Search:     Go  
The Spanish Lawyer Online
The Spanish Lawyer Online

The Ready2Invest Property Scam

For those caught in any of the Ready2Invest fiascos, such as Cerros de Turre, La Cadima or Santa Ana


Posts Tagged ‘Citrus Playa Macenas S.L’

Report From Mojacar Town Hall Confirms Works at La Cadima Were Halted in 2008

February 15th, 2012

We are in receipt of a lengthy report from the Town Hall confirming that the works on Playa Macenas were indefinetely halted by the Mojacar Town Hall on the 12th of June 2008, instigated by the architects (who are owed subtantial sums, as confirmed by them) and the building contractor (equally owed very large sums).

We are advised that Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. started the works on September 2007 and suspended them, indefinetely, on the 9th of May 2008, after which it was communicated to the Town Hall.


Uncategorized , ,

Bancaja confirms no negotiations are taking place

June 8th, 2011

Following a call with Bancaja, we are advised that no negotiations are taking place in respect to the situation with the Playa Macenas plot. The bank has also advised that the account is empty, without balance of funds. 

With regards to Turre plots, certainly no negotiations ever took place with any banker at the time since the plots that made up Turre were sold to a company called Urbanización Cerro Colorado S.L., represented at the time by a Javier Berruezo Segura, on the 11th of October 2006.

Strangely enough, these plots were sold again on the 10 of March 2008 to a company which forms part of the same group, also represented by a Javier Berruezo Segura. The reason for this to happen is unknown but, presumably, all the rights over the few properties (17) that Mr. Warren, on behalf of Citrus Playa Macenas S.L., agreed to reserve to investors who had paid deposits are no longer available.

It has also transpired that back in 2005 and 2006, a criminal complaint involving the above companies was withdrawn although we dont have more information on them (details of which can be found in Court number 2 in Vera, with number DP 358/2005).

Uncategorized , , , , , , ,

Citrus Negotiations with Bancaja

June 6th, 2011

I have been advised that our initial approach to this matter was rather like that of a bull in a china shop, because we were upsetting the negotiations taking place between Citrus and the bank, and incidentally, Mr. Crossick and Mr. Warren themselves.

I may be missing something they know and will not tell me but, having been around for 12 years and with 120 Court cases on the go, I can be almost certain that no bank will buy land these days, because, as things stand now, they would rather repossess (cheaper), particularly where Citrus Playa Macenas S.L.´s bank accounts and real estate seem to have been issued with a legal charge by the AEAT (Spanish Inland Revenue), for non-payment of taxes.

Certainly not the best way to start negotiations if these accounts happen to be with the same bank you have sitting accross the table!

Uncategorized , , ,

La Cadima in Playa Macenas: Proposed Legal Action

May 21st, 2011

Following the legal analisis done for Los Cerros de Turre, I will list below what, in my opinion, should be the best course of action for those affected in the La Cadima/Playa Macenas failed development. The options are listed in order of appropriateness:

  1. Action against the bank involved: there is a bank guarantee issued by Bancaja, which is a global master guarantee to ensure deposits are safeguarded against the risks named by the 1968/57 Act on Bank guarantees, i.e. lack of building license and lack of license of occupancy. Furthermore, a letter signed by Bancaja states that a special account is opened with Bancaja and is blocked from the Banks customer, this meaning that the company, Citrus Playa Macenas S.L., cannot access this money and the money will be released to them only when they build the property of the depositor. It then goes on to affirm that the bank will issue a bank guarantee to each depositor which guarantees that the money will be released to Citrus Playa Macenas only when, as they build the property and if the property is not complete the money will be returned to the depositor. An action against Bancaja is a must in the case of Cadima, given the antecedents we know.
  2. Criminal action for misappropriation and swindle by theft: this option is seriously weakened given that a bank guarantee was obtained, and therefore, the use given to funds would not constitute, in principle, criminal misuse, or embezzlement. 
  3. Action against lawyers: Equally, lawyers in this case would be able to rightfully put a defense on the basis that, although no individual guarantees were issued, Bancaja did agree in writing to guarantee the deposits. 
  4. Ordinary civil action: The very last resort given the minimal impact it would have on the status of claimants. 

Uncategorized , ,

Los de Cerros de Turre: Proposed Legal Action

May 21st, 2011

Purchasers at any of the affected developments will have several options open to them, if they decide to proceed legally. The options are placed by what I consider the most appropriate to the least, and are different in the case of each development. Will start with Los Cerros de Turre.

Proposed Actions

  1. Criminal action for misappropriation and theft by swindle, given that funds were taken by Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. and Ready2Invest, both being instrumental in the creation of an illusion, that of promoting, building and selling property in Spain. Citrus goes even further as he sold the plot without advising their clients and furthermore, did not refund the advance payments nor guaranteed them with bank guarantee. Misappropriation will necessarily occur, pursuant to Spanish case law, where funds have been diverted to uses different from the construction of the units, regardless of intent to misappropriate, since funds received by developers are always in concept of “escrow” and never in ownership, as with the purchase of, generally, all items. Theft by swindle will require proof that there was intent although such activity need not be active, as it can be accomplished by false representation as to either past of future facts.
  2. Action against the bank involved: this option is placed second for we don’t have knowledge of Cajamar having provided a bank guarantee, which if we were to confirm was the case it would automatically take precedence over criminal action.
  3. Action against lawyers involved in the transaction, for professional negligence: An acting lawyer would presumably be faced with a negligence claim if he/she had provided the client with positive advice and the client had placed reliance on such advice to pursue the investment. Lawbird Legal Services clearly saw fundamental flaws in the investment and advised against purchasing in this development, advice that Jonty craftily managed to play down by making use of trickery. It is not known if any other law firm took up an instruction in this matter.
  4. Ordinary civil action: the very last resort given the minimal impact it would have on the status of claimants.

Uncategorized , ,

Questions on Citrus Europe and Ready2Invest that Need an Answer

May 20th, 2011

There are a number of points that are crucial to establish where liabilities lie and the type of action that would have to be pursued. This list is not comprehensive and is likely to increase as more information pours in.

  1. What is the relationship of Ready2Rent/Ready2Invest with Citrus Europe Ltd. and Citrus Playa Macenas S.L.?
  2. What is the historical background of Citrus Europe Ltd.?
  3. How many of the developments that Ready2Rent has intervened in have actually been completed?
  4. Why did Jonty Crossick handle very significant sums of money on behalf of Citrus, if he was only an acting real estate agent?
  5. If Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. and R2R (note that I am now considering them to be one entity, or a joint venture) received 14.600.000 Euros by virtue of a mortgage deed with Bancaja for La Cadima project, (on account of a global of 35.000.000 Euros), as an initial draw down (no information on further draw-downs is available), on the 8th of July 2005, plus an unaccounted amount from unsecured buyers (our estimate is 60 buyers x 70k Euros=4.200.000 Euros), and the cost of the works would presumably not exceed 10.000.000 Euros at the most, where are the remaining funds?
  6. The plot at Turre was sold for 11.500.000 Euros. Why were the funds not returned to the buyers? How much was invested in the project?
  7. Why do García-Bosch lawyers, on behalf of Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. confirm that the deposits were not paid to Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. but to Citrus Europe, with whom the contracts were signed, if the plot was owned by their former. If this is the case, do these lawyers not realize that Citrus Europe Ltd. has been deceiving buyers as this company never owned property in Spain?
  8. Why is the letter sent out by Garcia-Bosch, where he tags the communication sent by Lawbird Legal Services of libelous, dated 30th of April 2007, for exposing the legal status? Why do they not refer to the sale the Cerros/Turre development in Cerro Colorado S.L. on the 11th of October 2006? What is therefore the connection?
  9. Why does Legalex, on a report dated 29th of October 2008, advise that the purchase draft contracts for La Cadima comply with Spanish laws, when it is clearly in breach of consumer regulations?
  10. Legalex, in its report, seem to mistake La Cadima in Mojacar for Cerros, in Turre. In this report they refer to a mortgage deed signed on the 8th of July 2009, with protocol number 2171, with the financial entity Cajamar, when this deed is signed with Bancaja. Bancaja confirms, on a letter dated 10th of April 2006 that a special account has been opened with them to the effect of guaranteeing the sums. Furthermore, Bancaja states that the bank will issue a Bank Guarantee to each depositor which guarantees that the money will be released to Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. only when as they build the property and if the property is not completed, the money will be returned to the depositor. The letter is signed by Jose Enrique Molina Chasserot, “Banc Director”, who happens to be the representative who signed the title deeds on behalf of Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. where a loan for 35.000.000 Euros was granted. If this is the case, why does Garcia-Bosch insist that funds are to be paid in the United Kingdom as not only is Citrus Playa Macenas S.L. a Spanish company, but also owned the plot and was the beneficiary of a loan that ultimately, was to build Spanish property? Furthermore, can a lawyer be so incompetent as to hold ground on this stupid allegation when even Bancaja admits that the deposits are to be paid in the nominated Spanish account of Bancaja, opened in the name of Citrus Playa Macenas S.L., and also guaranteed by them? Or do they form part of a scheme to deceive consumers?
  11. To this date, we only have account of 6 deposits having been refunded on Turre and none on Playa Macenas. Where are the deposits that were never returned?

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , ,