Recover Your Losses from 79th Group

What Was 79th Group?

79th Group, also referred to in public reporting as the Seventy Ninth Group, promoted itself as an asset-backed investment business with interests in property, wealth, aviation and natural resource projects. Public statements by the City of London Police said investors were offered loan notes promising fixed returns of 12% for investments from £10,000 and 15% for investments from £25,000, with the investments described as being secured against property.

By February 2025, the City of London Police had publicly announced that it was investigating a suspected widespread fraud case linked to 79th Group and appealed for potential victims to come forward. The BBC later reported that four people had been arrested in connection with the investigation and that the group denied wrongdoing.

Further public material released by the Financial Conduct Authority in 2026 stated that the City of London Police had agreed to investigate after concerns had been shared with law-enforcement agencies, and urged investors to contact their bank or payment service provider to understand possible redress options. The FCA also warned about the risks of investing in unregulated unlisted loan notes or mini-bonds, noting that many firms offering these investments fall outside the FCA’s regulatory remit and carry far fewer protections.

How the 79th Group Scheme Worked

Based on public police statements and later public-record reporting, the 79th Group model appears to have been marketed as an opportunity to place money into high-yield loan notes linked to underlying business assets. The proposition was presented as an investment into activities such as real estate, wealth, aviation and mining, with fixed returns and minimum subscription levels designed to appear straightforward to retail investors.

In practice, many investors appear to have been introduced to the opportunity through third parties and then encouraged to make bank transfers from personal accounts. That matters because when money is sent by bank transfer into what later appears to be a fraudulent or misleading investment arrangement, the available recovery route often centres on the bank’s response to the payment rather than on the investment itself.

• Fixed-return marketing: Investors were allegedly offered returns of 12% or 15% over a defined period, which could make the arrangement appear lower risk than it was.
• Asset-backed reassurance: The product was presented as being secured against property or supported by tangible commercial projects.
• Bank-transfer funding: Many investors paid by authorised bank transfer, which can be important when assessing APP fraud reimbursement and complaint options.
• Complex group structure: References to property, aviation, wealth and mining ventures may have made it harder for consumers to verify exactly where their money was going and what protections actually existed.
• Potential mismatch between marketing and protections: Public FCA material has highlighted that unregulated unlisted loan notes often sit outside the normal perimeter of FCA authorisation, which can leave investors with fewer direct regulatory protections than they expected.