[dgroshev]

The buyer is a one person company with £14k in cash and £16k in debts as of the last year https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...

They have an empty cookie cutter website https://westlondoncitylets.co.uk/our-work.html and its owner has an empty linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/idris-anjary-24000b171/

The same guy owns Tokenized Properties Ltd which is an empty husk of a company https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/o... and shares its address with West London City Lets Ltd

However, they do have another cookie cutter website selling that "development opportunity" https://tokenized-properties.com/ and repeating the $1.25m price tag

According to the title (and corroborated by the entry on mattereum) the only land in it is the one I marked in red https://imgur.com/a/5h6c8Zi — it's literally a cliff, plus the title talks about right of way on the paths marked there for the next twenty years, so it's impossible to build on

This right here just perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with the crypto industry, I'm very disappointed to see Vinay openly defending this sham

[leashless]

1) the £7000 payment was a transaction fee on the transfer of the land.

2) we have an independent valuation on file for the land at >1M. I wanted to reconfirm this with a member of my team before replying with specifics here, which you read as “he’s being evasive.” I was waiting for data.

The full documentation stack for the land is in the Asset Passport linked from the OpenSea listing.

If you want access to the documents email me and I’ll see about getting you an NDA and putting you in touch with the seller - they may or may not choose to satisfy your curiosity.

Thank you for your diligence.

[dgroshev]

You're replying to a different person, I'm not phphphphp and I didn't call you evasive.

Reading through a sibling subthread with phphphphp, I just can't understand how you can tell that with a straight face. What "complex deal"? What "transaction fee"? The title literally says "last sold for", so unless you're saying the transaction involved elaborate tax evasion designed to hide the real price that's what it was sold for.

Then there is the other party in this $1m+ transaction that's supposed to be serious. Someone called Idris Anjary, whose only claim to fame on internet is a bunch of press releases for this deal, before that they're just a normal self employed person helping people get planning permissions for minor renovations [1] and building sheds [2] while operating from an office over an off licence [3]. All their companies together never saw more than one hundredth of the money you're saying that deal is worth.

Come on, let's be serious for a second. Either it's a sham, or the actual purchase and the person and the company doing it are just fronts, which is not exactly confidence inspiring.

Edit: btw, your environmental survey is off, the mini map on page 3 makes it clear the report is about the larger plot of land, not the part of it included in the sale. The Southern Water report is very likely wrong too, it says there's a public sewer there but the only connection on the map is from the larger plot.

[1]: https://planning.islington.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/004225...

[2]: https://www.activearchitecture.co.uk/portfolio/outbuilding-o...

[3]: https://goo.gl/maps/NDdM5og2Sh6EvXK68

[4]: https://passport.mattereum.com/West.London.Lets.01/01_Identi...

[phphphphp]

Either you're a fraud or a fool.

The land registry does not list "transaction fees" and neither do auction houses. If the land was indeed purchased for a large amount of money, the buyer (who is now the seller) would need to have purchased it... either in cash, or with a mortgage. There's no mortgages outstanding for the company (per companies house) and the company has no money.

I'll be charitable and assume you're just a fool: you've been played by your property agency partners, and the "member of your team" is of course, I'm sure, the person who provided the valuation from their "independent" valuer (because they're the property expert after all).

You can go on rightmove or an auction website right now and see comparable land available for <£100k. The basis of your defence was that of course the land is worth a lot because land in the UK is worth a lot but that's just not true, the only place where parking spaces sell for more than £7,000 is in London: in 75%+ of the country, you could buy 1 acre of land for £7,000.

The value of unused land for sale is a function of the amount of realisable value, for example, if there is a piece of land with planning permission for a 5 bedroom house in an area where a 5 bedroom house sells for £1,000,000, the price of the land would be something like £1m - (cost of building a house) - (some adjustment for the risk borne by the builder which becomes their profit), e.g: £500k.

If your 1.72 acres of beach front land is worth close to £2,000,000 that would mean there is much more than £2,000,000 realisable value for an owner of the land. Please, think through how you could conceivably realise millions of pounds of value from a piece of land that you are unable to build on.

Land in the UK is plentiful, the reason that a small proportion of land here is expensive is because only a small proportion of land is suitable for development and has permission for development. You could buy acres and acres of land anywhere in the UK for the price of 1 months rent in London... because the land is undevelopable, because you'll never get permission to develop.

The idea that an acre of beachfront is worth millions, when it has much less than a million worth of realisable value, is absurd. You're a business man, write a business case for this land.

If £7,000 was a "transaction fee" then is this other auction, with a listed sold price of £130,750, a transaction fee of £130k for this piece of land? And if so, is this land worth (130,750 / 7000) * 1,900,000 = £35 million?

https://www.cliveemson.co.uk/properties/237/15/

[leashless]

Eh. I’m sorry, I know you feel like you’ve got relevant expertise here and you’re doing some kind of public service here fighting with those evil blockchain people.

But you’re out of your depth and making very week assertions to cover the gaps in your data.

If you want to NDA and talk directly to the sellers of the land about the commercials of the deal, that can probably be arranged. But your speculation is based on weak data not access to the facts, and is not really going to replace things like an independent valuation and the opinions of the experienced real estate lawyers who papered this deal.

Yes, it’s a novel way to buy land, but the underlying deal mechanics are pretty conservative. There is nothing up anybody’s sleeves, and we encourage full diligence from any prospective buyers - they’re going to need to bring their own legal counsel to assess the purchase mechanisms and the NFT binding arrangements anyway.

This is not some deal to retail: we expect the sale to be to a real estate developer.

I don’t think there’s anything else I can do to convince you of your error.

Thanks for your interest in our work.

[leashless]

Also this “close to the sea front” land you have posted appears to be “close to the sea front” in the sense of “being in the middle of a housing estate somewhere near the sea” not an actual beach.

And that’s valued at 130,000?

I’m just sayin’ 7000 does not buy very much land in the UK. Not anywhere.

[phphphphp]

Oh, so you acknowledge that the listed price of £130,000 is the value? Thank you, so by extension you acknowledge that £7,000 was the sale price of the piece of beach.

I'd also suggest you re-read my comment: land has value when it has planning permission. The £130,000 piece of land is valuable because it has planning permission that would allow a developer to sell a house for ~>£250k on it. The size and location of land is immaterial to the value of land unless the size and location increase the amount of money that can be extracted from the land -- typically through development. The entire point of my comment is that the desirability of land is not based on how cute it is (a slice of beach) but rather what it can be used for (even if it's in the middle of a housing estate).

I'll stop commenting now because I'm just beating a dead horse (...or donkey, I guess your land could be used to offer beach front donkey rides, so that's something...). I wish you luck, it's clear you've been taken advantage of and that's unfortunate: if you come to your senses, there's lots of land all over the UK that is actually valuable, and once you cut off your current partners and partner with some legitimate property industry people instead, I am sure you can make a much better go of NFT property sales :) Good luck!

[leashless]

As noted the 7000 was a transaction fee. The land was part of a more complex deal.

As for the rest of this: land gets planning permission when plans are presented - which is what property developers do for a living.

I would not expect somebody to plank down >1m on an asset they had no idea how to utilise: the expectation is the land will sell to a developer who is ready to go through that process.

What else would anybody do with it?

[phphphphp]

Nobody is going to buy it for >£1m because it's worthless. That's the point. Although at this point I am not sure what your story is, if I understand it correctly, you're saying West London Lets bought it for >£1m with no idea what to do with it...? Except they didn't, are you finally going to give up that charade given that you can see the purchase price on your own website? Here, read this: https://passport.mattereum.com/West.London.Lets.01/01_Identi...

"Title absolute 1 (28.02.2022) PROPRIETOR: WEST LONDON CITY LETS LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 09214284) of 68 High Worple, Harrow HA2 9SZ. 2 (28.02.2022) The price stated to have been paid on 20 October 2021 was £7,000. 3 (28.02.2022) The Transfer to the proprietor contains a covenant to observe and perform the covenants contained within the registers of the..."

If you're going to lie, at least make sure your own website doesn't betray you :) Or, going back to the original point about stamp duty, the alternative is that your partners engaged in fraudulent reporting to evade stamp duty and your comments here are exposing them.