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 ‘La Cadima in Playa Macenas’

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It has also transpired that back in 2005 and 2006, a criminal complaint involving the above companies was withdrawn although we dont have more information on them (details of which can be found in Court number 2 in Vera, with number DP 358/2005).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