A scam which traded on the greed of the gullible has been closed down by the the Financial Services Authority (FSA) after nearly £4 million was ‘invested’ by people seeking returns promised to be between 200-300 per cent.
The ostensible investments were small plots of land that it was claimed would be sold at tremendous profits. Normally these were presented as being potential ‘ransom strips’, areas of land which would have to be acquired for large property developments to go ahead.
These were never likely to achieve the values claimed. Indeed, one site being marketed is in a designated area of outstanding natural beauty, making planning permission for development a near impossibility.
After making a series of injunctions against so-called ‘landbank’ companies, the FSA has started to issue winding-up proceedings against them
However, because the businesses were unauthorised investment schemes, investors are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and are unlikely to get their money back. An FSA spokesman commented that ‘by the time we can catch up with the operators, most of the money has disappeared and investors are left with land that has a value which simply does not reflect the money paid for it’.
If an investment opportunity seems too good to be true, it is normally because it is not true.
A scam which traded on the greed of the gullible has been closed down by the the Financial Services Authority (FSA) after nearly £4 million was ‘invested’ by people seeking returns promised to be between 200-300 per cent.
The ostensible investments were small plots of land that it was claimed would be sold at tremendous profits. Normally these were presented as being potential ‘ransom strips’, areas of land which would have to be acquired for large property developments to go ahead.
These were never likely to achieve the values claimed. Indeed, one site being marketed is in a designated area of outstanding natural beauty, making planning permission for development a near impossibility.
After making a series of injunctions against so-called ‘landbank’ companies, the FSA has started to issue winding-up proceedings
against them
However, because the businesses were unauthorised investment schemes, investors are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and are unlikely to get their money back. An FSA spokesman commented that ‘by the time we can catch up with the operators, most of the money has disappeared and investors are left with land that has a value which simply does not reflect the money paid for it’.
If an investment opportunity seems too good to be true, it is normally because it is not true.
There are several possible instances – such as absence abroad – when land is to be sold and an attorney has to be appointed to undertake the transaction in the place of the beneficial owners.
Following a Supreme Court ruling, moves are afoot to change the guidelines operated by the police for the retention of fingerprints and DNA samples.
The potential for reducing Inheritance Tax (IHT) bills by placing ‘soft’ valuations on assets is all too clear and has led HM Revenue and Customs to undertaking almost 10,000 investigations into IHT returns in 2010. This represents an ‘investigation rate’ of approximately 1 per 50 deaths. However, since more than 95 per cent of estates are not subject to IHT (either because they are within the nil rate band or the estate passes to a spouse or civil partner), the likelihood of a valuation being challenged where IHT is, or could be, at stake is considerable.
One of the often forgotten issues in retirement planning is the possibility of having to fund long-term care at some future time. Such care is means-tested and most care home residents of means will pay in full for their care. With an ageing population and severe pressure on government finances, this situation is only likely to get worse.