79th Group Collapse: Latest Facts, Red Flags and What Investors Are Doing Now

February 13, 2026

Key Facts Investors Should Know About the 79th Group Collapse

Thousands of investors, many in the UK are now facing the reality that the 79th Group, a business that promoted high-return “secured” loan notes, has collapsed into administration and is currently the subject of a live police investigation.

If you invested or transferred funds to the company, you are far from alone. Many people are still unsure what has happened, what this means for their money, and what options may still be available.

This guide brings together the latest verified information, explains what investigators have highlighted so far, and sets out the practical steps people are taking through the banking and APP fraud framework.

Who Were 79th Group?

A business positioned around property, aviation and natural resources

79th Group marketed itself as an international asset and investment company, focused on property, aviation and natural resources. Investors were offered loan notes paying 12 to 15 per cent annual returns, often described as “secured” against property or resource-based projects.

Why people invested

Many investors say they were reassured by the branding, professional documentation, confident messaging and the promise of regular fixed returns. For some, it felt like a modern version of a private bond with the added comfort of being “asset backed”.

How the Collapse Unfolded

Police involvement

In February 2025, City of London Police confirmed they were investigating 79th Group in connection with suspected widespread fraud. Four individuals were arrested and later released on bail. The investigation is ongoing, and no criminal findings have been made at this stage. The directors deny wrongdoing.

Companies entering administration

Multiple companies within the 79th Group structure entered administration in April and May 2025. Administrators have since raised concerns about how investor money was managed, the quality of financial records and the overall structure of the business. Communication to investors stopped suddenly, interest payments ceased and many people found themselves unable to redeem their investments.

What Administrators Have Said

In July 2025, administrators Grant Thornton stated in an Investor Update that they believed the scheme showed indicators consistent with a Ponzi-type structure. In October 2025, joint administrators from Kroll and Quantuma stated that, in their view, the structure and movement of funds bore the hallmarks of a large UK-based Ponzi scheme using multiple companies and bank accounts across many jurisdictions.

These observations from insolvency professionals help explain the serious concerns that have been raised about the scheme.

Court Action Against Directors

In October 2025, the High Court granted a worldwide freezing order against David Webster and his sons Jake and Curtis following concerns raised by administrators. The order requires the directors to disclose their assets and restricts their ability to deal with those assets. In January 2026, three of the four directors were declared bankrupt following creditor petitions.

These legal developments demonstrate the seriousness of the situation and help explain why recovery through the administration process alone may be challenging.

What Investigators and Administrators Have Found So Far

When a scheme unravels, patterns start to appear. In the case of 79th Group, several features are now being highlighted by administrators, investigators and insolvency professionals. Some of these red flags are commonly seen in high-risk, unregulated schemes that have caused problems for consumers in the past.

One of the most significant issues is the suggestion that investor funds were pooled together across different companies, rather than kept separately for each project. This makes it much harder to establish where money went and what assets, if any, were genuinely linked to specific investments.

Administrators have also noted that the financial records were incomplete or unclear, which has complicated efforts to map money flows around the group. These gaps raise obvious questions about how funds were managed.

Complex Corporate Structure

The Group is reported to have operated over 100 companies across more than 10 jurisdictions, with in excess of 130 bank accounts identified by administrators. This complexity has made the insolvency process extremely challenging and contributes to investor uncertainty about who was responsible for what.

Missing Assets

Administrators have found no assets acquired through the company structures investors were told they were investing into, despite more than £150 million having been raised. Assets that were purchased appear to have been acquired by other companies controlled by the Webster family.

Regulatory Warnings

In August 2025, it was reported that the FCA received warnings about 79th Group in November 2024 – four months before the collapse. The FCA stated that loan notes were outside their regulatory remit.

According to the timeline reported, the scheme continued to accept investments during that period and before an official warning was issued.

How Many People Have Been Affected?

The numbers are significant:

• An estimated 3,700 investors
• More than £200 million reportedly owed across the group
• Many individuals losing substantial amounts, including personal savings, pension withdrawals and proceeds from property sales

Press coverage has featured people who invested retirement savings, inheritance funds and property sale proceeds. The emotional and financial impact is substantial, and many investors are still trying to understand their rights.

Why Mini Bonds and Loan Notes Carry High Risk

Unregulated products

The loan notes issued by 79th Group were unregulated, which means:

• They are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS)
• The FCA does not authorise or supervise these products
• The FCA banned mass marketing of mini bonds in 2020, but they can still be sold to certain investors
• High, fixed returns

Returns of 12 to 15 per cent a year are rare in mainstream finance. When they appear in unregulated markets, they usually signal higher risk or uncertain underlying performance.

Security that may not match the impression

Schemes like this often refer to “security” over assets. In practice, the value, enforceability and existence of that security can vary substantially, and administrators are still working through the details in this case.

When Regulated Advice May Be Relevant

Some investors may have dealt with a regulated financial adviser when deciding to invest. If a regulated firm recommended or arranged an unsuitable investment or advised someone to withdraw pension funds to place into an unregulated product, this may create a separate route for a complaint.

In these cases, the first step is to complain directly to the adviser. If the matter isn’t resolved, the Financial Ombudsman Service can look at whether the advice was suitable. If the adviser has since gone out of business, the FSCS may be able to consider the claim.

In this article we are mainly focussing on bank transfers and the APP fraud framework, which is the route many investors are currently exploring.

Investors affected by schemes such as the 79th Group sometimes explore investment loss recovery options, depending on how the investment was arranged and whether financial advice or promotion was involved.

You can also read our guide explaining 79th Group investment claims and potential recovery options for affected investors.

Where Banks Fit Into This and Why Some Investors Are Exploring Complaints

Many investors moved money to 79th Group using bank transfers. When payments involve suspected fraud, banks are required to look carefully at how the transaction was handled. This includes reviewing whether appropriate warnings were given, whether the payment showed risk indicators and whether staff followed internal processes linked to APP (Authorised Push Payment) fraud.

The mandatory reimbursement rules introduced in October 2024 apply primarily to Faster Payments and CHAPS payments between UK banks and are subject to eligibility criteria, exclusions and time limits.
For transfers made earlier, banks may still need to review whether the transaction was handled fairly, and the Financial Ombudsman Service can consider complaints about how a bank responded.

This isn’t a guarantee of reimbursement, but some investors are now challenging earlier decisions or submitting new complaints. Each case is assessed on its own circumstances, so outcomes vary, but this is the main route many people are currently exploring.

What You Can Do If You Sent Money to 79th Group

1. Tell your bank what happened

Ask them to log the matter formally and review the transactions.

2. Submit a formal complaint

Request that the bank assesses:

• Whether warnings were clear
• Whether the payment showed risk indicators
• Whether the transaction was handled fairly

3. Report the matter

You can report it to:

• City of London Police
• Action Fraud
• The administrators

4. Financial Ombudsman Service 

If the bank rejects your complaint you can take the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service, who can look at whether the bank acted fairly.

You can do all of this yourself for free.

FAQs

Is 79th Group confirmed as a fraud?

Multiple administrators have stated they believe the scheme displays characteristics consistent with a Ponzi-style operation. Investigations are ongoing. The directors deny wrongdoing and no criminal findings have been made

Can the FSCS help?

No. The products were unregulated, so the FSCS cannot pay compensation for the investment itself.

What if my bank already said no?

You can escalate the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Does it matter that I authorised the payment?

Not necessarily. The complaint process looks at whether the bank handled the transaction fairly, not only whether you approved it.

What has happened to the directors?

A worldwide freezing order has been granted against David Webster and his sons Jake and Curtis. Three of the four directors have been declared bankrupt as of January 2026. They must provide full asset disclosure. The directors deny wrongdoing and no criminal charges have been brought.

Why didn’t the FCA warn investors?

Media reports state that the FCA received warnings about concerns regarding the scheme in November 2024.

The FCA has also issued general warnings about the risks of investing in unregulated products such as mini bonds and unlisted loan notes. It has expressed sympathy for affected investors while maintaining that these types of investments are not regulated financial products.

How Compensation Adviser Can Support You

If you want help understanding whether your bank handled your case correctly, we can review the situation for you. We look at how the payment was made, whether the bank followed relevant checks and whether there may be grounds to challenge their decision.

There’s no obligation to proceed and no upfront fee.
Our success fee is 15% + VAT, capped at £7,500 + VAT, payable only if we recover money for you. Cancellation charges may apply.
You can make a complaint directly to the bank or the Ombudsman for free.

About the Author

This article was produced by Compensation Adviser, part of Pension Claim Consulting Ltd – an FCA-authorised claims management company (CMC) (FRN 829766).

Compensation Adviser specialises in scam and investment loss recovery complaints, including crypto scam claims, mis-sold investment complaints, bank-related scam cases, and Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud claims.

Our content is based on official sources, consumer-protection updates, and FCA guidance to help you make informed choices.

Update Note: This article was reviewed and updated on 13 February 2026 to include significant new developments including administrator statements about the scheme’s characteristics, court proceedings involving directors, and important information about regulatory oversight.