Ethical Forestry Fraud: Warning Signs for Alternative-Asset Investors

Three former directors of Ethical Forestry Limited have pleaded guilty to fraudulent trading following a Serious Fraud Office investigation into a £70 million investment scheme.

Matthew Pickard, Stephen Greenaway and Paul Laver entered their guilty pleas at Southwark Crown Court on 16 January 2026. The SFO said approximately 3,000 UK investors were affected over a seven-year period. Sentencing is currently scheduled for 2–3 September 2026.

The scheme was promoted as an ethical investment involving tree planting in Costa Rica. Investors were encouraged to transfer savings and pension funds into forestry plots that were said to offer future returns from commercial harvesting.

Trees were planted, but the SFO found that no money had been reserved to maintain them or carry out the harvesting required to generate the promised returns. Investor funds were instead diverted for other purposes, including substantial personal expenditure by the directors.

The case shows how an investment can involve a genuine physical asset while still being promoted and operated fraudulently.

What Was Ethical Forestry Limited?

Ethical Forestry Limited promoted investments in tree plantations in Costa Rica.

According to the SFO, employees working from a Bournemouth call centre contacted members of the public and offered pension reviews. Call handlers used names including Richmond Solutions and the Pension Report Service without making clear that they worked for Ethical Forestry Limited.

Potential investors were encouraged to withdraw money from legitimate pension schemes and invest it in forestry plots.

The proposition combined several features that could appear reassuring:

• An ethical or environmental purpose
• A tangible overseas asset
• The prospect of long-term returns
• Professional marketing
• A connection with pension planning
• An apparently established plantation operation

The existence of real trees and land did not prove that the investment structure was viable or that investor funds were being used as represented.

The SFO found that the scheme lacked the money needed to maintain the plantations and complete the commercial harvesting on which returns depended.

How Did the Scheme Appear Credible?

Cold calling played an important role.

A person receiving an offer of a pension review may reasonably assume that the caller is assessing their existing arrangements independently. Where the caller is connected to the investment promoter, that relationship should be established before any recommendation is relied upon.

The approach may also appear more credible where:

• The investment is linked to a physical asset
• The promoter uses reassuring trading names
• Sales material refers to environmental or social benefits
• Professional-looking ownership documents are supplied
• The investment is presented as suitable for pension funds
• Future returns are supported by detailed projections

None of these features proves that the commercial model is sound.

Investors should verify the company, caller, adviser and investment structure independently using contact details obtained from authoritative sources.

Why a Real Asset Does Not Prove a Genuine Investment

Asset-backed investments are often promoted on the basis that investors are protected because something tangible exists.

That asset might be land, trees, property, renewable-energy equipment, commodities or collectables.

The physical existence of an asset does not establish:

• Who legally owns it
• Whether the promoter can sell an interest in it
• Whether the investor receives enforceable rights
• Whether the valuation is accurate
• Whether charges or competing claims exist
• Whether there is a functioning resale market
• Whether the projected income is realistic
• Whether maintenance and operating costs have been funded
• What happens if the promoter becomes insolvent

In the Ethical Forestry case, trees were planted. The central problem was that the commercial model and use of investor funds did not support the returns that had been promised.

A site visit might confirm that a plantation exists. It would not, by itself, confirm ownership, investor rights, value or commercial viability.

How Investor Money Was Used

The SFO said investor funds were used to support the defendants’ lifestyles.

Reported expenditure included:

• A £1.9 million property purchased by Stephen Greenaway
• A £4.3 million property purchased by Matthew Pickard
• High-value sports cars
• Luxury international travel
• £2.77 million used to administer a tax-avoidance scheme for the directors’ benefit

These findings underline the importance of examining whether the financial activity of an investment business is consistent with its stated purpose.

Private due diligence will not normally provide unrestricted access to confidential bank records. It may, however, identify relevant information through:

• Filed company accounts
• Charges and security interests
• Property ownership
• Director and connected-company research
• Insolvency and litigation records
• Regulatory warnings
• Inconsistencies in promotional documents
• Apparent relationships between promoters and advisers

Warning Signs in Forestry and Alternative-Asset Investments

No single warning sign proves that an investment is fraudulent. Several concerns appearing together may justify enhanced checks.

Unsolicited pension or investment contact

Unexpected calls offering pension reviews or unusual investments should be treated cautiously.

Pressure to transfer pension funds

Moving money from an established pension into an unusual or unregulated investment may create significant financial, legal and tax consequences.

An unclear relationship between adviser and promoter

Investors should establish whether the person recommending the investment works for, receives commission from or is connected to the promoter.

Unsupported returns

Projected returns should be supported by a clear commercial model, realistic costs and independent evidence.

Overseas assets that are difficult to verify

International land and agricultural assets may be difficult to inspect, value and enforce against.

Unclear ownership, costs or exit arrangements

Forestry projects require maintenance, management, insurance, harvesting and transport. Investors should understand who pays these costs and how the investment can be sold or transferred.

For broader examples of sophisticated investment approaches, see Five Investment Scams Targeting High-Net-Worth Investors.

What Should Be Verified Before Investing?

Verification should be proportionate to the value, complexity and risk of the opportunity.

Relevant checks may include:

• Legal ownership of the land or trees
• The promoter’s authority to sell the investment
• The investor’s contractual interest
• Charges, security and competing claims
• Maintenance and harvesting arrangements
• Independent valuation evidence
• The companies operating and managing the project
• Directors and connected parties
• Regulatory status
• The recipient of the investment funds
• Exit and resale arrangements

Independent advice may also be required from solicitors, accountants, valuers, surveyors or forestry specialists.

Due Diligence Services may help test important representations against independent evidence.

Due diligence cannot guarantee that an investment will succeed, that every statement is accurate or that future misconduct will not occur. Its purpose is to identify inconsistencies, unresolved risks and claims that require further explanation before money is committed.

What Should Affected Investors Do Now?

Investors should avoid sending further money in response to promises that their investment or compensation can be released.

Practical steps may include:

1. Contact relevant banks, pension providers or payment services.
2. Preserve investment and pension-transfer documents.
3. Retain promotional materials and ownership certificates.
4. Save complete emails, messages and payment records.
5. Record later requests for fees, tax or recovery payments.
6. Obtain independent legal advice where proportionate.

Victims who wish to be considered in relation to compensation have been asked by the SFO to complete its investor questionnaire by 3 September 2026.

The SFO has warned that any compensation order may not recover the whole investment and that payments could be made gradually as assets are recovered.

For wider guidance on warning signs and post-loss action, read our principal guide to Investment Fraud.

Fraud and Financial Investigation Services

Conflict International provides Fraud and Financial Investigation Services to individuals, businesses, law firms and professional advisers dealing with suspected investment fraud and disputed financial activity.

Depending on the evidence, our work may include:

• Company and director research
• Connected-party enquiries
• Review of investment documents and representations
• Payment-recipient research
• Property and corporate-interest enquiries
• International corporate research
• Evidence chronology preparation
• Clearly sourced reporting for legal and professional review

In substantial cases, enquiries may also consider apparent property, company interests or other assets linked to relevant individuals.

Identifying an apparent asset does not prove beneficial ownership or mean that it is available for compensation or enforcement.

We do not guarantee that every participant or asset will be identified or that losses will be recovered.

Discuss a Suspected Alternative-Asset Investment

If you are concerned about a forestry, property, pension or other alternative-asset investment, contact Conflict International with the available agreements, promotional material, payment records and communications.

We can assess what corporate, individual, asset and financial enquiries may be proportionate.

Complete the enquiry form below to request an initial assessment.