Investors left in the lurch as diamond firm Asia Fine Diamonds folds up

Investors left in the lurch as diamond firm Asia Fine Diamonds folds up http://str.sg/ZvLR

Source: The Straits Times
4 April 2016

Along with other customers of Asia Fine Diamonds (AFD), Mr Stephen Yeo learnt the hard way that diamonds are not his best friend after his investment in rare coloured diamonds went awry.

Last December, Mr Yeo, 55, who works in the medical sector, invested $17,785.12 in a 0.21-carat round cut diamond - described as "fancy intense purplish pink" - from AFD. He never laid hands on it.

This is the latest firm to come under scrutiny after recent reports by The Straits Times on two other firms - One Plantation Capital and Tropical Forestry Venture - which offered attractive returns in their agarwood investment schemes to retail investors.

Last month, Mr Yeo filed a police report against AFD, which used to have an office in Maybank Tower in Battery Road.

Not only are AFD customers crying foul, according to company staff, but employees are also up in arms as they have not been paid their wages and commissions for a few months. According to an AFD employee who spoke to The Straits Times on condition of anonymity, about 20 AFD staff involved in sales, telemarketing and administrative functions have not been paid for about two months. The office closed down in January.

Under AFD's two-year scheme, customers are offered a choice of coloured diamonds from a brochure. After selecting a diamond of their choice, they pay the cost of the diamond upfront. The average cost per diamond was about $15,000.

Customers sign an acquisition form which acts as a request for AFD to buy the diamonds on their behalf. They also sign a "storage and buy-back contract" with AFD. In the contract, customers are described as "the storer", while AFD is "the storage provider".

They were told to expect delivery of their diamonds one month later. However, they were advised that to avoid paying GST for their diamonds, AFD would store them in Christie's Fine Art Storage Services at Changi Airport. They would be given access to the warehouse for the purpose of viewing their diamonds.

There would be a 15 per cent annual return on the investment sum for two years, payable at the end of each year. This works out to a total return of 30 per cent - about $5,300 in the case of Mr Yeo's investment.

At the end of two years, the customers can opt to exercise the option for AFD to buy back the diamonds and return them their initial investment sums. If they wish to keep the diamond, they will forgo the 30 per cent returns.

Mr Yeo said he knew something had gone wrong only when he was not contacted by AFD to say that his diamond had been delivered to the Changi warehouse more than a month after he had paid and signed the documents. He was later informed by an AFD employee that the firm was in financial difficulties and that the chief executive and owner had gone missing.

"I was greedy and tempted by the high returns of 30 per cent. I was very angry initially because I should have done due diligence. But the AFD office looked very nice and it is registered here. I took a gamble and decided to see what comes out of it," said Mr Yeo.

He recalled that AFD's 4,000 sq ft office was luxuriously decorated and there was a showcase of diamonds in one of the rooms. He was also trying to help a friend who had sold him a property in the Philippines in her previous employment before moving to AFD as a sales consultant.

AFD was set up last June and has a paid-up capital of $10,000, Acra records show. It stated that the firm's director, Mr Guillianno Norberto R. Mata Pena, is from the Dominican Republic.

Mr David Gerald, president and chief executive of Securities Investor Association of Singapore, cautioned retail investors to look out for telltale signs when something looks too good to be true.

"There have been a number of scams reported and yet some people are falling for scams over and over again. People must get smart and ask basic questions before parting with hard-earned money," he said.

"Telltale signs include high returns which are more than what banks and good growth companies can offer. They must ring bells in our minds. How can others offer such high returns? Don't get carried away by high returns or a good sales pitch. Ask for advice and don't deal with unregulated entities."

Spot the scam

Spot the scam http://str.sg/Zyfm

Source: Straits Times

PUBLISHED

FEB 28, 2016, 5:00 AM SGT

 

Red flags include high return, low risk claims, pressure selling tactics

News that about 70 retail investors were crying foul over an exotic agarwood tree investment scheme made headlines yet this sort of story is far from rare.

Time and time again, the lure of reaping easy and high returns continues to lead retail investors into a minefield of financial risks.

In this latest case, investors outlaid sums ranging from $5,000 to $60,000 with Tropical Forestry Venture (TFV) to grow aquilaria trees that would be harvested for its valuable agarwood and oud oil used in fragrances and spas.

These investors were expecting high returns of between three and seven times the sums invested.

However, TFV has folded with no compensation in sight for those who made investments. It is just another new twist on a sad old tale.

Besides TFV, there have been several firms, including The Gold Guarantee, Profitable Plots and Sunshine Empire, that have surfaced in recent years at the shady end of Singapore's financial services sector.

Beware of "too good to be true" investment schemes which typically offer promises of attractive returns and low or no risk. The use of pressure selling tactics is another giveaway. The growth of the Internet means these tricksters may be a click away.

Mr Puah Soon Lim, investment specialist at Finexis Advisory, says that most scams are the doing of smart conmen.

"The ones that are skilful are deliberate and understand human psychology. They make use of social triggers like reciprocity, scarcity, social proof and authority. This is very much the work of a smart con artist," he notes. "The first step is to know that everyone has some blind spots and can be vulnerable. Be able to recognise some red flags and persuasion techniques."

Here are some things you should know.

---

Avoid falling victim to investment scams

DEALING WITH REGULATED PEOPLE

It often starts with an unsolicited call from a person marketing an investment scheme that may include non-existent stocks or exotic investments like wine, raw land and trees. You could be asked to make payment to a bank account or be invited to attend a sales presentation at the office.

It may appear normal except that the marketing person may be carrying out a financial activity not regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

Check whether the person is regulated by the MAS. If you choose to deal with unauthorised individuals and firms, you forgo the protection afforded under the laws administered by the MAS, especially if they are based overseas.

The regulations mean that such schemes cannot be sold to retail investors without the MAS first authorising or recognising them. Sellers will have to make their scheme details and business plans known to the authorities and, in some cases, register prospectuses. They will also have to disclose material information to consumers so that they can make well-informed decisions.

These requirements will make it harder for such schemes to offer lofty promises and claims to retail investors that they cannot deliver.

Consumers can expect to be given licensed financial advice from trained advisers on some of these products and be brought through an advisory process where a reasonable basis for recommending them is established. They may also seek recourse when these investments fall through.

A spokesman for MAS said: "Consumers seeking investments are encouraged to deal only with entities regulated by MAS. Our regulatory regime seeks to ensure that investors receive adequate information to make well-informed investment decisions, and are dealt with fairly by product distributors."

NEW RULES TO PROTECT INVESTORS

In September last year, the MAS said that it will regulate investment schemes such as gold buybacks and collective landbanking. The proposed changes are targeted to be tabled in Parliament.

The proposed regulation covers collectively-managed investment schemes that are in substance similar to traditional regulated investment funds such as mutual funds but do not pool investors' contributions. Traditional collective investment schemes involve investors pooling their funds to invest in an asset or a group of assets, while unregulated collectively managed investment schemes require each investor to buy his or her own direct stake in the asset, such as a small plot in a large tract of land.

In typical plantation investment schemes, investors buy sub-divided plots of land on which crops are to be grown or even specific trees on a plot of land, to participate in profits arising from the future harvesting and sale of the crops or trees.

If the arrangements are such that investors do not have day-to-day control of the property, and the scheme's property is managed as a whole like a collective investment scheme, it is likely to fall under MAS' proposed regulation.

Under the proposed rules, some schemes may no longer solicit funds from the public but can do so only from investors who are deemed more sophisticated.

Schemes intended for retail investors will require MAS authorisation and be restricted to investments in securities or other assets that are liquid (for example, precious metals), or have stable income-generating ability, such as completed real estate.

A full assessment of how a scheme is operated will need to be done in order to determine if it would likely fall within the proposed MAS regulation.

This means that operators of schemes peddling illiquid assets such as land banks or agricultural products would no longer be able to market their products to retail investors. Investors who are already committed to such schemes might not be able to exit their investments easily, especially as the pool of potential buyers will shrink considerably.

MAS INVESTOR ALERT LIST

The investor alert list provides a listing of unregulated persons who, based on information received by the MAS, may have been wrongly perceived as being licensed or authorised. The central bank assesses public feedback as well as documentary evidence on the entity before placing it on the list.

The list, which can be found on the MAS and MoneySense websites, acts as an early warning alert to investors. It is not exhaustive and is periodically updated. The fact that a company is not listed does not mean that it is credible.

So consumers must exercise caution when dealing with all unregulated entities, not just those listed.

The list has swelled to 229 firms, well up from the 25 recorded in mid-2004 when it was made public. The public is also encouraged to check the MAS website for the list of MAS-registered prospectuses, authorised retail investment funds and regulated financial institutions.

DUE DILIGENCE

The consumer watchdog says investors should always exercise caution and do their own thorough research on any investment scheme, particularly those that promise high returns with seemingly low risks.

"Consumers who use the services of such entities for investing should ensure that they are regulated by the MAS and keep an eye on the investor alert list highlighted on the MAS website. Consumers who are not familiar with such collective investment should not get involved," says Mr Seah Seng Choon, executive director of the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case).

Do not get carried away by promises of high gains. Ask for brochures and documents such as sales agreements to be sent to you first so you can review them and check the legal terms. It is also prudent to find out the jurisdictions that the companies operate in.

Consider if the investment is a good fit with your financial goals and circumstances. And remember that high returns are always accompanied by higher risks.

Mr Puah warns against investing based solely on the recommendations of friends and family.

"Make sure you independently validate the claims. Check on their credentials. All authorised companies and individuals offering investment products can be traced at MAS directory," he says.

He added that the "grey and tricky" areas include landbanking and gold as there is no proper directory of such firms. However, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (Acra) would have their records if they are based in Singapore. "Pay $5.50 at Acra and obtain information such as company registration dates and paid up capital. If they are new and unheard of, it's a big red flag. If they are from overseas and difficult to check, avoid altogether. I also register my phone number with PDPA and don't entertain cold calls at all," said Mr Puah, referring to the Do Not Call Registry under the Personal Data Protection Act.

He suggested avoiding free seminars related to such firms so as not to fall for their sales pitch.

FINANCIAL ADVISERS ACT (FAA)

The FAA regulates how companies and individuals provide advice on investment products to consumers.

It is administered by the MAS and covers advice on products such as unit trusts, foreign exchange and life insurance policies.

Under the FAA, no one is allowed to provide advice in relation to any investment product unless he is licensed to do so - or specifically exempted - under the Act. Anyone flouting this regulation faces heavy fines and/or jail time if convicted.

The MAS administers the FAA and may take enforcement action. Where there is an apparent breach of the law, it will refer the case to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), the principal white-collar crime investigation agency here, for investigation.

REPORT FRAUDULENT BUSINESSES

Regardless of whether an entity is regulated by the MAS, it is an offence to operate a fraudulent or deceptive business.

If you suspect that you have been scammed or there may be some criminal wrongdoing or fraud, you can report the matter to the CAD.

Do not get carried away by promises of high gains. Ask for brochures and documents such as sales agreements to be sent to you first so you can review them and check the legal terms.

Learning from past cases

Learning from past cases http://str.sg/ZyfB

Source: Straits Times

PUBLISHED

FEB 28, 2016, 5:00 AM SGT

ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD Last year, disgruntled customers lodged reports against investment firms Valiant Capital and Suisse International. Both companies offered gold buy-back schemes but failed to pay investors the money promised.

In 2013, The Gold Guarantee founder Lee Song Teck went on the run and, a year earlier, more than 10,000 investors lost their money to Genneva Gold.

PROFITABLE PLOTS The firm's land-banking scheme offered an opportunity to invest in properties in Britain.

Clients were lured with promises of 12.5 per cent returns within six months. Instead, they lost $3.1 million after part of the returns was used to pay Profitable Plots' existing debts.

The firm's directors, Britons Timothy Goldring and John Nordmann, were jailed for 15 years for cheating investors after a 64-day trial that started in April 2013.

SUNSHINE EMPIRE Multi-level marketing firm Sunshine Empire sold "lifestyle packages", which included health supplements, electronics goods and other products. Returns were paid out by recycling funds from new participants.

It was likened to a Ponzi scheme where the operator does not make real profits but pays returns using funds from new investors.

It sold almost 26,000 packages and amassed about $180 million from August 2006 to October 2007.

The business ceased in 2007, and founder James Phang Wah is serving a nine-year jail term for fraud.

Another agarwood investment scheme under scrutiny

Another agarwood investment scheme under scrutiny http://str.sg/ZFau

Source: Straits Times 14 Mar 2016

Another firm offering agarwood investment schemes with lucrative returns has come under scrutiny.

Over the past two years, home-grown firm One Plantation Capital (OPC) has attracted $9.5 million of investments from some 425 customers in a scheme to grow aquilaria trees - prized for the valuable agarwood or oud oil that is harvested from them and then used in perfumes and by spas.

Last month, The Straits Times reported that 70 investors here have cried foul over another firm - Tropical Forestry Venture (TFV) - offering an agarwood investment scheme. TFV has closed its office with no compensation in sight for its investors, who put in sums ranging from $5,000 to $60,000.

Several investors have filed police reports against TFV.

Experts have raised concerns about OPC's scheme, noting, for example, that the seller is effectively an overseas entity.

They also say it appears to be an investment product with guaranteed returns over a fixed period of time, but is a type of investment product not regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

One OPC investor, who declined to be named, appealed to The Straits Times for help. "Can you help to check on this scheme, please? I had joined the scheme because of a friend. I'm just hoping for the best."

Under the OPC scheme, investors are offered a low entry level of a minimum investable sum of $10,000 to buy 10 semi-mature aquilaria trees ($1,000 per tree), due for harvesting in 3 1/2 years.

The sale and purchase, and management agreement obtained by The Straits Times after attending a sales presentation stated that there would be "yearly gains/profit distribution" of 5 per cent of the purchase amount for three years.

In addition, after 31/2 years, the firm pays investors $1,550, or 155 per cent, return for the sale of each tree. This works out to total investment returns of 170 per cent, or 20 per cent a year on an annualised basis - a high rate of return. This translates to total gains of $7,000 for an investment sum of $10,000.

OPC claimed that as the trees are growing, before they are harvested, it is able to offer annual returns to customers from the sales of its line of oud tea which is sold in China.

Besides buying the trees, OPC customers pay a one-time $500 administrative fee which is purportedly the premium payment for an insurance cover from a performance bond, purchased from Indonesian insurer PT Asuransi Asei. The insurance cover - 130 per cent of the purchase price - is meant to protect the customer in case OPC defaults.

The Straits Times notes that the "applicant" stated in the performance bond document is not OPC but a third party, Malaysia-based Gold Assurance Asset Management Company. The sum insured is stated as US$5 million (S$6.9 million).

Clause 6 of the bond states that any dispute concerning the bond falls under the Arbitration Act of Indonesia.

OPC managing director Benjamin Song said the bond covers the agreement between OPC and the purchaser and, in the event of default by OPC, the insurer will pay the clients. Mr Song added that in the sales agreement, OPC is not the seller. Rather it is OPC's overseas entity - for example, One Plantation (Cambodia) Venture - that holds the lease (minimum five years) that is the seller. Its role is to assist the buyer to sell the trees upon maturity in 31/2 years.

OPC has a paid-up capital of $100,000, Acra records show. The tree plantations are in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand, said Mr Song.

Mr Seah Seng Choon, executive director of the Consumers Association of Singapore, warned that as such investment schemes are not regulated by MAS, investors will not be afforded MAS' regulatory framework protection.

"In this instance, we note that the seller and the issuer of the performance bond are foreign entities, which are not subject to Singapore's regulatory framework. Seeking redress from a foreign entity is always cumbersome and uncertain as their laws are different from ours," he added. "Moreover, the cost of seeking redress could also be high."

He added that, in general, investors should always exercise caution and do their own thorough research on any investment schemes that promise high returns with seemingly low risks. Investors who are not prepared to stomach such high-risk ventures should not get involved.

A lawyer noted that as the agreement seems to involve entities in different jurisdictions, it makes it practically impossible to use one jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.

Mr Patrick Lim, associate director at financial advisory PromiseLand Independent, highlighted that clause 3.4 of the sales agreement states that "the purchase amount shall not be refunded (whether in whole or in part) under any circumstances whatsoever".

China's biggest Ponzi scheme: All you need to know about such scams

China's biggest Ponzi scheme: All you need to know about such scams http://str.sg/ZjKi

Source: The Straits Times, Published Feb 1, 2016, 2:33 pm SGT

Nearly one million investors may have been fleeced in China's latest Ponzi scheme, which over the weekend saw 21 executives from its biggest peer-to-peer money lending platform being arrested on suspicion of stealing 50 billion yuan (S$10.8 billion).

The police allege that the senior management of Ezubao had stolen that much money from 900,000 investors nationwide, which would make it China's largest-ever case of investor fraud, by both cash value and the number of victims.

By number of victims, it would be the largest Ponzi scheme in the world.

Here's what you need to know about Ponzi scams:

What is a Ponzi scheme?

A fraudulent investment scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by using the cash from new investors. Such scams actually yield the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors.

But they eventually collapse on themselves when the new investments slow or stop.

Who is the scheme named after?

One Charles Ponzi, a clerk in Boston, who did not invent the scheme that came to bear his name, but whose scam fooled so many people and made him so much money that it brought the such a scheme into the national spotlight for the first time.

In 1919, the Italian immigrant duped thousands of investors, promising them a whopping 50 per cent return in 45 days, or 100 per cent in 90 days on international postal coupons, which he never actually purchased. The international reply coupons from other countries were supposed to be redeemable in the US for postage stamps, with the profit coming from the difference in prices between countries.

A steady flow of new investors initially allowed Ponzi to pay existing investors, while pocketing millions of dollars himself.

But soon enough, the scheme began to raise eyebrows because there were not sufficient international reply coupons for his investment plan to work. It collapsed, bringing six banks down with it. Collectively, his investors lost an estimated US$20 million - equal to US$222 million (S$416 million) in today's money.

Ponzi went to prison for several years but after his release, he launched another scheme where he sold real estate that was literally underwater. He was jailed yet again and ultimately died penniless in Brazil, working as a translator.

Is a Ponzi scheme the same as a pyramid scheme?

They are similar in that both are based on using money from new investors to pay the earlier ones.

But there is one important difference: In a Ponzi scheme, the mastermind gathers all the money from new investors and then distributes them. Pyramid schemes, on the other hand, allow each investor to directly benefit depending on how many new investors are recruited. The person at the top of the pyramid does not at any point have access to all the money in the scheme. Pyramid schemes are illegal in most but not all countries.

For both schemes, however, eventually there is not enough money to go around and the schemes unravel.

What is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever?

There have been many famous Ponzi conmen throughout history, especially in recent years. But the biggest schemer by far was Bernie Madoff.

Madoff stole US$65 billion from thousands of investors from the ordinary to the ultra-rich and famous. A respected former chairman of the Nasdaq stock market, Madoff started his Ponzi scheme in 1986 under the guise of a successful hedge fund - and ran it successfully for 23 years.

But the global financial crisis led to his undoing. In 2009, Madoff received redemption requests worth US$7 billion, which he was unable to meet. He confided his problems to his two sons, who reported him to the authorities.

Madoff is currently serving a 150-year prison sentence. One son hanged himself in 2010 on the two-year anniversary of his discovery of the fraud; the other died in 2014, blaming his cancer relapse on the stress and shame he suffered from his father's massive scam.

Sources: Investopedia, Bloomberg News, Time

China police bust massive S$10.8b Ponzi scheme with over 900,000 investors 

http://str.sg/Zjzm  Published Feb 1, 2016, 11:28 am SGT


http://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/china-police-bust-massive-s108b-ponzi-scheme-with-over-900000-investors?movideo_m=1434885

SHANGHAI - Authorities in China have busted what may well be the country's biggest illegal fund-raising case in terms of money and the number of investors, according to media reports on Monday (Feb 1).

Police arrested 21 people involved in the operation of peer-to-peer (P2P) lender Ezubao, the official Xinhua news agency said on Monday, over an online scam it said took in some 50 billion yuan (S$10.8 billion) from about 900,000 mainland investors.

Ezubao was a Ponzi scheme, the Xinhua report said, and more than 95 per cent of the projects on the online financing platform were fake.

Among those arrested was the scheme's alleged high-flying mastermind - Ding Ning,chairman of Yucheng Group, which launched Ezubao in July 2014.

The suspects are accused of luring in investors with false offers of double-digit annual returns.

Mr Ding, 34, financed his lavish lifestyle with money fleeced from investors, the South China Morning Post reported on Monday.

It said Ezubao was launched in July 2014 and embarked on a massive advertising campaign to raise funds.

On the surface, it was a P2P website with various projects, offering investors annual returns ranging between 9 per cent and 14.6 per cent. But in reality, the website's operators made up most of the projects listed on its website and used funds from new investors to pay old debts, Xinhua reported.

Chinese police said they had sealed, frozen and seized the assets of Ezubao and its linked companies.

The Ezubao case underscores the risks created by China's fast-growing US$2.6-trillion wealth management product industry, said Reuters. Many products are sold through loosely regulated channels, including online financial investment platforms and privately run exchanges.
 

Investors cry foul over tree investments gone wrong

Investors cry foul over tree investments gone wrong http://str.sg/ZyoY

Source: The Straits Times, published 25 Feb 2016

About 70 investors, including Singaporeans and foreigners working here, are crying foul over a scheme that effectively promised that their money could grow on trees.

In 2013, the investors poured sums ranging from $5,000 to $60,000 into a scheme to grow aquilaria trees - a prized tree that is harvested for valuable agarwood or oud oil, used in perfumes and spas.

The investors, who were approached via telemarketing, complain that the firm they gave their money to - Singapore-based Tropical Forestry Venture (TFV) - has folded. It vacated its office at Sago Street more than a year ago.

And so far, they have had no luck pursuing their grievances with the authorities here.

Under the scheme, an investor paid about $230 per sapling or $550 per semi-mature tree. In return, he could expect potential returns of three to seven times when the saplings matured in six to seven years.

For semi-mature trees, the timespan was shorter.

The sales agreements typically state that there is a guaranteed return of $400 to $600 for every tola of agarwood oil harvested. A tola is an old Indian unit of weight, and is 11.66g.

Each tree could potentially yield at least four tolas. The harvesting cost and sales commission added up to 13 to 15 per cent of the sales proceeds.

Depending on the firm, the tree plantations could be in Kelantan in Malaysia or Kanchanaburi in Thailand.

Further complicating the investors' woes is their claim that another firm, Tropical Forestry Assets Management (TFAM), had asked them for cash top-ups to maintain or upgrade their trees before they could be harvested for profits.

When contacted, Mr Ben Soo, founder and managing director of TFAM, said the claims that his firm collected payments related to TFV's past sales were "untrue".

He said he has informed TFV's customers that the payments are for fresh batches of agarwood trees.

Mr Soo said TFAM was in no way related to TFV.

Several of the affected investors have made police reports against the two firms over the past 12 months.

When contacted, the police said it is inappropriate to comment on police investigations, if any.

Retiree Eugene Kwong, 53, told The Straits Times that he paid TFV for 150 saplings at $230 each in November 2013 and 25 semi-mature trees at $550 apiece in January 2014, which worked out to a total of $48,250. He was given an additional 15 trees for free.

Mr Kwong received a certificate of ownership from TFV for his saplings but not for the semi-mature trees.

He alleged that in May last year, he was notified by TFAM that TFV had folded and TFAM had taken over the marketing responsibility for the trees. However, TFAM had no marketing rights for TFV's customers, he claimed.

Subsequently, he bought 50 two-year old trees at $100 apiece from TFAM to try to recoup his investment. These trees will mature in about four years' time. Mr Kwong has filed a police report against TFV.

A 33-year-old investor, who declined to be named, said she bought two batches of 25 semi-mature trees each from TFV in September 2013. Each batch cost $5,250 - $210 per tree - and she paid for the first batch. She was given four trees for free. She said TFV told her at the time that September 2015 was the earliest that she could profit from her trees - and that did not happen.

She alleged that she was informed by TFAM at the end of 2014 that it was taking over the customer accounts from TFV which had ceased operations, and that she could continue her agarwood investments with TFAM. She later paid $7,950 ($310 per tree and $200 to upgrade two free trees) to TFAM in January last year, which she believed was balance payment of her transaction with TFV.

She later found out that TFAM did not consider her payment to be the balance payment of her agreement with TFV, but as payment for a new batch of trees with TFAM.

"I'm very frustrated. I hope TFAM will refund me as it has given the impression that it took over TFV's business," said the investor, who has filed a police report against TFV and TFAM.

The Consumers Association of Singapore said it has received nine complaints against TFV but the complainants were mainly counselled or rejected as the association does not handle such investment cases.

It also received a query relating to another agarwood firm, Asia Plantation Singapore - which is currently on the alert list of the Monetary Authority of Singapore - involving agarwood investments, said the consumer watchdog.

Gold investment firm director 'goes missing'

Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/gold-investment-firm-director-goes-missing
21 Oct 2015

At least seven police reports have been made against a Singaporean businessman who is believed to have gone missing after allegedly taking his clients' money and gold.

Half a dozen local investors of Valiant Capital, a Singapore-registered gold trading company, said they had not received the dividends they were promised and had been unable to contact its director Simon Goh Chee Kin since June.

They invested a total of more than $2.5 million with the company, the six told The Straits Times.

All are former clients of the now- defunct gold trading firm Genneva Gold, which was raided by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) in 2012. The investors say Mr Goh is a former employee of Genneva who set up Valiant Capital in late 2012, promising to help them make back the money they lost.

They said they received monthly dividends of 1 per cent to 2 per cent for several months, before the payments stopped coming.

The company's Orchard Towers office has been vacant for months and the investors said Mr Goh used their money and gold to finance his operations in Shanghai.

Mr Goh, who is in his 30s, has also been accused of wrongdoing in China. A July 3 article in Shanghai Morning Post reported that about 300 Chinese investors, mostly senior citizens, were left stranded after investing an estimated 100 million yuan (S$22 million) with Valiant Capital's Shanghai office, and could not contact Mr Goh.

According to court records of Shanghai Xuhui district, Mr Goh and his wife Sophia Low are due to appear before the court next May as defendants in a civil suit over private lending.

In response to queries, the Singapore police said "it is inappropriate to comment on police investigations, if any".

Singaporean investor Chandran Nair, 63, lost $374,000 with Genneva Gold, and said he invested another $79,000 with Valiant Capital because he trusted Mr Goh.

"He said he's a former police officer and he has a wife and three young children. I went for his son's first-year birthday party."

The retired army officer and father of three said he is now working as a security officer to make ends meet. "I trusted (Mr Goh). He was a real sweet talker. Now we're all in limbo."

The co-director of Valiant Capital, who asked not to be named, said he had no knowledge of Mr Goh's whereabouts. He said that while he is still listed as a director of the company, he had stopped working for Valiant Capital months ago and is currently driving an Uber taxi.

"I had no power, I just followed Simon's instructions. People may say I'm the co-director and it cannot be that I didn't know anything, but it's true (that I didn't). My family and friends also invested and their money is gone."

He said Mr Goh's wife was finance director of the company. She is believed to be in Singapore, but could not be reached on her last known phone number.

Mr Goh had described himself in a 2012 interview with The Sunday Times as a "spender" and "risk-taker" who had been mired in credit card debt in his 20s before making his fortune trading gold and selling property. He also said he spent 11 years in the Singapore Police Force.

Valiant Capital is the latest gold investment firm to come under the spotlight here. In 2012, more than 10,000 investors lost their money to Genneva Gold. A year later, The Gold Guarantee founder Lee Song Teck went on the run. In February this year, more than 100 people lodged reports with the CAD against Suisse International.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced last month that it plans to tighten regulations on certain unconventional investment products, such as gold buyback schemes.

New regulations, to be tabled in Parliament next year, will require such schemes to be authorised or recognised by the MAS.

But for some investors, the safeguards come too late. Mr Nair said: "My 36 years of work, my lifelong savings are all gone."