Antonio Flores’ Blog

It is only a few days ago when we read a story of an ailing 80-year-old diagnosed with Alzheimer and dementia, who had been sold €18,000 worth of… worthless financial products from CAM bank. The gentleman in particular had an officially recognized 80% disability, impaired vision and a history of strokes, and yet, he was persuaded by his branch manager into buying CAM shares for €9,000 and a further €9,000 on deposit, until year…3000!

This example of disgraceful behaviour, far from being an isolated case, adds on to a long list of what we could call “bankers´ most despicable actions” (we would completely miss the point if we thought that these are not man-made) and illustrates the utter disrespect and greed of certain individuals working for some banks.

So listed below are Top 7 Banks’ questionable at best, despicable at worst practices I have come across both in the exercise of the legal profession, and exemplifies the declining ethical standards within the industry.

1. Equity Release: a scam that was operated by a number of Scandinavian and British banks where pensioners were asked to gamble away their lifetime savings on two main pretexts: that by registering a mortgage on their property, they could eliminate Inheritance Taxes for their children, legally, and that by investing the loan obtained from the mortgage they would obtain an additional income to their limited pension. A few criminal ongoing court actions, and an avalanche of soon to come civil suits will determine how ethical it was for Rothschild Bank offer a 90-year old a 90% loan on her property…
2. Clip or Swap clauses on mortgages: financial products wrongly sold to mortgage-loan customers as insurance against increasing interest rates. The bona-fide insurance policy was in reality a complex derivative instrument. Most Spanish banks indulged in this awful practice and court cases are being resolved in favour of customers. Bankinter, Popular Bank and a few other culprits have lost 523 Court cases versus 90 ruled in their favour…
3. Bad-advice provided by Deutsche Bank to its customers when advising them that Lehman Brothers and some Icelandic banks, which ultimately went bust, were, nevertheless, the investment of choice. Court number 57 in Madrid is currently dealing with the matter.
4. Awful advice by Santander Bank when offering customers to invest with “world’s biggest conman” Bernie Madoff, despite knowing since 2006 the dangers of investing with him, according to the press.
5. Deceitful advice given to long-standing clients by La Caixa, CAM, BBVA and many other banks to sign up “preferential shares”, when they thought they were depositing their savings on a fixed-deposit. Whereas one would think that younger, dynamic and financial-savvy investors would take on these products, this meeting held by very upset customers seems to suggest otherwise.
6. Abusive use of the extra-judicial foreclosures by some banks. This repossession mechanism is generally (and inadvertently) agreed to by the borrower when signing the mortgage loan deed, is conducted by Notary Publics and can lead the bank keeping a property for €1. An association is fighting to expose this practice.
7. And lastly, a shocking photographic report of Jyske Bank’s not-so-exquisite treatment of an evicted property owner, his belongings and the property itself, following a bizarre dispute lasting 18 years. The Gibraltar-based bank managed to regain possession of an offshore-company-owned property although not ownership, that was retained by the ultimate owner (our client), as confirmed by a  number of quirky court rulings that nevertheless allowed Jyske to put their hands on this property with one sole purpose: destroy as much as they could!

Antonio Flores Mortgages, Scams Banco de Santander, bank repossessions, BBVA, CAM, Deutsche Bank, equity release, Jyske Bank, La Caixa, Rothschild, Swap Clause

Having met with dozens of victims of the Equity Release fraudulent scheme, we asked some of them if they would be happy to be interviewed; the result was very positive, with some willing to be interviewed every week, if need be! 

Julia Hilling (88) and Peter Cosgrove (78), two Rothschild + Hamilton’s victims, have no more money to pay to the bank and have not been yet forced out of their homes. Listen to their stories here.

Antonio Flores Scams equity release, Rothschild

Clients Appreciate our Nordic Values. They differentiate us from our competitors.

Anne-Lise Zahl Sørensen, NORDEA BANK.

This supremacist statement embedded in Nordea’s INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE BANKING in LUXEMBOURG prospectus is not only an insult to Nordic people, but also probably the last straw for many close to losing everything (everything as in the Oxford English Dictionary), to the bank in question. Not even the Nigerian scam has wreaked so much havoc on one single individual as has the Nordic “in-house specialist and experienced portfolio managers”.

But the infamy of this statement and the severity of the insult it projects over the victims of the Nordea Bank Equity Release could be insignificant compared with what could happen if the Spanish authorities (Spanish Anticorruption Prosecutor and the National Tax Office) picks up on one aspect of the programme that the US Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in a case brought against the promoters of a similar scheme, identified as being

“conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and tax evasion, by promoting fraudulent scheme…additionally the Hirmers attempted to strip the equity out of one of their homes by granting a bogus mortgage to a Panamanian nominee entity they controlled…the use of abusive trust schemes and fraudulent debt elimination tactics intended to conceal income from the IRS isn’t tax planning; it’s criminal activity. There is no secret formula that can eliminate a person’s tax obligations…today’s verdict reinforces our commitment to every American taxpayer that we will identify and prosecute those who promote illegal financial transactions designed to evade the payment of taxes.”

Antonio Flores Mortgages, Scams equity release, Nordea Bank

Last Sunday morning, while cycling around La Cala area, I spotted what looked like an isolated bored Spanish donkey with what looked like a kind of a smallish stork on its back, the latter presumably going about the job of cleansing the animal from parasites, and the former happily accepting it. This is what they call symbiosis, or a mutually beneficial relationship involving close physical contact between two organisms that aren’t the same species. I took some pictures but the mobile was not powerful, unfortunately. In a strange mental composition exercise whilst negotiating the curves, I immediately thought of more than a handful of Spanish property developers and Mr. Carlo S. Mottola, in what could be one of the biggest cases or fraud in the Spanish property sector, and the relationship they had struck to bring misery, anguish and pain to, once again, off-plan property buyers. On the one side of the fraud, sitting comfortably on top of the donkey, Mr. Mottola, the man behind the bogus Compagnie Des Garanties de Du Luxembourg S.A., Company of Guaranties Ltd. and Cauzione, flouting every mandatory insurance legislation provision and without a penny behind him, and with the Spanish Insurance watchdog DGS (Dirección General de Seguros) warning about his activities as early as 2003 (and who incidentally have done nothing since), erected himself as the provider of surety contracts worth tens of millions of pounds knowing full well he could have never honoured them, if we notice the following:

1. His Luxembourg company, boasting a share capital of €24,283,800 on the letter head of the policies given out by the hundreds in the years 2003-2008, had actually been referred to the Courts on the 10th of November 2003 by the Luxembourg Prosecution Service and, after a remarkably quick Court process (which we can only dream of here), the company was “pronounced dissolved and ordered its liquidation” for what was deemed as grave legal contraventions, these being not submitting a Balance Sheet nor a Profit Loss Statement since the company’s incorporation, in 1999, nor having a known address since the company was reported to the authorities in 2003. Just as his insured property buyers have been used to, he failed to turn up to the hearing…
2. His accountants in London, Arram Berlyn Gardner, had already warned, in early 2009, that the company was not a viable enterprise.

   

3. Lack of any recorded payments on claims (or perhaps one or two smallish at the beginning to give himself a credibility that he lacked) to any of the hundreds of people who would have been entitled to a payout.
4. Record of payments made to companies under his control, or directly related to him, one in the Channel Islands and the other one in the US: And again in 2008, another payment: And what about the American company?

At the other end of the scam, the Spanish developers, the donkeys in the symbiosis relationship and in real life too, real quadrupeds who, after having their applications for bank guarantees or insurance policies turned down by the likes of Santander, BBVA, AXA, Zurich and many others, resorted to the unscrupulous Mr. Mottola, who would, oblivious to what is right or honourable, and legal too, print off as many policies as required to provide sham covers to the unsuspecting property purchasers. If you wish to know what these policies look like think about the lottery prize certificates that Nigerians send you by email on a monthly basis, when you strike lucky with them: they actually look genuine in comparison to Mottola’s “monopoly” policies.

But the net is now closing: already, the Malaga High Court, in a civil ruling involving a developer currently serving time for tax fraud and indicted on further corruption and swindle charges, stated that: Lastly, to have a perspective on the behaviour of Naviro in this matter, we need to refer also to the surety policy invoked by the defendant, which happens to be completely bogus for the company “Compagnie Des Garanties S.A. is not authorized to operate in Spain, as has been proven in 2 reports, one from the Bank of Spain and a further one from the Insurance Directorate General. And recently, a story about one bogus insurer which is being investigated by the police for insurance fraud for having offered bogus insurance cover and will be presumably soon accused of criminal swindle. The lady in particular was registered with the Companies House to…distribute electrical appliances. Compagnies des Garanties Ltd. is equally currently registered in Spain as a branch operation, and duly registered too with the tax office to carry out the activity of…Maintenance and Repairs of Motor Vehicles. This further dent on Spain’s already appalling reputation for not looking after foreign investors bodes badly for the Government’s plan to bring back foreign investment (a child would see this), not to mention nationals of Spain who have also been caught out in this scam.

And so, who will pay for this? Well, difficult to say now but it seems that a the spectrum of responsibilities will range from possibly criminal to civil and potentially, administrative, given the supervisor’s failure to bring this man to justice, but more importantly, for having allowed him to operate since he was discovered, back in 2003!

And what does the law say?

• Article 4.2 of the 2004 Private Insurance Organization and Supervision Act (Real Decreto Legislativo 6/2004, de 29 de octubre, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de ordenación y supervisión de los seguros privados) states that any “contracts signed with an unauthorized entity, or one whose authorization was revoked, will be deemed null and void…in the event of a claim being registered the persons or entities responsible will have to pay as if the policy had been valid…The obligation will be joint of the company and any persons who would have authorized or permitted the conclusion of a contract.”
• Article 48.3 of the same, when stipulating the administrative fines, states that…the dispositions of this article will be understood to be applicable without prejudice to any other responsibilities, including criminal, that may be incurred in.
• Article 248 of Spain’s Penal Code: A person who, with the intent of gaining a benefit, uses deceit to produce error in another person, inducing him/her to dispose of own or third party valuables, will be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for 1 to 6 years.

And what about the regulator, the DGS, who did have knowledge of this since, at least, 2003? In my opinion much more could have been done, in 9 years, to prevent this individual from ripping customers off through unscrupulous developers even if that meant filing a denuncia via the Prosecution Service, a job that would have taken a civil servant one morning. To our knowledge, Mottola’s offices are still open, except for the processing claims side of things, which is what he never intended to anyway. This inaction is consistent with nonfeasance in public office, or negligence, which would constitute grounds for a claim against the Spanish State. Documents

• 2007 audited accounts (PDF 275 Kb)
• 2008 and 1st half 2009 accounts (PDF 466 Kb)
• 2005 French Branch of Compagnie des Garanties Forced Liquidation (PDF 1,095 Kb)

Antonio Flores Property, Scams Carlo S. Mottola, Compagnie des Garanties, Compagnie des Guaranties, Company of Guaranties Ltd. and Cauzione, Dirección General de Seguros

The title is very unsettling and surely, libel action material by anyone’s standards. But sadly, it is exactly what is being done by Inmobiliaria Peñarroya, developer for La Reserva de Marbella, to uphold the legality of these properties in courts.

The story, in short, involves licenses of first occupancy issued by administrative silence that were granted, supposedly and according to Peñarroya, for a number of buildings completed at La Reserva de Marbella. These licenses were granted by Leopoldo Barrantes Conde, currently indicted in the Malaya Operation, on behalf of the Marbella Town Hall, and the certificates are there to prove it.

However, my colleague Luis got suspicious because these certificates lacked the classic stamp issued by the documentation registrar of any Town Hall to evidence the date of notification of the administrative act. So we wrote to the Town Hall to enquire whether these certificates were actually part of the file stored with the Planning Department ,and, to our surprise, we were advised they were not, there is simply no trace of the original document supporting the photocopies in file.

The seriousness of this situation is shocking: already, the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the developer on the basis of these fraudulent ghost licenses, perpetuating this deliberate legal anomaly based on fake official document.

Mr. Barrantes issued the licenses on the 16^th of December 2005 and was arrested on the 29^th of March 2006.

In our opinion, one of the following has happened:

1. The documents have been drawn up for the occasion, using Photo Shop or another less sophisticated method, leaving the registrar stamp out.
2. The documents were, at some point, officially issued by the Town Hall but the originals were removed by someone, either before or after the arrest of Mr. Barrantes.
3. The originals existed but have been carelessly lost, or inadvertently misplaced…

Whichever the case, the use of the documents by La Reserva de Marbella constitutes “procedural swindle” (estafa procesal), an action entailing deliberately deceiving a Judge or court into issuing a ruling that would have not been otherwise reached.

Documents

• 2011-07-la-reserva-de-marbella-fake-lfo-town-hall-information-request (PDF)
• 2011-07-la-reserva-de-marbella-fake-lfo-town-hall-reply (PDF)

Antonio Flores Litigation, Scams Inmobiliaria Peñarroya, La Reserva de Marbella, Leopoldo Barrantes Conde, Licence of first occupation

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

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

It is not for me to say so, given that, in the end, I don’t even know the man nor have I ever heard him con anyone over the phone, although we have, through no small effort, saved thousands from being swindled. It is actually Mr. Manuel Jaen Vallejo, presiding Judge at the Criminal Court in Malaga, who by virtue of a ruling dated the 11th of March 2011, has actually admitted that naming Mr. Mr. Fabian Marcelo Ramirez “swindler” and “crook” is not actually wrong.

The ruling came about in relation to the fight we are waging against legal boiler rooms, also known as recovery rooms, who, far from shying away from the police forces, are seemingly more active than ever (and more desperate as well). Mr. Ramirez, cocky as anyone could get, filed a court case last year against me and two more members of staff accusing us of harming his good name and impeccable reputation through several forums and blog posts.

The Judge has based his ruling on a Malaga Police report (below) that, basically, states that Mr. Ramirez has been arrested 4 times (years 2003, 2004, 2007 and 2008), for falsely promising his victims to recover  the moneys lost to many Costa del Sol-based boiler rooms, in exchange of an upfront fee.

Mr. Ramirez, according to the Malaga Police Fraud Group, has operated a succession of companies that were all devoted to scamming mostly British innocent timeshare owners. The Court ruling finds, quite naturally, that it is fully coherent and consistent with the above report to name Mr. Fabian Marcelo Ramirez a conman, and that freedom of expression has to prevail, above any other consideration, given its intense public interest.

I presume further action, by the Malaga Police Forces, is now underway.

Documents

• 2010-05-04 -Martinez-Echevarría Claim Against Lawbird and belegal.com on behalf of Fabian Marcelo Ramirez (PDF – 7.4 Mb – Spanish)
• 2011-03-11 - Ramirez and Ramirez Bogus Law Firm Police Report Describing In Great Detail 10 Years of Fraudulent Activities (PDF – 266 Kb – Spanish)
• 2011-03-11 - Judge Rules in Favour of Lawbird and belegal.com admitting that Mr Ramirez can be considered a Crook (PDF – 196 Kb – Spanish)

Antonio Flores Scams Fabian Marcelo Ramirez, freedom of expression, Ramirez and Ramirez Abogados, Ramirez and Ramirez Asesores, recovery rooms, spanish boiler rooms