01
Why We Publish This
The Asset Syndicate evaluates every developer before listing their projects on our platform. Our goal is simple: only recommend developers we would be comfortable recommending to our own family.
We publish this framework — and the audit records themselves — because opacity protects developers at the expense of investors. When we decline to list a developer, we believe investors deserve to know why. When we approve a developer, we believe investors deserve to know the risks we accepted alongside the strengths.
Every finding is attributed to a specific source. Nothing in our records is an assertion of fact without a citation. If a source is wrong, we want to be corrected.
02
The Five Pillars
Each developer is evaluated across five pillars. Pillar scores are combined using weighted averages to produce a composite score out of 10.
What we check
- RERA registration status and licence validity
- ESCROW account compliance — are buyer funds held in a regulated escrow account as required by Dubai Law 8 of 2007?
- DLD (Dubai Land Department) registration of projects
- Any active legal cases, DLD complaints, or regulatory actions
- SPA (Sale and Purchase Agreement) transparency — are contracts clear and enforceable?
Red flags → automatic rejection
- Asking buyers to pay into corporate accounts instead of regulated escrow
- Unregistered projects or unlicensed sales activity
- Multiple active DLD complaints from buyers
- Money collected before signed contracts exist
What we check
- Company age and operating history
- Sales volume and trajectory (publicly reported figures)
- Payment plan structure — are they reasonable or structured to trap buyers?
- Refund policy and track record of honouring refunds
- Any evidence of financial distress or cash flow problems
- Funding structure — bank backed, self-funded, or reliant on buyer payments to fund construction?
Red flags → automatic rejection
- Refunds withheld without legal basis
- Unauthorised payment collections
- Heavy reliance on new sales to fund existing construction (Ponzi-style structure)
What we check
- Number of projects launched vs completed
- Ratio of delivered units to promised units
- Average delay on delivered projects (some delay is industry-normal — more than 12 months is a concern)
- Construction quality of delivered projects based on buyer feedback
- Construction methodology — in-house or outsourced?
Red flags → automatic rejection
- Many launches, very few deliveries
- Consistent delays exceeding 12 months
- Construction quality complaints that are systematic, not isolated
- Projects where promised layouts or views were changed post-contract
What we check
- Location quality — is the project in a market with genuine demand?
- Pricing integrity — are advertised prices the actual prices?
- Amenity claims vs reality — do delivered projects match what was marketed?
- Rental yield potential based on comparable completed projects in the area
- Capital appreciation history in the specific location
Red flags → automatic rejection
- Bait-and-switch pricing (advertise low, charge significantly more at point of sale)
- Projects in oversupplied locations with weak rental demand
- Amenity promises that consistently don't materialise
What we check
- Google review rating and review patterns
- Reddit, Trustpilot, and community forum feedback
- Response to complaints — does the developer engage or ignore?
- Post-handover support — maintenance, snagging, property management
- Communication quality during construction phase
Red flags → automatic rejection
- Google rating below 3.0 with consistent negative patterns
- Systematic ignoring of buyer complaints
- No snagging or defect resolution process
- Complaints about communication going silent after money is paid
03
Scoring & Grades
Each pillar is scored 1–10. The composite score (weighted average) determines the TAS grade assigned to the developer.
8.0 – 10.0TAS PlatinumInstitutional grade. Recommend with confidence.
6.5 – 7.9TAS GoldStrong developer. Minor risks disclosed to investors.
5.0 – 6.4TAS SilverModerate risk. Only suitable for experienced investors.
3.0 – 4.9TAS WatchlistHigh caution. Not currently listed. Under monitoring.
Below 3.0TAS RejectNot listed. Serious concerns documented in audit record.
04
Automatic Rejection Criteria
Any developer scoring below 3/10 on the Legal & Regulatory or Financial Stability pillar is automatically rejected, regardless of their composite score. These are non-negotiable. A developer can have great construction quality — but if they have escrow violations or systematic financial irregularities, they are not listed.
05
Information Sources
Our audits draw exclusively from verifiable sources:
- Dubai Land Department public records
- RERA registration database
- Google Reviews (minimum 20 reviews required for rating to be considered)
- Reddit r/dubai and r/DubaiRealEstate community feedback
- Trustpilot
- Published news (Gulf News, Khaleej Times, Zawya, Bloomberg)
- Direct developer communication and right of reply
- Internal assessment by TAS team
- Where available, feedback from buyers who have completed transactions
We do not rely on anonymous tips or unverifiable claims. If a claim cannot be attributed to a specific public source, it is not included in an audit report.
06
Review Cycle
- Initial audit completed before any developer is listed on TAS.
- Annual re-review of all listed developers.
- Immediate re-review if significant new complaints emerge.
- Developers may request re-evaluation after 12 months if they have addressed the identified issues documented in their audit record.
07
Right of Reply Process
Before any audit record is published, the developer is contacted and given 7 days to provide factual corrections or additional context. This is a legal and ethical obligation — not a courtesy.
Developer responses, if received, are published in full alongside our findings without editorial changes. The outcome of the audit is determined by TAS independently; a developer response does not guarantee a change in rating, but it is always considered and published.
If a developer does not respond within the given timeframe, this is noted in the audit record. Silence is not treated as guilt — the evidence speaks for itself.
08
Limitations & Disclaimer
This framework reflects TAS's independent assessment based on publicly available information at the time of review. It is not legal or financial advice. Real estate investment carries inherent risk. TAS's audit reduces risk but cannot eliminate it. We strongly recommend investors conduct their own due diligence in addition to reviewing TAS audit reports.
Audit records represent a point-in-time assessment. Developer behaviour and circumstances can change. A negative record does not mean a developer will never improve; a positive record does not mean risk is absent.
09
Submit Information About a Developer
If you have first-hand experience with a developer — positive or negative — and are willing to share verifiable information (screenshots, contracts, correspondence, official records), we want to hear from you.
We do not publish anonymous allegations. All submissions are reviewed for credibility before being considered in an audit. To submit information: