Antonio Flores’ Blog

Acting on behalf of over 160 claimants (of a total of 290), Lawbird, in conjunction with the Prosecutor and other accusing lawyers, has secured prison sentences for 10 individuals acussed of masterminding the largest timeshare resale scam ever to hit the Costa del Sol. A further 8 are on the run and a ninth passed away.

The agreement was almost inevitable given the particulars of a complex case that, lasting more than 10 years, would have been downplayed due to the mitigating effect of the abnormal judicial delay in administering justice. In the end, all of the accused individuals have agreed to prison sentences that, due to an pre-agreed reduction (under 2 years) , will not see them spend time as an Alhaurin prison immate for illicit association and swindle by theft.

W. Prinsloo, a man of frail appearance deemed the gang´s ideological beacon, was absent due to having died some years earlier. He had also been accused possessing an unlicensed gun, a .22 rimfire pistol, that would have made him not eligible for a suspended sentence. Being familiar with handguns as a licensed owner (I too have a .22, and a 9 mm., plus a .357), we have better places to store them rather than, well, in his “office” desk drawer, as Prinsloo did…

The ruling also obliges the convicted conmen to repay over half a million Euros, as civil liability compensation, within a period of 2 years.

And what about Argentinian conman Fabian Marcelo Ramirez, a man who is still cold-calling hundreds in spite of having being arrested 4 times? I do hope that he now sees that his moment is coming.

Documents

• 2011-05 – Timeshare Resale Scam Case Sentence (PDF – 2 Mbytes)

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property, Scams courts, malaga, muldoon, prinsloo, Ramirez and Ramirez Asesores, scam, timeshare

It has left us all wondering how come a ruling clearly favouring men has not been used, as a political weapon, by the sectarian feminist brigade and in fact, has gone almost unnoticed. The reason? Because the deciding magistrate was a woman.

I am talking about the latest Supreme Court decision that rules that divorcees will both pay the mortgage on the existing home in proportion to their share of ownership. So, whereas before the mortgage was deemed to be part of the monthly payment the better off divorcee (or separated spouse) had to pay the worst off, thereby being shared in accordance to their earnings (the appealing ex-husband was paying 80 per cent), it is now considered to be a debt generated by the spousal financial agreement, signed prior to marriage, and thus shared equally.

Most opinions I’ve listened to coincide in one thing: this new trend will help ease off the strain recent case law has created in couples in respect to the perceived advantages women got when divorcing, in a seemingly endless gender struggle. This subject, always susceptible to being interpreted by male extremists as  the price to pay for living in a country famed for domestic abuse/violence (one would be surprised though to know what statistics published in other countries say) will no doubt be debated thoroughly in the months to come, if new similar rulings see the light, in particular one seen as the “war of sexes time bomb”: the shared children custody.

Antonio Flores Family Law, Litigation custody, maintanance child, matrimonial, mortgage, separation, Spanish divorce

Convicted conman John Doust was right in one thing, when reflecting on the reasons why he had become exposed as one of the longest-serving crooks around: “internet is a terrible thing”. It definetely proved awful to him, to the point that even a  relative of his found out about his latest scam via the cyberspace!

For Nykredit and Sydbank, Internet can administer the coup de grace for equity release contracts, signed with otherwise happy British unencumbered property owners, that invariably failed to achieve what was intended from them, leaving the supposedly happy beneficiaries in dire financial ruin.

It is not known how many people actually signed with them but what is clear is that Nykredit and Sydbank, in the process of recruiting their clients and getting them to sign up for their losing financial product, broke every existing law, regulation, norm, code of conduct, you name it. So since my previous post was boring enough with all the laws that these guys infringed, I will just outline 2 decisive aspects of their actions that would define their activities:

• They arrived in Spain through the back door: if the first stop for any entity or person who wishes to legally and properly advise on financial products or services in Spain is the CNMV (Spanish regulator), then the duet Nykredit/Sydbank must have swam in from Mediterranean to reach the Costa del Sol, or perhaps used the vehicle of the photo. If you go to the CNMV website you will not find trace of any of the two Danish banks…

• They arrived in Spain through the back door and actually knew they were doing so. You see, the WayBackMachine.org site tells us that back in 2007, Nykredit was selling equity release in Spain but were aware that they could not do so, and to warn people they actually posted a warning on their website that read:

“Please note that due to legal barriers, we currently only offer mortgage loans in France and Spain to Scandinavian retail customers.”

Because once you get into the habit of breaking the laws and other inconvenient regulations implemented by a different country , you end up doing the same with self-imposed prohibitions like the one above. Nykredit and Sydbank were just never allowed/authorised/cleared/legally entitled offer or sell equity release programmes to anyone in Spain, whether Scandis or not.

Shortly after realizing  how wrong they were, they removed the equity release page…

And my clients, all over 60, British, and retired, have had to rent their property, start working (a lady in particular is now cleaning other people’s homes) and suffer untold levels of stress since having the misfortune of crossing paths with the chap on the picture…

Antonio Flores Litigation, Mortgages, Property, Scams equi, equity release, Nykredit, Sydbank

The clients thought they’d be soon grinning from ear to ear once their application was approved, but the lenders knew that this ability to grin could be quickly challenged by grimace…

The equity release fiasco threatens to not only leave hundreds of deceived investors destitute, but also physically eliminate a few after enduring years of unbearable stress when faced with a prospect of financial ruin when retirement has been reached.

“I should have known better” is the statement I come across the most, and I fully agree but let me qualify this statement to add that yes, but when are told the truth and not lied to in such a vile manner as the Rothschild, Danske Bank, Sydbank/Nykredit, Landsbanki, Jyske etc., assisted by their cronies, did to pensioners, mostly from the United Kingdom. Interestingly, all these banks were paying commissions to unregistered and unregulated pseudo-financial professionals to bring in the punters on to the dock…

But enough of this now, let’s get with the positive side, because recent Supreme Court case law in Spain seems can make these contracts not worth the paper they are written on, and consequently, courts of first instance are now ruling in favour of consumers of financial products that were not only ill-advised, but also, ill-chosen, given that these products could have never been suitable for them due to their profile.

The case in particular refers to, again, hundreds of investors who signed what they thought were safe deposit contracts, and ended up losing almost all the capital. It was won by the creditors in the first instance, appealed by Caja Rural but thrown out and finally went to the Supreme Court, who could not be more in agreement with their subordinate peers. The latter ruling consists of 45 pages that I will try to condense, as it mainly refers to a number of legal arguments of difficult rebuttal. The excerpt below can accurately summarize, in a nutshell, what happened:

This product was sold and contracted in an indiscriminate manner by the branch offices of Caja Rural in the Valencia area, by the branch manager directly and without explaining the client the particulars of the product, inasmuch as it was not a typical fixed deposit but something different where they could lose part or all of the capital, especially considering that they were pensioners, agriculture-based workers, builders, etc. with a conservative mentality, averse to assuming risks and that had never invested in sophisticated financial products. Also, most of the customers would have not read the contracts as they would trust what was told to them, aloof of any damaging potential consequence but also, unable to discern the risk associated with this investment as the contract was not possible to understand unless they were financial-savvy.

The Supreme Court articulates the ruling on the basis of parameters that were breached by the bank:

1. Parameters based on financial services’ applicable legislation, which is deemed to have been breached.
2. Parameters based on civil and consumer protection laws, in particular, in respect of lack of consent of the client due to error, impregnated with negligence, during the formation of the contract, and breaches of consumer protections legislation referring to clarity, transparency and simplicity of contracts.

Although not part of this court ruling nor mentioned in it, and to get it out of the way, I confirm that all references are made to applicable Spanish law, and not Luxembourg, Swiss, Icelandic or any other convenience laws, as these banks were pretending to, according to article 90 of the Consumer Protection and other Complementary Laws Act 1/2007, which stipulates that any of the following will be deemed null and void:

1. Submission to Courts or Judges different to that of the address of the consumer, the place where the obligation is to be carried out or where the property is located.
2. Submission of the contract to a foreign law in relation to where the consumer undertakes to contract or where the business carries out its activity directed to promoting contracts of equal or similar nature.

The applicable law objection is easily dumped by on wayside, but requires explanation to avoid it being used to interfere in the more important nullity of the whole contract. By the way, all the above banks are susceptible of being fined for inserting clauses declared abusive, and consequently, null and void.

Theory of the “Customer Profile” or “Client Profile”

Considering that most of these contracts were signed prior to the 21st of November 2007, when the Mifid Directive was introduced in Spain, the Courts were guided by the Ley del Mercado de Valores y Código General de Conducta de los Mercados de Valores, which is the Stock Exchange Act and General Code of Conduct of the Financial Markets, in respect of the information to be supplied to consumers, and Royal Decree 629/1993 in respect to norms of conduct in the financial markets and obligatory registries.

The above legislation has developed what is known as the theory of the customer, or client profile. Article 79 of the Stock Exchange Act stipulated, prior to further amendments (this article was amended 3 times), among other points, that credit entities that act in the financial markets will have to observe the following principles and requirements:

1. Behave diligently and transparency in the interest of their clients and in the defense of the integrity of the market.
2. Develop an ordered and prudent administration, looking after the interests of the clients as it they were their own
3. Ensure that the clients had all the required information.

Act 47/2007 introduced article 78, differentiating between a “retail” client, as opposed to a “professional” client:

[..] including other banks or financial entities, or those of whom experience, knowledge or qualifications in the financial markets is presumed, to the extent of being able to undertake to make their own decisions over financial products and value their risks correctly. Business people will be deemed professional clients provided they have assets of at least 20m euros, of their annual return is over 40m (hardly a pensioner). Any client may request that he is considered a professional client, but the acceptance of this application will be made subject to the company assessment over the experience and knowledge of the client in relation to the operations or services he requests, ensuring that he is able to make his own decisions and can value the risks correctly.

When carrying out the assessment as above, the financial service provider will have to ensure that at least 2 of the following are met:

1. That the client has transacted a significant volume of operations in the financial markets, with a frequency (average) or at least 10 per quarter during the last 4 quarters.
2. That the sums invested exceed €500,000
3. That the client has held a professional job, for at least 1 year, in the financial sector that would require knowledge of the operations or services granted.

Any other client that does not come under the above will be deemed a retail client.

Realistically, how the hell were the “equity release” providers meant to have applied the above complex legislation if the agents used by them were not qualified in the European Union to provide this advice, were not regulated in Spain to provide this advice, and had little, or not knowledge, of Spanish language, without mentioning that, as a result of these grave, could have never understood the extent of these protection laws?

Furthermore, Annex to Royal Decree 629/1993 stipulates that all operators in the financial services markets must act, when exercising their activities, with impartiality and without placing their interest before those of their clients. Article 4 and 5 of this annex are particularly important, when construing the doctrine or theory of the investor profile:

Article 4:

The entities will request from their clients the necessary information for its correct identification, as well as information on its financial situation, financial experience, investment experience and objectives of the investment when the latter is relevant for the services that are to be provided.

Article 5:

1. The entities will offer and provide to their clients any information they have that may be relevant to adopting investment decisions, and will dedicate time and attention to ensure that the best product or service is obtained, in relation to the objectives pursued.
2. The entities shall have available any information systems updated so that the relevant information is provided correctly.
3. The information provided to the clients must be clear, correct, precise, sufficient and delivered on time to avoid an incorrect interpretation, stressing the risks undertaken on each operation, in particular high risk financial products, so that the client is in knowledge of the precise effects the operation entails. Any prediction must be correctly justified and expanded with the necessary explanations to avoid misunderstandings.

And so we reach article 7, that clearly stipulates a prohibition openly flaunted, still today, by entities, in particular Rothschild:

1. Entities will refuse any operation from non-authorized intermediaries, as well as those in which they have knowledge that the relevant legislation applicable to the former may be infringed.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property, Scams Caja Rural, Danske Bank, equity release, Jyske Bank, Landsbanki, Rothschild, Sydbank/Nykredit

I make no disguise that, professionally, I am closely connected to property, therefore this post, to many, will have limited significance due to obvious bias. If I was however to collate my experiences over the years, good and bad, when dealing in real estate in Spain, and I compare them with how transactions are conducted these days, I would necessarily conclude that it is now safer than ever to invest in property in Spain.

The crisis has operated like an unstoppable tsunami that has swept right across the property market, sucking in its wake dodgy agents, opportunistic developers, corrupt town hall officials, crooked mortgage brokers (like the one that conned Banesto out of a few millions) and a handful of funny lawyers. And with them, a myriad of very questionable anti-property purchaser practices that had dangerously became close to standard, in spite of almost everyone living, directly or indirectly, on these bona fide consumers or investors. It may be convenient to enumerate these unethical antics, by trades, to keep things in perspective.

We must remember that:

1. Never again should anyone pay any monies to a developer unless a bank guarantee or an insurance policy is available…, obvious isn’t it? More the point is that, realistically, insurance companies will never touch advance off-plan property payments and banks are likely to request unthinkable amounts of collateral. The immediate consequence of this is that only the very cash-strong will be able to develop and this is just good news.
2. Never again should anyone pay monies to a developer who:
   
   1. Does not own the land (Citrus Europe Ltd.)
   2. Does not have a building license (Aifos)
   3. Cannot give bank guarantees (not enough space in this post to name them),
   4. Uses the deposits for a Murcia development to run a complex in Venezuela (Proyectos Antele S.L.)
   5. Uses a bent-as-hell agent as a deposit-collector who then ends up keeping them (Grupo Mirador and Palmera Properties/Gotardo)
   6. Runs away with the portion of the purchase price, earmarked for cancelling the loan on your property, to Germany (Abacon Delta S.L.)
   7. Sells a half built complex to a third party and does not refund (Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. and Ready2Invest )
   8. Takes 60 deposits for an Almeria development to a UK company and then dissolves it (again, Citrus Europe Ltd.)
   9. Or all of those together plus sets up a Ponzi scheme, is known to have never built one property in his entire life in spite of claiming, at a fastouos ceremony, to have erected no less than 6,000 in the Costal del Sol, even persuading gullible Prince Albert to believe such bullshit!  (Sun Golf Desarrollo Inmobiliario S.A. or Mr. Ricardo Miranda Miret).
3. Never again will developers bully buyers as they were used to doing, as for example La Reserva de Marbella S.A. were experts at. I always wondered why was it that when you bought an apartment for €200,000 you were almost expecting to be treated like s**t, but if you went for a meal you were the king if you tipped handsomely…
4. Never again will developers make you sign a private purchase contract for 70% of its real price, the balance of 30% to be paid to a Switzerland account, in advance, undocumented and, of course, never to be reflected on the private purchase sale deeds…(any ideas?? )
5. Very unlikely (never say never) will a Socialist/Communist Government, regional or otherwise, allow licenses to be granted on thousands of properties only to later, due to political opportunism and a spate of much publicized corrupt Town Hall officials arrests (which I agree with but without the cameras), instigate the revocation of almost all of these licenses, promote demolitions, warn of impending heavy fines on everyone, including the bona fide owners and, in sum, scare the hell out of thousands of those owners plus an undetermined number of potential investors in Spain.

With all we know now in respect of the degrees of criminality so many property developers ran into, an off-plan property industry that is almost non-existent (good old Taylor-Wimpey seems the only one around) and the property-associated corruption almost disappearing, the very few developers that are still around will no doubt jump through hoops to ensure that only la creme de la creme will be sold, at the right price of course!

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property, Scams Abacon Delta S.L., Aifos, Citrus Europe Ltd, Citrus Playa Macenas S.L., Grupo Mirador, Jesus Gotardo, La Reserva de Marbella S.A., Palmera Properties, Proyectos Antele S.L., Ready2Invest, Ricardo Miranda Miret, Sungolf Desarrollo Inmobiliario S.A, Taylor-Wimpey

If I was unsure as to whether I did the right thing by accepting to post the filming of this trial, I suppose I have definetely waived goodbye to Morroco for good once this footage is published. Or perhaps not, because as, after all, any spy worth his salt would expect the order of the boot if he came back to their bosses with this material, largely irrelevant for most, but interesting for the approximately 80 Irish investors  that have lost their deposits to Asilah Invest and Simple Property Solutions, or Joseph Znaty Mirmaran and Karl Morris. Mind you, the story is familiar, both denying having the funds…

But for all our preconceptions, not unfounded should I add (Morocco is ranked in the position 89 of Coruption perception Index 2009) , the Morocann legal system has worked wonders for my Spanish friend and his brother. When Manolo and his brother decided to invest €100,000 at Asilah Marina Golf (located in a typical fishing atlantic village), through a Marbella-based real estate agent, he placed his trust in the bona fide nature of the individuals involved. As has happened so many times though, the developer turned out to be rogue, the agent washed his hand of the project and an acting lawyer was not to be found (quite simply, they never hired one).

So when Manolo found out that the developer had been remanded in custody at the Tangiers prison for fraud, he and his brother decided to take the plunge and pursue the chap through the city courts, in spite of the common perception of these being corrupt, opaque, inefficient and always prone to interference from the King, should his interests be at stake.

And the plunge worked because, three months after they pressed charges for swindle and missapropriation against the developer at a Police Station, the Criminal Court in Tangier summoned both parties for a “conciliatory attempt”, urging them to reach an agreement. Already jailed in the Satfilage Prison, the prospect of serving further time in this horrendous penitentiary where, according to two Spanish former inmates rats resemble warthogs and cockroaches are likened to caimans (some cells enjoy the services of a cat, but he too has to attend the call of nature so it, naturally,gets worse ), worked  in favour of Manolo and his brother as a tangible agreement was reached. The prison-freeing settlement consisted in registering a charge against a plot of land in the Malaga province (Alcaucin), as a guarantee for an undertaking of repayment of the deposits within 24 months. Well, better than sex we thought, all things considered!

Would this have happened in Spain? No chance. If you were lucky enough, you would suing the developer, at the criminal courts, for missapropriation, hoping that he would come forward with a proposal to settle the debt (probably with another property considering that money would be gone), if he felt that the legal tide could turn against him by application of current case law (that ultimately could see him interned, after 5-6 years). If you were unlucky, you would be stuck with a civil claim against the developer alongside hundreds of creditors, within an insolvency procedure (i.e. Aifos), for years, and if you were terribly unlucky, you would also be cold-called by some Fuengirola-based legal services boiler/recovery room (e.g.. Ramirez and Ramirez, Legal Property Solutions, Bratley and Sharp etc.) by whom you would be ripped off again.

Documents

• Asilah Case Documents

Antonio Flores Litigation Simple Property Solutions

The SunGolf and Ocean View Property scandal has now hit the headlines, just where it should have been long time ago. But whether this is portrayed as a struggle between two powerful property developing lobbies fighting to control the Dominican turf (Ricardo Miranda on the one side and Sanchez & Lietor on the other), as some wish to put it, the reality is that still over 120 British and Irish property investors are out of pocket through no fault of their own, and no one takes one bit of responsibility.

Mr. Miranda accuses me of perverting the truth in pursuit of media relevance and yet, he does not address the questions raised many times over.

Mr. Miranda accuses me of perverting the truth in pursuit of media relevance and yet, he does not address the questions raised many times over.

It is my understanding that both the President of the Dominican Republic and Monaco Prince Albert, lending their presence to endorse a ghost development, should be held responsible for losses sustained by investors who, having relied on their international prestige when choosing to invest in Punta Perla, are now out of pocket. Their irresponsibility when carrying out appropriate due diligence on the records of Mr. Miranda who, as been published, claimed to have successfully built thousands of properties on the Costa Del Sol (which is false), has to be attributable to a mix of poor advice and, perhaps, succulent incentives.

Some headlines

• Dominican President, Monaco Prince named in Spain “macrofraud” case - 18 February 2011 – Dominican Today
• Northern Ireland home buyers sue British real estate agents for Estepona fraud – 17 February 2011 – Typically Spanish

• Británicos afectados por una macroestafa inmobiliaria presentan una querella – 17 February 2011 – El Mundo
• Un centenar de familias británicas denuncian a un promotor por una supuesta estafa inmobiliaria – 17 February 2011 – Diario Sur
• Casi cien familias extranjeras se querellan contra una promotora marbellí por una estafa de 4,5 millones - 17 February 2011 – Europa Press
• Palacio niega tribunal España citara a  Leonel como testigo  litis – 17 February 2011 – El Nacional (Dominican Republic)
• Ricardo Miranda dice acusación busca crear escándalo mediático – 17 February 2011 – Diario Digital (Dominican Republic)
• Unos 70 extranjeros acusan a un promotor de estafa en Estepona - 18 February 2011 – La opinion de Malaga
• Un juez investiga una estafa masiva a británicos en la Costa del Sol - 18 February 2011 -El Pais

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property, Scams Estepona Beach and Country Club, Ocean View Properties, OVP, Punta Perla, Ricardo Miranda Miret, Sungolf Desarrollo Inmobiliario S.A

It is a measure of how Britain deals with those lawyers that go astray: the BBC reported, back in May 2010, that a lawyer and his firm had been fined £400,000 and banned for life from the financial services industry for helping bogus share-selling boiler rooms based in Spain. The disciplinary action document was published on the FSA website.

This is in stark contrast with the impunity of some Spanish lawyers based in Malaga that still today act for fraud-recovery boiler rooms (I would like to think that unknowingly), lending their names and registration details with the Law Society so that these so-called firms can deluge the United Kingdom, and other EU countries, with thousands of telephone calls, pretending to be genuine lawyers that can recover losses sustained previously by the recipients of the calls, either on failed property investments or to other fraudsters.

Ramirez and Ramirez, run by Fabian Marcelo Ramirez, is probably the leading bogus law firm on the Costa del Sol, and sits comfortably at the top of a myriad of “recovery rooms” that are costing millions to British citizens, mostly. Mr. Ramirez has even the cheek of suing me, criminally, for divulging defamatory comments that “harm his reputation, and that of his professional firm, on the Costa del Sol”, when it is objectively true that he fronted two previous companies, “Fuengirola Servicios 2002” and “Key Property Town Advisory”, accused of massive timeshare fraud and for which he had been arrested, and that he targets hundreds by cold-calling them offering legal services.

The particular modus operandi of Mr. Ramirez consists now on filing police reports, or “denuncias”, against other bogus operators, attempting to create confusion by diverting the attention of the investigators at the Spanish National Police, all the while projecting an appearance of legitimacy to his activities. Needless to say, real lawyers are never appointed (their names are used though, just as Atlantic law did), powers of attorney are yet to be seen and, of course, monies are never recovered.

How desirable would it not be that the Spanish authorities clamped down on these individuals, once and for all? Very much so, but patience: serious judicial and police measures are on their way, in particular after yet another new “company” has set up to do exactly the same: “Bratley and Sharp”.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Scams boiler rooms, Bratley and Sharp, Ramirez and Ramirez, Ramirez and Ramirez Abogados, Ramirez and Ramirez Asesores, recovery rooms

It could have not gone better: in the space of 24 hours we had managed to meet up with members of the Northern Ireland Executive, deliver the proposal (PDF), be interviewed by the BBC and the Ulster TV, and even catch a flight back on time, not before downing a couple of good local beers.

If the Northern Ireland Government decides to adhere to our proposal, which they will carefully consider in the next couple of months, it will be the first time –that we know of- that an autonomous government supports, in visible way (rather than with well-intentioned words devoid of any practical consequence), a large group of consumers defrauded in a failed property investment scheme.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property Ocean View Properties, OVP, Ricardo Miranda Miret, Sungolf Desarrollo Inmobiliario S.A

The Palmera Properties story has all the ingredients of the ordinary run-of-the-mill property investment bungle:  dishonest real estate agents,  contractual misrepresentation, down payments never paid down (kept by agents), nor refunded (to our clients, that we know), unbuilt properties, invalid contract reselling, sluggish courts, bumbling judges unkeen on seeing instances of criminal misappropriation when even a child would see them, frustrated lawyers and very angry buyers.

The difference perhaps with other similar rip-off stories is that Palmera Properties, after leaving around one hundred or so clients with no money and no property, still operates, under the same trading name, although they will not admit to it unless, that is, you pretend to be a willing buyer from Scotland and awake their greed.

Today’s story is about an undercover operation triggered by a client who, having been awarded an unenforceable favourable ruling by a civil court in Torremolinos (due to clever concealment of assets), discovers that Palmera Properties, a now one-man band led by Jesus Gotardo, is still operating.

From the new Palmera Properties Website, Mr. Gotardo has resumed his activities, the same ones that merited an arrest warrant being issued by a Madrid Court (he is currently on bail).

Such cheek could not go uninvestigated, and so we commissioned a Brighton-born journalist with a very plausible rhotic Scottish inflection, who, purporting to be a property investor, met up with two agents sent by Gotardo, a meeting arranged through the above website by a mysterious “Ruben”. And what we found is that Mr. Gotardo, of all people, is again dealing in real estate, notwithstanding his history of calamity, his huge indebtedness to creditors (five from our practise among them) and his firm intention of not repairing the immense damage caused to his ex-clients other than by offering…another property.

Sharp Gotardo smelt a rat an hour after the meeting finished and was quick to send “Mark Biggs”, “the journalist from Inverness”, a threatening email, which I quote below:

Dear Mr Biggs

I am very surprised of the report we got from your meeting. it seems that you hide the fact that you are an existing client. We are here to help with any issues. Palmera as a company is facing a bankrupcy procedure. We just acted as agents and we dont hold any deposits as these were paid to developers. We can help if you honestly let us know your situation without making our friend to loose time.

Given the circustances and based on previous experiences we have no other option than keep record of your false intentioned emails and testimony of our friend independent company and put these events under the knowledge of spanish authorities to avoid any threat or errors in your behave in this situation ( last people tried these tactics spend 2 weeks in spanish prison i can send you sentence if you want me to)

Should you require our help please be honest an we will help as we can. What is the development you paid for and we will give you full report.

Palmera is not based anymore in malaga  and we are just assisting our people with some relations of friend compamies ready to help. To abuse of these good will factor will only generate problems and lack of help for your situation.

thanks

Ruben

I wonder if that Spanish prison he is talking about is the same that gladly opened the doors to him… But as the meeting is the central theme of this post and a picture is worth a thousand words, we decided that we had to film the meeting, which you can now watch.

Video

Start: Lady says that Gotardo is not her boss, that he´s just someone (contact) who sends the client. When asked if he is an agent, after thinking up a response during 3 seconds, she says that she thinks so…
Verónica is who receives emails from Gotardo (Ruben for us).

0’52”: Lady says that Gotardo and “Ruben” are friends of the owner of her company. She confirms that Palmera Properties makes money out of this and that some commission would go to Palmera Properties. Young Verónica, on the contrary, says that Palmera is just a contact by “friendship”. Lady again confirms that it is a split commission deal because Gotardo is who brings the client. Veronica says Gotardo could not come as he had another meeting. She then adds that he has nothing to do with this.

1’58”: Palmera guys are friends of the President of Mangle. When asked again about the commission, Veronica smiles, doubts for a second, and says that she thinks so, but that she is not sure.

Antonio Flores Litigation, Property, Scams Jesus Gotardo, Palmera Properties