A man who was jailed after concocting an elaborate $6 million property scam to defraud overseas investors has been granted a year to get his affairs in order before he’s deported back to China.
He and his female co-offender pleaded guilty to a raft of dishonesty charges in 2021 after they were found to have defrauded a wealthy couple by convincing them to buy part of an Auckland property development.
The man was served a deportation notice from Immigration New Zealand shortly before he was released from prison on parole in May last year. Since then he has fought to remain in the country by filing an appeal with the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT).
In a recently released ruling, the tribunal declined his appeal but granted him a one-year visa to get his affairs in order and to pay the remaining $640,000 he still owes his victim.
NZME has not published the man’s name to protect the privacy of his young child.
However, he told NZME in an emailed statement that his mistakes “have not only harmed society and victims but have also had irreparable effects on my family”.
“Regarding the recent decision by the IPT, my family and I are deeply disappointed. This outcome has added to the challenges we are already facing,” he said.
“I am currently dedicated to rebuilding my life, repairing relationships with my family, and diligently working to move forward. I have severed ties with past acquaintances to focus on positive changes.”
According to the tribunal decision and court documents, the man’s scam involved a proposed investment property in an Auckland suburb.
An overseas investor was told he needed to invest certain sums of money to purchase the property, while the man and his co-offender also told him others were contributing towards the investment.
But they misrepresented the amounts required and no others were offering any funds.
The fraud, court documents show, included the use of a $10m loan agreement with forged signatures and numerous emails containing false invoices to help obtain the investor’s funds.
Phony invoices for the development were also generated as coming from law firms, a geotechnical company and an engineering and design consultancy as well as a forged Land Information New Zealand (Linz) title document.
The investor said in a victim impact statement he became suspicious about the arrangement and had his accountant examine the accounts, leading to the discovery of a multimillion-dollar shortfall.
The total sum of the fraud, the court heard, was $8m but the investor was deceived into paying about $6m.
Since then, the man has repaid $1.32m to his victims.
Both offenders served just shy of three years in jail after they pleaded guilty to charges of theft by a person in a special relationship, obtaining by deception, using a forged document, false accounting, and dishonestly using a document.
Because the man committed an imprisonable offence within five years of becoming a resident of New Zealand, he voided the terms of his visa and became liable for deportation.
However, the tribunal has the power to overrule Immigration New Zealand when there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature.
His claim to the tribunal was that since his offending, his life has been ruined and he has lost his savings, reputation, marriage and his freedom.
While now separated from his wife, he still helps service her mortgage, provides for his daughter and is looking after his elderly parents, who are also in New Zealand.
“His deportation would deprive his young daughter of his fatherly care and support and the enjoyment of a normal life,” his lawyer, Roger Chambers, said in submissions to the tribunal.
“The appellant’s elderly parents are permanent residents of New Zealand. They are unable to return to China as they have no property or assets there and are in poor health. The appellant is their only son and, if deported, he would be unable to support and care for them in their old age.”
Chambers said that deportation would expose his client to loneliness and depression as a result of forcible separation from his family and would be “unduly harsh”.
“The appellant has accepted his role in what was ‘rather comprehensive’ offending and put right the wrongs that he was involved in,” Chambers said.
Rhys Boyd, counsel acting on behalf of the Minister for Immigration, said the man had failed to meet the threshold for exceptional humanitarian circumstances.
“The appellant’s offending was in flagrant disregard to the rights of the victims,” Boyd said.
“It would be against the public interest to not deport the appellant because of the seriousness and number of his convictions, the extremely high monetary value and sustained nature of his offending, and the risk of recidivism.”
The tribunal took into account the man’s relationship with his daughter and that deporting him would be a significant upheaval for her.
“His parents will be faced with a difficult choice between remaining in New Zealand without their son and with the absence of the social support that he provides or a return to China with him where they no longer own a home and will face shame and humiliation of family members,” the tribunal noted.
“In addition to these factors, the tribunal has the best interests of the appellant’s daughter at the forefront of its mind as a primary consideration that must be weighed in determining whether it would be unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported.”
Ultimately, the tribunal found it would not be unduly harsh for the man to be deported.
However, it exercised its discretion to grant him a year to get his affairs in order in terms of arranging care for his daughter and parents, and to pay the remaining $640,000 he still owed his victim.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
Story continues below Advertisement
A Mumbai-based investment consultant was booked for allegedly cheating investors of Rs 54 crore. Amber Dalal, against whom the FIR has reportedly been filed in Mumbai, ran a consultancy firm Ritz Consultancy that promised a 2% per month return on investments.
According to the police, 55 investors have reported that they were scammed by Dalal. However, the police believe it could be a ponzi scheme and it might involve a much bigger amount, reported Indian Express on March 18.
Story continues below Advertisement
Investors claimed that they received the returns regularly on time till February. But the payment due for March was not sent to anyone. That’s when the alarm bells starting ringing. Initially, Dalal said he was attending his sick wife and therefore could not make the payment. He promised that he will pay the investors by March 14. However, when the payment did not materialise, some of the investors went to his Oshiwara residence. Failing to find him, investors filed a case of cheating. Many suspect he could flee the country.
Soumya Parmar, the co-founder of Himalayan Origins, asked for help on X platform (formerly Twitter). “Please help locate Mr Amber Dalal. Owner of a private investment firm in Mumbai called Ritz Consultancy. He’s missing since 14th March 24. Over 1000 crores are invested by over 500 investors across India/abroad. He’s on the run,” she wrote on X.
Parmar also claimed that Dalal’s car was last seen crossing Dahisar, which could mean he is possibly heading to Gujarat.
Story continues below Advertisement
According an X user, Dalal had promised at least 22% annual return with the safety of capital. Over 1,000 people might have invested in the scheme, Nishant Batra CWM (@stepbystep888) claimed on X.
Discover the latest business news, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
The victims typically responded to property rental listings online, mostly on Facebook but also on Carousell and rental advertisement sites.
They would generally interact with the scammers through WhatsApp using the contact numbers published in the property rental listing.
During their exchange, the scammers would impersonate a legitimate property agent and convince the victims of their credentials by sending pictures of property agent passes, business cards, pictures and videos or virtual tours of the rental property.
However, the contact numbers provided would differ from the actual contact numbers of the legitimate property agent registered with the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA).
When the victims asked if they could view the property, the scammers would claim that there was high demand for the property and pressure them into making deposits to secure the property.
The victims would discover that they had been scammed when the fake agents ceased contact with them or when they reached out to the legit agents who were impersonated by the scammers.
In some cases, the victims were asked to meet up with the “personal assistants” of the fake property agents who would help facilitate their viewing of the property.
After the viewing, the victims would be told to provide their personal particulars for the tenancy agreement and to make payments for the rentals through bank transfers or PayNow.
But the scammer or “personal assistants” would cease contact with the victims after receiving payments. At least 144 people lost $917,000 to this method of scamming between July 2023 and January 2024.
The police advise verifying the legitimacy of a property listing by the following means:
- Do not rely on Facebook or Carousell listings or the assurances of the scammer over WhatsApp. Potential renters should verify the identity of the property agents renting out the properties against the CEA Public Register before dealing with them. Check whether the phone number in the property listing belongs to a property agent registered with CEA. To do so, you should key in the advertised phone number on the CEA Public Register at www.cea.gov.sg/aceas/public-register to perform a search. If the search does not lead to a CEA-registered property agent’s profile page, it means that the phone number is not registered with CEA and is likely a scam, even if the property agent’s name and registration number can be found in the CEA Public Register. Contact the property agent only at the phone number registered with CEA.
- Contact the property agent’s agency from trusted sources (such as the CEA Public Register or the agency’s website and not the number given by the Facebook or Carousell advertisement) to verify the authenticity of the listing.
- Potential renters should view the properties in person and check that they are dealing with the actual CEA-registered property agent (not their unqualified assistant) in order to safeguard themselves. Tenants and occupiers should know that under the CEA practice guidelines, property agents are supposed to meet you face-to-face to verify your identity for all residential rental transactions.
- Property agents are not permitted to demand and collect payments to view or rent properties. Payment of rental deposits or rent should be made directly to the landlord using verifiable payment modes such as crossed cheques and bank transfers and must be paid to the landlord’s bank accounts, not the “personal assistants” bank account or unverified PayNow numbers.