hockus79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-11-2012, 11:56 PM   #698
Supremacy Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,076
The firm is Cohen & Goldstein which has a branch in New York and one in HongKong. The guy contacted me is Howard Goldstein in HK. The amount offered per plot is reasonably high, depending on location. He provided the contract and just pending my signature to proceed with the land purchase. He also mentioned that an american firm wishes to develop one of the plot, and the others plot would be purchased as an investment by the firm. There is a budget given by the firm hence the proposed price. Is this legal firm legitimate?
Something smells of fish here.

First and foremost, I can't find that law firm on Google - there is a Cohen & Goldstein in NY, but:
* They don't have a HK office - so they're probably not licensed to practice in HK;
* Their website says they specialise in matrimonial law;

I've got a dollar says this guy's going to ask you for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars in "transfer fees".
JUSTHARRY likes this.
Shiny Things is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2012, 07:59 AM   #699
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3
I have checked thoroughly. Cohen has two websites. One is fake and the other is real. The fake one shows that they have two branches: NY & HK. He also requested for couple hundreds USD to be transferred to his a/c to process the transfers. It's a scam. To all others, if you receive a well-mannered speaking guy called Howard, please do not entertain him.
probono likes this.
hockus79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2012, 04:19 PM   #700
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 136
Follow up scam = Advanced Fee Fraud.

This is a secondary advanced fee fraud . You are on what is called a suckers list in the trade.

You have a problem and sense of injustice created by an investment in worthless investment products. Someone magically turns up with the answer which is a scheme to solve the problem. All you have to do is pay a small upfront fee for the recovery service. You will then find out you've thrown good money after bad.

There is and has never been any development approved or planned for any Profitable Plots UK site. The Philippines site is a mystery to everyone but given the companies track record I wouldn't expect anything from that either.
JUSTHARRY likes this.
probono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2012, 05:28 PM   #701
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1
Inspiro Explorer

Hi, I've received a call from someone called Ivan from IE saying his Co is buying over land titles bought from PP.

Anyone met up with them? Are they genuine or another scam?

WHdPHr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 05:09 PM   #702
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 136
9% of UK developed not 18% !

Happy New Year.

Profitable Plots are using this UK news program to promote UK Land Banking


Key facts from the program
  • 9% of UK is developed land
  • Agricultural land without planning permission is worth 10K pounds per acre. (Profitable plots investors paid 600K per acre for their plots)
  • Developers should be allowed to buy some cheap land and build on it. (Land banking land is not cheap because the investors paid 600K per acre and want a return)
  • There is more derelict land in Britain than ever before

So remember all those claims about the UK running out of building land, the Olympics, Heathrow Airport, the high price of land without planning permission.

Can you say bullsh*t on hardware zone ?
probono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013, 12:17 PM   #703
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 136
UK Secretary of State for Planning replies on Profitable Plots question

Thank you for your letter of 3 February to Nick Boles MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Planning, about the effect which recent planning announcements have inadvertently had on efforts overseas to combat rural plot-sale scams. I have been asked to reply.

The practice of selling small plots of agricultural land over the internet as an ‘investment’ or future house site has long been a cause for concern. The misleading impression that planning consent for a house in open countryside is likely at some point in future is generally conveyed only by implication. The advertiser may, for instance, present a plausible ‘artist’s impression’ of a field full of houses, along an imaginary access road. The buyer’s lack of awareness of how planning works may lead to an incautious purchase, often without means of redress. Targeted purchasers may live overseas or have little English, and it may be years before a plot owner starts to worry that his or her ‘investment’ was nothing of the kind. The unusable land may be long neglected and suffer fly-tipping which the owner is liable for cleaning up.

However, it is wrong to blame Ministers for making statements about the future of planning and the need for housing which, ineptly reported, may have seemed to lend support to such plot-sales. Mr Boles has repeatedly made clear that the planning system will remain Plan-led. If at all possible, it is essential to try to make prospective land purchasers aware that planning proposals must be determined in accordance with the relevant Local Plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Where it is proposed to build a house on land currently in agricultural use, planning permission for change of use of land will also be necessary. It will generally be clear from the Local Plan if there is any reasonable prospect of developing such land in the foreseeable future.

The Government has set out its policies for planning in the National Planning Policy Framework. The Framework clearly requires local planning authorities to recognise the character and beauty of the countryside, to have regard to all the benefits of retaining the best agricultural land, and to encourage re-use of brownfield land if not of great environmental value. The Framework also requires planners to protect Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other land with protective designations. Green Belts, for instance, are created by local planning authorities in order permanently to prevent urban sprawl and encroachment onto the countryside, and to retain the openness of countryside round a settlement. The Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development is not a policy that overrides environmental protections or Green Belt policy. Moreover, planning authorities will generally refuse permission for a new isolated dwelling in the country unless it meets the criteria in paragraph 55 of the Framework.

Although it has no official standing, we sometimes direct enquirers to the site, PropertySCAM - Fighting the blight of UK land scams since 2004 , which gives a useful indication of problems others have experienced, and investigations undertaken.

Ministers have always emphasised that we have never proposed the concreting over of the countryside, that we do not want to see more greenfield land developed than is absolutely necessary, and that it is not central government which says where houses should be built. Decisions about where to encourage development, how much, and what type, are for each local authority to take in conjunction with the local community. The Framework is at


Yours sincerely,

probono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2013, 07:15 PM   #704
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 60
Profitable Plots Court Case has started

Trial of alleged conspirators of Boron Scheme starts - Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE: The trial of three people who designed a complex investment scheme, known as the Boron Scheme to raise cash flow for their failing business, began on Monday.

Timothy Nicholas Goldring, as well as married couple Geraldine Anthony Thomas and John Andrew Nordmann came up with the scheme.....(more on website)

Also see

Straits Times : Profitable Plots' directors driven by greed: Prosecution

Business Times: Three directors hatched investment scam: DPP
Commander Keen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 01:16 AM   #705
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 136
SCI Canada Concorde Village / Colchester Land Plots - decision reached

OSC | OSC Proceedings - Before the Commission

You may be interested to read this decision if you are profitable plots land investor in the UK. It explains the relationship between SCI and Profitable Plots. It explains the plots of land purchased in Canada are now with a separate company. It reviews whether the 12 month buy back scheme were investment products or not and the test they apply is:-

[46] The Supreme Court of Canada set out four elements that have to be met in order for an arrangement to be an "investment contract". The four elements are:

(a) an investment of money;
(b) with an intention or an expectation of profit;
(c) in a common enterprise in which the fortunes of the investor are interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those seeking the investment or of third parties; and
(d) whether the efforts made by those other than the investor are the undeniably significant ones, those essential managerial efforts which affect the failure or success of the enterprise.

[47] The Court conflated the third and fourth parts of the test and indicated that the test of common enterprise is met:

... when it is undertaken for the benefit of the supplier of capital (the investor) and of those who solicit the capital (the promoter). In this relationship, the investor's role is limited to the advancement of money, the managerial control over the success of the enterprise being that of the promoter; therein lies the community.

[48] The Court also indicated that one had to look at the economic realities of the transaction rather than the caveat emptor principle.
As i read it they have determined that these were investment products and therefore in Canada at least they were in breach of securities regulations.

Last edited by probono; 03-07-2013 at 01:19 AM..
probono is offline   Reply With Quote
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 Terms of Service for more information.

Thread Tools

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On