“Carlos de Ory, de Forbes al foco de la UDEF: Investigado por falsas villas en la playa de Sumba y fraude de 15 millones”

What the other side says

This headline is fundamentally misleading. Eco Beach City is a real development in Sumba, Indonesia, with land, infrastructure, construction and completed units on the ground. The suggestion that the villas are “fake” is false and highly defamatory. I also categorically reject the €15 million “fraud” figure. The article provides no court document, accounting report or official source establishing that figure as fraud. The residence is open and is receiving guest every week.

What the other side says

This is sensationalised language rather than a factual description of a judicial finding. The article does not identify the specific court decision supporting the expression “closing in”. An ongoing legal dispute or investigation should not be presented as evidence that a person has committed a crime.

What the other side says

The approximately €15 million figure refers to the total amount invested in the project, not to money allegedly defrauded or lost by investors. There are approximately 200 people currently requesting a refund, representing roughly €3 million in total claims. Importantly, the vast majority of these individuals already have a plot allocated to them. In other words, they have received an asset in connection with their investment. The remaining investors are either continuing with the project, are constructing, or intend to construct their property. Therefore, presenting the entire approximately €15 million invested in the project as an amount allegedly defrauded from investors is highly misleading. If the publication wishes to refer to disputed or refund claims, it should distinguish clearly between the total amount invested in the project (approximately €15 million) and the amount actually being claimed for reimbursement. These figures should also be supported by the relevant documentation or source. The €15 million figure should not be presented as an amount defrauded, because it represents total project investment, not alleged losses.

What the other side says

This person has been identified and is an investor in the project. She purchased a plot only, and that plot was delivered to her at the time of purchase. The company has fulfilled its obligations towards her in relation to that purchase. She did not purchase a completed property, nor did the company have any further obligation to construct a property for her under that particular transaction. Therefore, describing her as a victim who lost her investment would be misleading. She owns the plot that she purchased, and the fact that she may now be requesting a refund does not change the fact that the asset was delivered to her.

What the other side says

“Under suspicion” is editorial framing, not a judicial finding. Eco Beach City is a real property development with physical assets and development activity in Indonesia. A journalist is entitled to report on criticism of a project, but should not turn allegations or opinions into an implied finding of wrongdoing.

What the other side says

There is nothing improper about presenting a large-scale development masterplan including villas, apartments, glamping accommodation, restaurants, sports facilities, coworking and other amenities. These were development plans and objectives for a large project, not a representation that every component would exist immediately. A masterplan should not be retrospectively portrayed as evidence of fraud simply because the entire development has not yet been completed.

What the other side says

The project has always made clear that any potential return was an estimate and could be higher or lower depending on the property, its location, occupancy, operating performance and market conditions. It was never presented as a guaranteed return. Sumba has a strong tourism market, and beachfront accommodation with appropriate facilities can achieve significant returns. Based on comparable accommodation in the area, an approximate return of around 20% has been used as an indicative estimate in some cases. This is a projection based on assumptions and comparable market performance, not a promise or guarantee. The publication should therefore distinguish between an estimated or potential return and a guaranteed financial return. If it refers to a particular marketing projection, it should publish the exact material, date, assumptions, conditions and context in which the figure appeared. Furthermore, investors have consistently been advised to seek independent legal advice before entering into any agreement. The project has also recommended that contracts be reviewed by lawyers and, where appropriate, signed before a notary in Sumba. These recommendations were intended to ensure that investors understood the legal terms, risks and obligations before proceeding.

What the other side says

The project has always been structured in clear phases: acquisition of the land, construction of the property, and, where applicable, furniture and interior fit-out. These stages should not be conflated with unexpected or undisclosed payments. No investor is required to make an unexpected additional payment simply to retain the property they purchased. The furniture package has always been presented as optional, and investors have been informed that they can furnish their property independently if they prefer. For practical and safety reasons, certain installation and deck-related works are coordinated with the company. Many investors have successfully completed all stages of their investment without any issue and already have their properties available to use, live in or rent out. Accordingly, there are no "surprise payments" or undisclosed new charges being imposed on investors. If the article refers to a specific payment, it should identify the exact payment, the relevant date, the contractual terms and whether it was mandatory or optional. Presenting different stages of a development, optional packages or changes in scope as unexplained or suspicious "additional payments" creates a misleading impression.

What the other side says

That is the interpretation of an investor, not an established fact. The article itself acknowledges that this is “according to his account”. A disagreement about construction costs, furniture, upgrades or project scope does not by itself establish fraud or criminal conduct. There have never been, and there are not, undisclosed or unexpected additional costs imposed on investors. The different stages and associated costs of the project have been communicated to investors from the outset. Furniture has always been a separate and optional item, with packages starting from approximately €3,500 depending on the property. Investors have always been free to purchase and bring their own furniture if they prefer. Where furniture is supplied through the company, the relevant cost is clearly specified. Separately, shipping and installation may be charged where applicable, primarily because these works need to be coordinated and carried out safely on the property. These are not hidden charges or newly introduced costs. Many investors have completed their investment successfully and already have their properties available to live in, use or rent. The existence of different optional services or stages of development should therefore not be presented as evidence of unexpected additional costs. Furthermore, investors have always had direct and documented channels to communicate with the company. All investors can register through the project’s website, upload their personal information and contracts, and submit questions or requests through the investor ticketing system. These enquiries are normally answered within a maximum of approximately three business days. Investors are also welcome to visit the project in person, inspect their property and the development, and stay at the project free of charge during their visit. This gives investors a direct opportunity to see the progress of the development and discuss any questions with the team on site. Therefore, presenting an individual investor’s account as an established fact, without considering the company’s response, the contractual documentation, the distinction between mandatory and optional items, or the direct communication and inspection opportunities available to investors, would provide an incomplete and potentially misleading picture.

What the other side says

This is presented entirely from one investor’s perspective and without the underlying quotations, specifications or contractual documents. Different packages can include substantially different furniture, transport, installation, bathroom equipment, logistics and other components. It is also important to clarify that the furniture prices communicated to investors have always been indicative estimates, not fixed prices guaranteed or contractually agreed. The cost of furnishing a glamping unit can change from year to year depending on suppliers, materials, specifications, logistics and market conditions. For example, an indicative estimate of approximately €3,500 was previously given for furnishing a glamping unit, while the eventual cost was around €6,000. The difference does not represent an undisclosed charge or a change to the contractual purchase price. When furniture is supplied and installed through the company, additional costs such as labour, shipping and installation must also be taken into account. Investors have never been required to purchase the furniture through the company. They can source and bring their own furniture if they prefer. The company has also, in various cases, offered additional upgrades at no cost to investors, including free upgrades and walls for glamping units at zero additional cost. The relevant question is therefore not simply whether two numbers are different, but what exactly each indicative estimate or package included, when it was provided, what specifications applied, and under which terms it was offered. Presenting different indicative figures from different periods as though they were fixed contractual prices creates a misleading comparison.

What the other side says

An investor is entitled to say that he felt defrauded. That is an expression of his personal perception, not proof that fraud occurred. The article should make this distinction unmistakable, particularly when placing such statements alongside criminal allegations.

What the other side says

This is a subjective conclusion presented as though it were an objective fact. Eco Beach City is a large-scale, long-term development being delivered in phases, not a completed resort that was represented as being fully operational from day one. New areas and facilities are being constructed and developed on an ongoing basis, with progress taking place month by month. The development is fully transparent in this respect: the current masterplan, locations and progress can be viewed publicly on the project map at Eco Beach City’s website, and investors are also provided with regular monthly newsletters documenting updates and progress. The statement that *“What they found was a long way from the image of the large tourist complex that had been marketed”* is therefore misleading if it suggests that the full masterplan was represented as already completed. There are already substantial physical assets and infrastructure on site, including land, solar panels, septic systems, internet infrastructure, a approximately 2-kilometre beachfront, padel, tennis, a gym, coworking facilities, restaurants, swimming pools and other completed or operational areas. Guests are already able to stay at the development and use the facilities that are currently open. The project is one of the larger-scale developments of its type in Indonesia and, like any major development of this size, it is being built progressively in phases. It would be unrealistic to expect every villa, facility, restaurant, sports area and other component shown in a long-term masterplan to exist simultaneously at the earliest stages of development. The existence of an evolving masterplan is therefore not evidence of deception. The relevant question is whether the development is progressing and whether the information provided to investors accurately distinguishes between what already exists, what is under construction and what is planned for future phases. Eco Beach City provides this information through its public project map, regular investor communications and on-site visits.

What the other side says

The “barely a few tents” statement is clearly attributed to complainants, not established by the newspaper itself. More importantly, the article should provide an official source for any claim regarding the UDEF rather than presenting an allegation or interpretation as an established fact. The physical reality of the project can be independently verified through photographs, construction records, completed units, infrastructure, guest reservations and financial documentation. Eco Beach City has also made extensive documentation available through the Apostille process, including documentation relating to the land, guest reservations, invoices and payments for land, houses, furniture, installations and other project-related expenses. This documentation provides an objective basis for verifying that the project involves substantially more than “barely a few tents.” The development includes land and beachfront property, completed accommodation units, solar infrastructure, septic systems, internet infrastructure and various completed or operational facilities, with additional areas continuing to be developed in phases. Accordingly, describing the entire development as “barely a few tents” is plainly not an accurate description of the physical assets, infrastructure, accommodation and ongoing development on site. If the publication wishes to make such a characterization, it should support it with objective evidence and distinguish clearly between statements made by individual complainants and independently verified facts.

What the other side says

This is an allegation by complainants, not an established fact. The claim that the development was “practically at a standstill” can be tested objectively against construction records, photographs, completed units, infrastructure and dated evidence from Indonesia. It should not be established merely by repeating the interpretation of dissatisfied investors. There is also a fundamental contradiction in this allegation: if the company progresses and announces new construction and developments, this is characterized as an attempt to “create an image of continuity”; if progress is slower than expected, the same parties characterize the project as being “at a standstill.” The existence of a large-scale development being built progressively in phases should not be interpreted negatively in either scenario. Before the current media coverage and public allegations, the company was actively helping investors who no longer wished to remain in the project by assisting them with the resale of their plots to new investors. This was one practical way of providing an exit route for investors who wanted to leave while allowing other investors who wanted to enter the project to acquire plots. The current media campaign and allegations have, understandably, made this process considerably more difficult. Selling a plot in a development that is being publicly portrayed negatively is significantly harder than selling the same asset before such allegations were circulating publicly. This creates an additional challenge for both existing investors seeking an exit and new investors considering entering the project. Despite these circumstances, the project continues to move forward. A team of more than 15 people is working on the ground and across the project on construction, operations, infrastructure, investor support and development. The company continues to make efforts both to advance the development and to provide solutions for investors who want to remain in the project as well as those who no longer wish to do so. The progress of the development can also be independently verified through dated photographs, construction records, completed units, infrastructure and the project’s publicly available map and regular investor communications. These objective records are substantially more relevant to determining whether a project was “at a standstill” than the subjective characterization of a group of dissatisfied investors.

What the other side says

More importantly, the article should consider the practical consequences of investors themselves contacting suppliers and third parties in an attempt to raise concerns about the project or its management. Such actions can create additional uncertainty for suppliers, complicate commercial relationships and potentially make the continued development of the project more difficult. This is particularly relevant because the same investors who criticize the pace of development may, at the same time, take actions that can make it harder for the company to continue building and working with suppliers. The company continues to work to advance the project and to find solutions for both investors who want to remain involved and those who wish to exit. The appropriate way to assess the development is through objective evidence—construction records, supplier agreements, completed works, dated photographs, invoices and other documentation—not through a series of interventions by individual dissatisfied investors that may themselves affect the project's ability to progress. If the publication considers the alleged phone call relevant, it should identify the source where legally possible, establish whether the call actually occurred, and give the company and the supplier an opportunity to respond. Presenting an unnamed investor’s alleged warning to a supplier as evidence of wrongdoing, without establishing its context or consequences, is misleading.

What the other side says

I personally gave a statement in connection with the proceedings last year. During that process, it became apparent that the judge did not have information concerning a number of relevant facts about the project, including the acquisition and status of the land, the existence of guests and operational activity, the infrastructure and facilities already developed, and other evidence relating to the actual situation of the project on the ground. Following my statement, we did not receive any further information or communication that would allow us to conclude that these matters had been fully considered by the court. The proceedings in question took place last year, and it would therefore be inappropriate to present an incomplete understanding of the circumstances at that stage as though it were a definitive judicial finding about the current reality of the project. If the newspaper has access to a judicial document establishing that specific offences were formally determined or that particular conduct was judicially established, it should identify the case number, the relevant order or decision, its date and the precise wording relied upon. Until then, allegations concerning criminal offences should be clearly distinguished from established judicial findings. A judicial proceeding, investigation or allegation is not, by itself, proof that a criminal offence has been committed.

What the other side says

Being questioned as an investigado, if that is the correct procedural status, is not a conviction and does not establish that any crime has been committed. Spanish criminal procedure protects the presumption of innocence. The article should therefore report the precise procedural status without allowing readers to confuse an investigation with guilt.

What the other side says

The article itself relies on a complainant who says that he obtained this information through the law firm representing the complainants. That is hearsay, not an official confirmation from the UDEF, the police or the court. Given that the UDEF is prominently featured in the headline, an official source should be provided rather than relying on “it seems”.

What the other side says

The article also appears to characterize approximately €17 million as an alleged “economic loss” or financial harm. This is highly misleading and requires clarification. The approximately €17 million figure does not represent money lost, defrauded or otherwise economically damaged. It appears to refer to the overall amount associated with investments in the project, but these investments cannot simply be characterized as an economic loss. The majority of investors acquired plots of land rather than completed properties or construction packages. Those plots were delivered to the investors from the outset of their respective purchases. In other words, investors who purchased land received the underlying asset for which they paid; the investment cannot therefore automatically be counted as money “lost” or “defrauded”. Other investors subsequently proceeded with construction, furniture or additional services, while some chose not to continue with further stages. These different situations must be distinguished rather than aggregated into a single figure described as an economic loss. If the publication claims that investors suffered €17 million in economic damage, it should provide the methodology used to calculate that figure, identify the individual claims included, distinguish between land purchases and construction or other services, and explain how the value of assets already delivered to investors has been treated. Without that distinction, presenting €17 million as an established economic loss materially overstates the alleged damage and gives readers a fundamentally misleading impression of the actual financial position of the investors.

What the other side says

There is nothing wrong with investigating financial flows, but the wording creates suspicion without presenting evidence of unexplained money. The appropriate way to address this question is through accounting records, bank statements, land documentation, construction invoices, supplier payments and other traceable evidence. Those documents provide a much more accurate picture than speculation or anonymous estimates.

What the other side says

That is an investor’s perception, not evidence of wrongdoing. Media coverage, professional recognition or public visibility can contribute to someone's perception of credibility, but that does not establish that those elements were deliberately used to deceive investors. The article should not transform an investor's interpretation of why he invested into evidence of fraudulent intent.