Wednesday, 17 July 2013

Due Diligence - what does this mean?

In December 2002 Terry Painter promoted (on his Estate Agency notepaper) Shaun Patrick Keegan who he said represented SFP Venture Partners (registered overseas). In 2006, to make TDC's Due Diligence easier on the eye, Shaun Patrick Keegan set up a shell company SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd (registered at Companies House)
This latest company generates no money itself and will only make money should Royal Sands be built and sold, so any money directed through it must come from the mysterious backer(s) who want to make money out of the site's development.

As stated before Shaun Patrick Keegan has never been formally identified through documents such as passport or driving license so when Alan Poole stood up on Monday 8th July 2013 and said a proper due diligence would now take place I was pleased.

How wrong was I!!!!

My email to Alan Poole:



Having read your recent answers from Monday night I note you are still in the process of doing “due diligence” on the recent offer from SFP.

Can you confirm that during this process TDC will make the effort to finally get Shaun Patrick Keegan to provide documentary evidence (passport or driving licence) of his identity. At the same time asking him to provide evidence of residence, something that Harvey Patterson confirmed had never been done in the 10 years of his role in the Pleasurama fiasco.
 
His reply:



Essentially our dealings are with a company (SFP) and their financial position…. not an individual (although we do have to deal with this individual).

The role of due diligence is not to check people's driving licences but mainly to ensure that the development stacks up from a development appraisal point of view (and we are doing specific work with SFP on this at the moment), and secondly that the funding is coming from a legitimate source.

We already have an agreement with SFP who are a legitimate registered company which was set up to specifically to deliver this development.

I hope this answers your questions………..

Well Alan it certainly doesn't. When and if you have to go to court where will your solicitor  serve papers? His Accountants address (that is the registered company address) The British Virgin Islands? Geneva?

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

So based on the following paragragh what safeguards are in place to prevent money laundering?

"The role of due diligence is not to check people's driving licences but mainly to ensure that the development stacks up from a development appraisal point of view (and we are doing specific work with SFP on this at the moment), and secondly that the funding is coming from a legitimate source"

Anonymous said...

None! In Thanetopoly, they're now all in jail!

Anonymous said...

- When and if you have to go to court where will your solicitor serve papers? -

Papers, notices and documents are served to/at the registered address of the company concerned, that is not odd or unusual.

There is no requirement to identify individuals in a company via their driving licence or passort in a transaction such as this, neither is there a requirement on the person or entity making the sale to hold such information.

John Holyer said...

Barry James,

I hope you will not regard my comment as mischievous because this is not my motive in writing it.

I am confused about FORS and its aims. Could you please clarify the criteria for me along the lines of: FORS will have succeeded if ......; and FORS will have failed if .....

Barry James said...

Interesting viewpoint anon 4:24 So others may judge your expertise can you please state what gives you the right to claim such as this is contrary to the viewpoint of the District Auditor and also contrary to TDC's own policy.

Barry James said...

John as I have stated on my intro this blog is not on behalf of FORS but is to identify the circumstances of the events that led to TDC making quite inept decisions in the hope that they won't get in the same position again. On a wider debate I believe the job of TDC is as Steward of land they hold for the people of Thanet and it is that stewardship that is called into question. FORS has a website where you can view the collective aims but when you have a Facebook page with over 1000 people I suspect there is also 1000 opinions as well

John Holyer said...

Well Barry,

If, as suggest, FORS has 1000 differing opinions then how can anyone be reasonably expected to treat them seriously? You have described FORS as nothing more than a directionless mob. Is that what they are, in your opinion?

I have emailed FORS direct: info@friendsoframsgateseafront.org.uk

Barry James said...

john why do you play with words and attribute words and meaning to me that I haven't said. I said " I suspect there is also 1000 opinions as well" which is not the same as there are 1000 opinions. FORS on their website has stated their aims can you not make the effort and read them? I am a member on the FORS FB page as you were once. Many opinions have been expressed on the page both during your sojourn and after you left. If you want to express your opinion rejoin. This Blog has been set up to reveal what has been discovered about the developer something you find "curiouser and curiouser"

John Holyer said...

Barry,

I left FORS FB page because it made me none the wiser about FORS ultimate aim. No one appeared to be leading the project. I made a point of studying these FB comments. Which, in the main, were from from placard waving protesters. One of the most prolific actually styles himself as an anarchist; and I failed to understand how the politics of anarchy could repair the Pleasurama debacle. So I gave up.

I thought you might be able to help me, but I was wrong.

I'm hoping that whoever organises FORS will send me an informed reply to my email

Barry James said...

sorry to hear it left you none the wiser, It was sometime ago and I've always find is taking part in the debate is better than sitting on the sidelines. Have you ever wished that you could actually put what you want forward and add to the debate?

John Holyer said...

Barry,

At the moment my point is simple. I want to know what exactly does FORS wish to achieve? Until I know this I see no point in entering the debate.

Barry James said...

FORS would like this developer removed due to the lack of progress over the last 11 years. Then a meaningful debate over what should be there. by meaningful a proper public consultation. I hope that is useful. If the Public Consultation ever occurs will you be putting forward your point of view?

Anonymous said...

Barry,
over 40 years in the property business, commercial and housing.

What do you base your claim of knowledge and experience to be able to make jugdements on these subjects Barry, so others may judge your expertise?

It's not a viewpoint, it is a statement of the legal position, as has been applied in the industry for many many years.

Barry James said...

what industry anon do you refer. In 2009 TDC took £1m from the company as a surety and at the same time they sold 3 leases for £550K. It has always been a requirement in transactions involving the sale of leases that the buyer is formally identified. Just because the buyer is a ltd company does not mean that the beneficial owner is identified. It is done so there is a paper trail should there for any reason tax evasion, fraud or other criminal action be identified and the police become involved.

Barry James said...

anon 1:37 when I said what experience I would be expecting qualifications, your name as it is easy to state what you did but without any way of verifying the information it is meaningless. When I said about due diligence on identity it comes from a personal meeting with the district auditor accompanied by 2 councillors as well as my qualifications and experience in both accountancy and financial services.

Paul James said...

It seems very clear that SFP Venture Partners could never have ticked the due diligence boxes for the Council's Auditors. Councillors involved at the time must have known this, either then or up to four years later and Keegan must then have been instructed to set up a shell company in order to continue with the deal. Who within TDC agreed that a shell company could avoid proper due diligence of a BVI Company, and who told Keegan to set up that Shell company? Why wont they admit that now? Is it because they would also have to admit to a conspiracy?

Barry James said...

Paul I understand your feelings but being complicit in someone else's actions would take letters confirming advice given to Keegan by someone in TDC. I agree if the start of the saga was the 2006 agreement however it wasn't the start, so the advice I would give to the Task & Finish group would always be follow the paper trail. As an accountant they also need to follow the money.

Anonymous said...

Is the anon at 01.37 an estate agent who likes to pretend he's doing business with Whitbread? Now what qualifications do you require for misleading those in public office to part with public property?

Barry James said...

No idea anon without a name one cannot tell. I think Michael Child has the same problem on his blog

Anonymous said...

Barry,
I note that you claim qualifications and experience in accountancy and financial services, but none in property. I think that could be where the difficulty lies. It seems you inaccurately seek to apply what you see as correct legislation in an incorrect manner.

There is no requirement to list, and have passports/driving licences for - beneficial owners - of ltd's in a property transaction, if it is a legally constituted Ltd. co.

As for experience and qualifications, the wall now has as much information about me as it does you, except my name. My comments stand on their own merit Barry.

Barry James said...

anon 5:31 again you show your are wrong. I have a legally constituted Company I have run for many years and to own property firstly the estate agent had to comply with the law and identify me as well as the company. Then applying for the loan to buy all controlling directors had to provide identity and then when the legal work was done again identity details had to be provided by the controlling directors. Should you wish to check the internet for both Proceeds of Crime act and money laundering act (last updated in 2007) and see where you have been going wrong

Anonymous said...

Sorry Barry, what were the qualifications and experience in accountancy and financial services that you claim to have, you seem to have forgotten to include that information.

Once again Barry, you are incorrect. The source of funds to the Ltd company is not a matter that has to be proven or evidenced if it is sourced through a UK clearing bank, and the company completing the transaction is a properly constituted UK company.

Any proof of identity required to secure funds is a matter for the fund provider and the borrower, and has no bearing on the seller.

Further, the seller of the property doesn't need to have, or retain documentary evidence of any kind as to the buyer, or the funds.

It seems that for over 40 years myself and the people I have worked extensively with on many projects have got it quite correct.

I think you might need to seek advice from a property professional Barry, I think you are labouring under a completely understandable beginners failure to understand the legislation in this area.

Barry James said...

anon again you make no sense and again you fail to disclose who you work for, your qualifications, and your experience. you just write nebulous words, however your opinion is completely irrelevant to the people who matter. I have discussed this matter with the people who do matter and am satisfied they do understand the regulations that impact on TDC's decisions