Author Topic: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen  (Read 60330 times)

Online shortport

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #315 on: November 04, 2015, 12:46:42 AM »
Its a shame we have such pathetic media.There really is something really fishy going on with this finance centre.Two successive council of ministers have been in favour of it,thats two different sets of polticians,two different chief ministers.During this time it has always been controversial and no proof offered of its validity.There must be people pushing for it all this time through two governments.Who are these people?What are their motives?Dig deep my friends because the JEP won't help us.

Online boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3407
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #316 on: November 10, 2015, 02:23:05 PM »
Is any one able to find or post on here for the members, public and foreign guests from Russia Europe and the USA the " so called " Evans letter that is alleging corruption within the States of Jersey Development Company ?

It would be very interesting to put it out there in the public domain to see if any witnesses is the real world have more evidence running either way ?

Just PM me confidentially if you would raher not put it up yourself.

It's got another blog very interested also, quote:

Part of a strange document called “The Evans” letter has been circulating to States members and on Facebook. It makes a number of very serious allegations against the development of the Jersey International Finance Centre, ranging from extra costs relating to preparing the offices of UBS, to be borne by the SOJC ("sweeteners"), to what appears to be illegal misuse of funds.

I say strange because it appears to be a page of a much larger document, and the author and its provenance are uncertain, as are the accuracy of the claims it makes. They should certainly be investigated however.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2015-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2016-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=50

Boatyboy.

Thank You anonymous have  - put up the allegations on here so now its in the public domain. Apparently it is already somewhere on face book.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2015, 03:13:03 PM by boatyboy »

Online boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3407
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #317 on: January 07, 2016, 03:32:56 PM »
Any person wishing to read into the full history of WEB that then became SoJDC may find this thread interesting. What is a fact is that when Harcourt as the preferred and only developer crashed and burned after Lee Henry who at the time was responsibly to the states and the board for due diligence being employed as Finance director strangely and without penalty kept his job and was promoted.

It is of course completely unreasonable to put all the blame on his shoulders as finance director as his CEO was Mr Steven Izatt, and not all decisions like keeping the financial report on Harcourts health regarding wealth by PWC secret. The problems in the courts in Ireland and Nevada were also kept secret from Government, although later the WeB staff admitted knowing about them but said it was a different branch of the  Harcourt development company. The outcome was an Island Government and by extension the population completely miss lead by Mr Henery and his close knit quango. The rest is history as they say, with Harcourt bid collapsing with the banks and the plans for them to build the  International Finance Centre with it.

In fact the board with Deputy Eddie Noel, who is now TTS Minister in the States was party to a letter advising the states not to go ahead as there would be over supply.

It is almost completely unbelievable the any Government would still have faith in this elaborate plan although passed in principle it is still alive and active. Mr Henry is of course correct in stating it may have been passed six times already but that as reader you suspect is not the whole truth and is explained further on.

At the time of the debate in the States as to whether Harcourt should be given the contact to build was also  the time that the secret reports and pending court cases surfaced thanks to  Deputy Baudains proving that  "the ruler may have been run over Harcourt many times " and Harcourt are - NOT- involved in court cases ( to quote CM Frank Walker  ) but as the deputy proved they were involved and worse they did not have the funds to build.

Let us return to Mr Henrys statement of the development being approved six times since then. Terry Le Suer the Treasury Minister told an angry and aggressive states that yes the developer had problems but not the plan itself which had taken many years and was a wonderful vision for the future for Jersey. He convinced the unsettled and seething states members to not scrap the plans but leave the plans alone on the understanding and " promise " that a full independent revue would be commissioned showing the need for the development before a brick was laid. He also promised that unlike the secrecy and withholding of reports to states members, every states member would be given a copy of the new and comprehensive report before the states would be asked for it's permission to go ahead, probably with a new developer or maybe more than one building firm.

This of course was trashed by Philip Ozouf as Terry Le Suer was no longer involved in the States. Philip Ozouf countered the reminders and requests for Le Suers promises to be upheld with a completely independent report by promising ( sound familiar ) that no building would take place until the offices ( as best practice ) would be fully pre let. There will be no risk he said. The States trusted his words ( which is more than surprising  ) and shelved the proposition for an independent report believing that no building would be started until it was fully signed up with new tenants. This off course never happened. It was a mistake said the new treasury minister Alan Maclean as one tenant taking a mere 16% of available floor space replaces the 100% promise by Senator Ozouf, and building starts without waiting for a corporate scrutiny report to be finished.

Today the man who acted so dismally ( or under orders ) as finance director for WEB has now been promoted to head of the same company with a different name and wider remit dealing in all public property up for development. Permissions for the second building have been given even though the first building under completion is only partly rented with an option to take more at a further date. The new Treasury minister repeats often that the office blocks will cost the public nothing even though HSBC bank the lenders are using public land and the building itself as collateral, such is the depth of intelligence of the treasury minister on Jersey. Maybe he has a hidden agenda ?

Treasury Minister Alan Maclean is carrying on what appears to be a trait amongest Jersey's treasury ministers because he clearly stated at a town hall meeting and is on record as addressing the large audience regarding the unpopular and unnecessary building of the Jersey Finance Centre by stating that after the first office block is built that no further office blocks will be constructed unless tenants are lined up, and the demand is there. Remember they are having trouble filling the first one in a rapidly changing island and finance industry which appears to be shrinking. The second building has planning permission and they are keen to start work on construction recently having the second building go through planning at a cost of over £100,000 for a second time to move borders and to avoid a legal challenge. This is not the action of a secretive quango waiting for the promised uplift in demand and tenants signatures this is a States entity at arms length out of control.

The Dear Freddie letter from the organisation themself only four years ago gives a clear picture of advice ignored, but offers no explanation as to why SoJDC are building office blocks today with oversupply and a clear message of office over supply working against the interest of the island.

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/ScrutinyReviewSubmissions/Submission%20-%20Jersey%20International%20Finance%20Centre%20-%20The%20Waterfront%20Enterprise%20Board%20-%2027%20February%202015.pdf

From a different researched blog with several organisations apposing the Government speculative building of offices.

More office blocks and slight of hand.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/waterfront-tangled-web.html
 
The Jersey International Finance Centre as presently constituted is not considered viable and is unlikely to to even fund the cost of the underground car park needed to replace the parking on site, let alone generate the previously step return of £50 million.’

Report slams the viability of the project.

http://sosjersey.co.uk/jersey-international-finance-centre-todays-damning-scrutiny-report/

BB




 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 06:16:51 AM by boatyboy »

Online boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3407
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #318 on: March 04, 2016, 06:09:57 AM »
" Cheap office space caused by over supply " er now who said that ? Oh yes it was Deputy Eddie Noel when sitting on the board  of WEB, advising the planning minister that there would be an - over supply - of office space. The letter is becoming famous and is called " The Dear Freddie Letter " see It on this thread posted by Gladiator at Reply 313 ………….   a page back.


 Well OK click on link, it is more for the smaller business, but who would have thought reasonably priced, modern office space.

Hello Alan and Lee, looks like you have just lost a shed more clients who were supposed to be definitely signing up [ for the last five years ]. Look at the square footage up for rent with two months free if you sign up for a year.

http://www.honeycombjersey.com

Installed Tenants

http://www.honeycombjersey.com/ipopdigital-wharf-street/

bb
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 06:32:18 AM by boatyboy »

Online boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3407

Online boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3407
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #320 on: April 05, 2016, 08:26:47 PM »
Mr Lee Henry was the director in charge of due diligence at WEB being transferred from the States Treasury department where he worked as an accountant. Nothing to do with property management or property development.

The Chief Minster of the time preached to the States Assembly that Harcourt had " had the ruler run over them many times and met all criteria " ( or words to that effect )

Mr Henry even commissioned as finance director two separate reports plus an earlier report by King Surge ( that was hidden from sight ) The PwC report ( also secret but leaked to Deputy Southern ) gave Harcourt a 1.4 score out of a possible 5 which was a fail. Mr Henry appears to have withheld that information from Jersey's Government ?

So what is all this to do with the price of bread today ?

Mr Henry ( ex civil servant ) desperate to find tenants for the International finance centre, and based on his flawed due diligence work involving Harcourt, is obviously having trouble finding tenants that is obvious. Still at least he has one for the moment ? Who would really want to share a building with UBS ?

Quote:

Two global companies were under mounting pressure, and threats were flying.

For years, the Swiss banking giant UBS and a Panama law firm named Mossack Fonseca embraced each other in a mutually profitable relationship. UBS had customers who wanted offshore shell companies to keep their finances hidden. And Mossack Fonseca, one of the largest creators of offshore companies in the world, was happy to sell them.

But in 2010, under threat of a U.S. criminal prosecution for tax evasion and money laundering, UBS was scrambling to contain the damage. The bank’s board of directors wanted out of the shell-company business.

Tensions boiled over in a meeting in Zurich on September 28 when UBS asserted that Mossack Fonseca was responsible for identifying the owners of the shell companies behind the secret accounts – not the bank.

Mossack Fonseca employee Dieter Buchholz argued that his firm had no idea who really owned some of the companies created for UBS customers, because the bank had withheld that information.

UBS executive Patrick Küng objected, saying Mossack Fonseca was “in violation of the Swiss money laundering code,” and he was “seriously” contemplating reporting the law firm to the authorities, according to emails describing the encounter.

https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160404-banks-lawyers-hide-assets.html

BB
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 01:06:09 AM by boatyboy »

Offline danrok

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #321 on: April 06, 2016, 01:04:01 AM »
Probably plenty of firms would jump at the chance of getting into bed with UBS, a company which makes 10's of billions in profits.

Online boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3407
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #322 on: September 19, 2016, 04:27:09 PM »
May 31st 2008 is when this topic first saw the light of day on this Forum a long time to collect facts and useful data and admittedly some dross but not as much as dross as was spoken on the local radio.

On Friday in the so called hot seat on BBC Jersey Radio Health Minister Andrew Green came over as a pleasant guy doing his best but oh so off the ball when a chap called Paul living in St Brelades asked a question to which the Health Minister answered

Now let us try and be fair to the ill informed Minister that sits around the big table discussing all matters pertaining to Jersey's present and future. He is the health Minister obviously but his answer to the question was ridiculous.

The question asked was:

Do you think the SoJDC should be building office blocks funded by the tax payer ?

Andrew Green said that in today's climate the States would probably not be doing so, but all those years back there was a very few developers therefore it was right that the states got involved to create competition.

This is of course complete non factual ill informed bulls*ite, which would have given the Jersey resident listener very little comfort, coming from an assistant chief minister.

WEB was formed because the development of the waterfront was bogged down in disputes amongst states departments and politicians and going no where. WEB ( the Waterfront - Development - Board ) was supposed to present Jersey with a world class waterfront, at no cost to the taxpayer.

This or course did not happen as planned as the infrastructure for the Raddisons was built for the developers  funded by the taxpayer and a £10 million pound grant built the Aquasplash. On the understanding behind closed doors that the Fort Regent Olympic size pool was closed.

Then came Freddie Cohen's dream the Financial Quarter.

As this failed partly due to Mr Henry's appalling due diligence while working as the finance director of WEB, after a period of time the states narrowly decided to pass all public property over to the renamed States of Jersey Development Company ( from WEB ) in order to well read for yourself:

Regeneration of redundant sites for the States of Jersey Property holdings department.

http://www.jerseydevelopment.je/media/14859/sojdc_mou_final_22-07-11.pdf

Notice there is no mention of  providing competition for established developers and builders in fact what is laughable is that Cameron's a long time established developer and builder is employed by SoJDC to build the first office block.

Minister Andrew Green also said today's Government would probably not have gone down the same route today, the problem being with such an ill informed politician is what other facts are they fed that they do not research or confirm,  that makes them look so stupid and incompetent when they spurt this rubbish to an informed resident population ?

Based on him being completely wrong in his reasoning - the question is,  why are the States involved in office and residential development when the tax paying private sectors so ably demonstrate they can build office blocks on demand using their own finance, without any risk to taxpayers money and 20% of any profit taken by the Tax Department.

Boatyboy.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2016, 05:02:32 PM by boatyboy »

Online Fritz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2645
  • Gender: Male
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #323 on: September 20, 2016, 03:12:15 AM »
States invented quangos should be allowed nowhere near property development.
Real ,"Property Developers", take risks with their own money and fly or fall by their gambles.
The SOJDC are all salaried,(Very highly), and play with ,(In their opinion), unlimited funds.
They are amateurs playing,(With your money), in a highly professional game.
They have nothing to lose,(Except your money). A few years of high-flying, wheeling and dealing, (Whilst losing millions of pounds of tax-payers money), will eventually see them dismissed for their incompetence. It wont matter to them. Their nests will be well-feathered.

Online boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3407
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #324 on: September 21, 2016, 03:00:19 PM »
The underlying points are that private developers risk their own money, and once the building is let or sold pay 20% of the profit to the Government who have taken no financial risk.

Is it the same with SoJDC the articles require them to pay no tax but an annual dividend ( or not ). The dividend value is decided by the quango's board so is this more than the 20% a private taxable company would pay ? Excellent research from Tonys blog gives us some answers. WEB had a dismal return history of hardly anything. Is Mr Henrys SoJDC any better ? Why Does the Treasury Minister Maclean and Ozouf before him not expect a proper commercial return to be paid to the states coffers ?

Quote: May 2014.


A dividend has been returned to the States of £816,400 for the past two years, an improvement on the Waterfront Enterprise Board, which returned none at all during its lifespan.
 
But this is not the whole picture. As the notes tell us, the SOJDC receives rental income from the States of Jersey for Liberation Station of £78,889, which is money flowing from the States back to the company at market rates. And for a licence to operate the Esplanade Car Park, they receive £759,000 from the States of Jersey. That totals £837,889 making a net flow from the States to the SOJDC of £21,489.  It is a crazy looking glass world!
 
Perhaps they might consider smaller bonuses for the directors, and more dividends remitted to the States of Jersey, so that the net flow would at least break even!
 
Certainly the statement by Lee Henry - 'It remains the position today based on independent professional advice that the JIFC scheme will generate a net return in the order of £50 million for the public.' - begs the question - when?
 
Based on current and past returns, money tends to be swallowed up by the Jersey Development Company, and I, for one, have little optimism about any returns even if the scheme does prove successful.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/states-of-jersey-development-company.html

Further More from the same source:


http://tonymusings.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/jersey-international-finance-centre.html


All credit to tonymusings.

BB
« Last Edit: September 21, 2016, 03:02:22 PM by boatyboy »

Online boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3407
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #325 on: December 04, 2016, 11:14:45 PM »
Given the secretive way that the SoJDC operates is this comment from a whistle blower ? Office blocks at  (43 )Thousand square feet at 45 and 47 the Esplanade are for sale for the sum of £17.2 million. This apparent sweetener would be 25% of the build cost if given and applied to this development. If factual can the SoJDC write off such a large amount of money to get tenants ? Can that be reasonable ? Are the owners of 45 and 47 selling up due the Jersey Government ( through SoJDC ) getting involved and bringing down returns. Just like the Dear Freddie letter said over development would. See link below.


http://www.wattsandco.co/media/14827/45-47-Esplanade-St-Helier-Jerseycompressed.pdf

JEP ( comments section please scroll down )

JeanLelliott


November 23, 2016 12:58 pm

Is it justifiable for the Jersey Development Company to give more than £4.2 million pounds in incentives to get Sanne to move into Building 5? Is it right that the Board of Sanne forced the Board of the Jersey Development Company to concede this value in order to sign a pre-let? This is a cost to the Jersey taxpayer. Is it right or justifiable?

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2016/11/22/surge-in-interest-in-new-finance-centre/#kVCiWJiyZBL0DM97.99
 
Link to Dear Freddie letter

http://planetjersey.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=620.msg60754#msg60754

BB
« Last Edit: December 04, 2016, 11:19:56 PM by boatyboy »

Online shortport

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #326 on: December 05, 2016, 12:01:43 AM »
Interesting to note that on the Watts and Co website,its an old photo of the esplanade that doesn't show the JDC buildings being built.
Don't you love estate agents!They also state that Jersey has no debt (wrong again) and that there is no grade A office space coming online in the next 2 years.
Seems to me like the owners of 45 and 47 Esplanade are trying to get out before the shit hits the fan.
With the JDC giving away free new office space any owners of current property must realise that the partys over and they want out.
We all knew government dabbling in property speculation would turn out bad.

Online boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3407
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #327 on: December 05, 2016, 03:49:15 AM »

Worse, the tax take from all the landlords losing rent / profit,  will not be heading to help Jersey. The SoJDC can pay a dividend to the States of whatever amount it decides.

The only other person who also has a say is the Treaurer Alan Maclean who can ask for a contribution, and there is no point in holding your breath for that to happen.

bb

Offline red squirrel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: Harcourt Enquiry - Walker, Perchard, WEB & Cohen
« Reply #328 on: December 05, 2016, 03:53:11 AM »
Walker Perchard WEB Cohen, whos missing from this motley crew? Sean Power ! this man once ran with this band of brothers,that was until he was deselected by the public at the ballot box,what did for him was the allegation in court that he tried to use his position as an island politician to get a seat on the Harcourt Board,he was told to look elsewhere,he has now resurfaced as a champion of the "no financial centre" movement,what could have caused this change of heart ? Sadly this kabuki theatre is played out in Jersey with the local media aiding and abetting.Any half decent news hack would surely ask Sean  Power or is that Dooley Power why?,the whole waterfront Harcourt debacle stinks to high heaven,why is the building next to the Grand not yet fully let but the States funded one is? I sense desperation in the air.