Ringy Rose Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 Just now, Gladys said: You have better knowledge if the situation Has better knowledge of POCA too, it seems 🤣 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 Just now, Ringy Rose said: Has better knowledge of POCA too, it seems 🤣 As opposed to you who appears to be clueless on most things including the difference between receivership and administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxkinho Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 18 minutes ago, Luker said: If you banked a shit load of rent from one dodgy source without verifying the source of funds and source of wealth potentially. It’s different than letting out individual rooms for £75 a night to 20 odd people. Even at £75 a night. That’s 20 rooms so that’s £10,500 a week at full occupancy which is £546,000 a year assuming 52 weeks are filled. For me, the owners should have maybe asked some more questions, for example why were king not hiring out offices and making them work on site? If it were me, I’d be asking some serious questions about that, because it’s totally one of the classic signs of people trafficking isn’t it? Feels like they might have taken the money and looked the other way….. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 (edited) 1 minute ago, manxkinho said: Feels like they might have taken the money and looked the other way….. Yep. But £500k a year for fully letting out a sad old Douglas guest house focuses the mind doesn’t it? Edited August 28 by Luker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxkinho Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 Just now, Luker said: Yep. But £500k a year for renting out a sad old guest house focuses the mind doesn’t it? You’d certainly think so, yes. However - I’m going to take a look at the land registry to try and establish if it was actually sold to king / someone else, perhaps they sold up and walked away. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxkinho Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 1 minute ago, Luker said: Yep. But £500k a year for renting out a sad old guest house focuses the mind doesn’t it? I suspect that it may be that king / dalmine / jade tree bought it, just a working suspicion… 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luker Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 (edited) 11 hours ago, manxkinho said: However - I’m going to take a look at the land registry to try and establish if it was actually sold to king / someone else, perhaps they sold up and walked away. I don’t think it was. It was up for sale at one stage I’m sure but I think most people looked at the quoted rental yield from one source and called bullshit on it as the income stream could disappear overnight if they ever left. But you could be right. Edited August 29 by Luker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxkinho Posted August 28 Share Posted August 28 25 minutes ago, Luker said: I don’t think it was. It was up for sale but I think most people looked at the quoted rental yield from one dubious source and called bullshit on it. But you could be right. It’s certainly possible of course! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 9 hours ago, manxkinho said: It’s certainly possible of course! anything can happen in the next half hour . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JessTickle Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 (edited) 10 hours ago, manxkinho said: For me, the owners should have maybe asked some more questions, for example why were king not hiring out offices and making them work on site? If it were me, I’d be asking some serious questions about that, because it’s totally one of the classic signs of people trafficking isn’t it? Feels like they might have taken the money and looked the other way….. I think this is the crux of it. Yes they might have been Chinese staff, working Chinese hours, for a Chinese firm but you would have to wonder why they weren't working from the office of the firm they were working for. I can understand (possibly) if you had a hotel that you couldn't fill and couldn't sell, when someone came along and offered you £500k a year - which is probably more than you would get as "ordinary" tourist accommodation, then you might not look the gift horse in the mouth but there is no way it can't have crossed your mind that this set up was a tad odd. If the hotel was being used by so many as a place of work, would planning permission for change of use not be required? Edited August 29 by JessTickle 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 1 hour ago, JessTickle said: I think this is the crux of it. Yes they might have been Chinese staff, working Chinese hours, for a Chinese firm but you would have to wonder why they weren't working from the office of the firm they were working for. I can understand (possibly) if you had a hotel that you couldn't fill and couldn't sell, when someone came along and offered you £500k a year - which is probably more than you would get as "ordinary" tourist accommodation, then you might not look the gift horse in the mouth but there is no way it can't have crossed your mind that this set up was a tad odd. If the hotel was being used by so many as a place of work, would planning permission for change of use not be required? 10 hours ago, manxkinho said: For me, the owners should have maybe asked some more questions, for example why were king not hiring out offices and making them work on site? If it were me, I’d be asking some serious questions about that, because it’s totally one of the classic signs of people trafficking isn’t it? Feels like they might have taken the money and looked the other way….. Do you think the owners of a boarding house have an extensive Compliance/AML/Legal team working for them? No, they probably looked at the big flashy offices of the licenced IOM Gambling firm and banked the money from a (probably) reputable bank and thought; seems legit. If anyone should have asked more questions, it would be the bankers of the owners of the boarding house. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveR Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 11 hours ago, Luker said: I think you’ll find a know a lot more than you who seems to simply just like arguing with anyone who disagrees with the things you make up. I would guess people are free to say what they think here and I’m certainly not going to shut up as a result of your weak challenges. They had the place up for sale for somewhere between £800k and £1m at one stage just as the gaming people went in trying to leverage that income. As I said Trip Advisor has no actual tourist review after around 2020 and the place became a dormitory for Chinese workers sometime after that. The BBC report, reports that the common areas of the hotel were stuffed with IT gear. But yeah nobody noticed or thought to wonder why a blue chip gaming company was putting people up in a crap house up the drives when the rest of King staff were in relatively swanking surrounding at the Admirals House with private dining. Totally different companies King nothing to do with Admiral House 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 On 8/27/2024 at 11:07 PM, Kopek said: The time difference is 8 hrs, the scammers would need to be in place, midnight or later. Regular staff would be tucked up by then, empty office to hide their activities!!! Scams of this type rely on repeated and constant contact with the victim, phone, email , hook their interest, get a commitment, get more from them over time, it's rarely one call and job done, it's a confidence trick, hook them, bleed them? That means a dedicated team of confidents, operating with training in the confidence trick, with management supervision and ongoing support directing MR X to the person they have spoken to??? It's not a few employees sneaking back into the office after closing to do their nefarious activities!!! You seem to know quite a bit about how these scam things work....... just sayin'! 🤣 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 25 minutes ago, The Phantom said: Do you think the owners of a boarding house have an extensive Compliance/AML/Legal team working for them? No, they probably looked at the big flashy offices of the licenced IOM Gambling firm and banked the money from a (probably) reputable bank and thought; seems legit. If anyone should have asked more questions, it would be the bankers of the owners of the boarding house. Agreed. Look at it from the owners' point of view. They have seen a dwindling tourist trade, followed by Covid and then someone from a licensed business comes along and says they want to take over your premises to house staff. It might be a complete take over or the owners were still to provide some services such as housekeeping. It would be an attractive proposition, particularly if it was a complete take over, no staff to manage or pay. They wouldn't necessarily know that there were banks of PCs set up or that people were working there. The figure above as to how much they were paid, is that based on anything other than an assumption? As for selling the hotel, that probably reinforces that the owners wanted out of the trade, and perhaps they did sell. If they did then they would have even less of an idea as to what was happening on the premises. Of course, they could have been more complicit and knew that there was a business operating (would they know it was a scam business?), but it is plausible that they knew nothing, and were relieved to have been given some breathing space until either tourism revived or they could sell. I did wonder about the change of use, but again did the owners know or was it considered as ancillary to the main use of hotel accommodation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 57 minutes ago, The Phantom said: Do you think the owners of a boarding house have an extensive Compliance/AML/Legal team working for them? Ignorantia juris non excusat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.