Attorney at Law – Dr. Jur. Marius R. Stef
L&S Law Firm Ltd
Insights | 27 September 2026
Introduction
On 3 September 2026, the United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office (the SFO) announced that Matthew Pickard, Stephen Greenaway and Paul Laver former directors of Ethical Forestry Limited — had been sentenced at Southwark Crown Court to a combined fifteen years and nine months in prison for orchestrating a seven-year investment fraud that, according to the SFO, took approximately £70 million from more than 3,000 people, many of them pensioners. Each defendant was also disqualified from acting as a director for ten years. All three had pleaded guilty to fraudulent trading in January 2026 following an SFO investigation.
This article sets out the public facts drawn from those primary SFO / GOV.UK announcements, then offers our firm’s investor-protection observations. The commentary under “Our thoughts” is that of Attorney at Law – Dr. Jur. Marius R. Stef and L&S Law Firm Ltd. The factual narrative that follows is drawn only from the named public sources listed at the end. Nothing herein is a finding of fact beyond what those authorities expressly state.
Where this matter is concerned, the defendants pleaded guilty and a court has imposed sentences and director disqualifications. The criminal disposition is therefore established as described by the SFO. Readers should still consult the primary GOV.UK announcements for the authoritative account.
Background
On 16 January 2026, the SFO announced that Matthew Pickard, then aged 56, Stephen Greenaway, then aged 47, and Paul Laver, then aged 47, all from Bournemouth, had been convicted at Southwark Crown Court of fraudulent trading, having pleaded guilty ahead of a scheduled trial. According to that announcement, an SFO investigation found that the directors defrauded approximately 3,000 UK investors over seven years through Ethical Forestry Limited.
The SFO states that the operation ran from a Bournemouth call centre. Employees cold-called members of the public offering pension reviews. They used false company names, including Richmond Solutions and the Pension Report Service, without disclosing their true employer. Call handlers then encouraged people to withdraw savings from legitimate pension schemes and to invest those funds in tree planting in Costa Rica.
Whilst trees were planted in Costa Rica using investor funds, the SFO’s January announcement states that no funds were set aside to maintain the trees or to undertake a commercial harvest, so investors’ money could never generate the promised returns from harvesting. According to the same announcement, funds were instead used to support the defendants’ lifestyles. Stephen Greenaway purchased a £1.9 million home in Sandbanks, Poole, while Matthew Pickard bought a £4.3 million property. The SFO further reported that the defendants amassed a collection of high-end sports cars, including a Maserati Nero Granturismo, a Ferrari 458 Italia, a McLaren MP4-12C, an Audi R8 V10 Spyder and a Porsche 911 Turbo S, and enjoyed luxury holidays in Italy, Mexico, France, Gran Canaria, the Maldives and Switzerland. Approximately £2.77 million of investor monies were also diverted and used to administer a tax avoidance scheme for the directors’ own benefit.
Emma Luxton, then Director of Operations at the SFO, is quoted in the January announcement as stating that these former directors preyed on peoples good intentions to support “green” investment, stealing £70 million from hard-earned life savings and pensions, and that the strength of the SFO’s evidence led to guilty pleas. Solicitor General Ellie Reeves MP is likewise quoted as stating that those who exploit the appeal of ethical investments to defraud savers are not simply committing financial crime but betraying the trust of thousands of people planning for their futures.
The convictions and the sentences
On 3 September 2026, the SFO announced the sentences imposed at Southwark Crown Court. Matthew Pickard was sentenced to six years in prison for fraudulent trading. Stephen Greenaway was sentenced to five years and three months. Paul Laver was sentenced to four years and six months. All three were disqualified from acting as directors for ten years. The combined custodial term is fifteen years and nine months.
The September announcement restates the core scheme as found by the SFOs investigation: a Bournemouth-based call centre cold-calling and persuading members of the public to withdraw and invest pension funds in a Costa Rica tree-planting operation; the use of false company names without disclosing the true employer; trees planted without provision to maintain or harvest the saplings; luxury spending including high-end sports cars and holidays across Europe and Asia; the £1.9 million and £4.3 million property purchases attributed to Greenaway and Pickard respectively; and the diversion of £2.77 million of investor money into a tax avoidance scheme for the directors own benefit.
Graham McNulty QPM, Director of the Serious Fraud Office, is quoted in that sentencing announcement as stating that the former directors preyed on people’s good intentions to support a “green” investment, stealing £70 million from hard-earned life savings and pensions, and that the thorough investigation and the strength of the evidence secured three guilty pleas and the sentences announced that day.
Our thoughts
“Green,” “ethical,” and pension review” branding is designed to close the diligence gap with trust language. The operational question for any board, family office, pension holder, or individual investor is not whether the story sounds socially responsible. It is whether the calling firm is who it claims to be, whether the product sits on a verifiable regulatory register, and whether the economics of maintenance, harvest, custody, and exit can be confirmed without relying on the promoter’s sales script.
Cold-call pension reviews that arrive through a number the recipient did not initiate, especially where the caller uses a name other than the firm that will ultimately receive the money, are a structural red flag. Independent investors should insist on confirming the firm on the Financial Conduct Authority Register, matching the caller’s identity to that registered entity, and refusing to move pension capital until that match is documented. A story about Costa Rica saplings is not a substitute for a written explanation of who pays for maintenance, who funds the harvest, where title sits, and how returns are supposed to be generated if those costs are never reserved.
Lifestyle spending financed from investor money, and diversion of investor funds into arrangements framed for the promoters’ own tax benefit, are the opposite of an investment narrative. They are what diligence is meant to surface before capital moves. Promised harvest returns that cannot be reconciled to a funded maintenance and harvest plan are not a product feature. They are a warning.
Our firm view is straightforward: an ethical forestry pitch that cannot show registered identity, independent custody, and funded harvest economics is not yet an investment. It is a story about one. Verify the caller, the FCA status, and the cash trail before any pension transfer.
Sources
Serious Fraud Office / GOV.UK, Prison for directors behind £70 million investment fraud (3 September 2026): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prison-for-directors-behind-70-million-investment-fraud
Serious Fraud Office / GOV.UK, SFO secures three convictions for 70 million investment fraud (16 January 2026): https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sfo-secures-three-convictions-for-70-million-investment-fraud
Important notice
This article is for general information and investor-education purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor–client (or attorney–client) relationship. Factual statements herein about the Ethical Forestry Limited matter are drawn from the named SFO / GOV.UK announcements of guilty pleas, convictions, and sentences. Nothing herein is a finding of fact beyond what those authorities expressly state.
A guilty plea and a court-imposed sentence establish the criminal disposition described by the sentencing court and the announcing agency. Readers should consult the primary sources cited above and take independent professional advice before acting.
Contact: office@lslawfirm.co.uk | www.lslawfirm.co.uk
