You are here: Home - News -

Fraudulent property scheme director handed nine-year ban by courts

by:
  • 15/09/2021
  • 0
Fraudulent property scheme director handed nine-year ban by courts
The courts have handed a directorship disqualification to former property scheme director, Matthew Roberts, after two of his property companies were permitted to trade with a “lack of commercial probity”.

 

The disqualification order, which is in effect from 31 July, means Roberts cannot promote, form or manage a company in this period without permission from the court.

The High Court wound up 13 companies owned by Roberts and his wife Charlotte Roberts in 2017 as it had scammed property investors out of £7.8m.

Between 2013 and 2015 the couple targeted high net worth individuals and investors to develop an entertainment complex on the site of a former convent at Woodchester, near Stroud. The complex would include a hotel, music venue, members club and spa.

BBH Property1 and BBH Property2, companies set up by the couple, raised money from investors that was allegedly going to be used to buy the convent’s properties.

BBH Property1 raised over £1.3m, which was going to be used to buy four of the convent’s properties, but only one property was bought for around £200,000. Nearly £880,000 was transferred to an unconnected company.

BBH Property2 raised around £4.3m and was supposed to be used to purchase three properties. However, none were purchased with £140,000 being transferred to an unconnected company and £300,000 paid to a third party.

Assistant official receiver John Matthews said: “Matthew Roberts used the two property companies as vehicles to raise millions of pounds that was claimed to be for the purchase of specified properties as part of a grand redevelopment project. The money raised, however, was not used for that specific purpose and this meant the investors did not have the security that they had been promised.

He added that nine years was a “significant period to be removed from the corporate arena” and it should be a warning to other directors operating investment schemes.

There are 0 Comment(s)

You may also be interested in