(e) if, at a meeting of any of his or her creditors:
(i) he or she consents to present a debtor‘s petition under this Act and does not, within 7 days from the date on which he or she so consented, present the petition; or
(ii) he or she consents to sign an authority under section 188 and does not, within 7 days from the date on which he or she so consented, sign such an authority and inform the chair of the meeting, in writing, of the name of the person in whose favour the authority has been signed;
(f) if, at a meeting of any of his or her creditors, he or she admits that he or she is in insolvent circumstances and, having been requested by a resolution of the creditors to bring his or her affairs under the provisions of this Act, he or she does not, within 7 days from the date of the meeting, either:
hi mark smith, here welcome back to business asset protection, today we’re having a further look at some other sections. now there are endless acts of bankruptcy maybe not endless but we’re looking at a number of them so we’re looking at today from about section 40(1)(d)-(h) of the bankruptcy act.
so sit back and enjoy. all right so let’s have a look at the section 40(1) of the bankruptcy act. so a debtor commits
as act of bankruptcy in each of the following so we’ve looked at a b c we’re well
we’re now in d and we’re going to look through to h we’ve already had a look at g and we’ll touch
on that briefly when we get there so you commit an act of bankruptcy on every one of these occasions
all right so let’s quickly go to section d
you commit an act of bankruptcy if that the sheriff turns up and tries to sell your stuff and it’s either sold but it hasn’t paid the debt so that’s that’s a section 40(1)(d). there’s a pardon me so there’s been a writ for possession of your goods and they’re either sold or held by the by the sheriff for more than 21 days so this has come back unsatisfied that’s that is the key they come back unsatisfied poor sheriffs this is fairly self-explanatory DAA. if the debtor’s prison well if you present your own debtors petition you are bankrupt that’s that’s an act of well sorry that’s an act of bankruptcy now even if it’s not accepted it is itself an act of bankruptcy d.a if the if the debtor presents a declaration so there is a way you can present this declaration and we can have a look at that in section 54A if you have a meeting of your creditors and it’s decided that even just having a meeting itself would be a well we’ll have a look so this is section 40 in brackets one in brackets e if at a meeting of his or her creditors he or she commits a commits to presented as a petition so if you come out publicly and say well it’s going to happen within seven days even if you don’t well that’s that’s going to be an act of bankruptcy or he or she can sense to sign an authority under section 188 and we’ll have a look at that a little bit later within seven days and if there’s minutes kept and that sort of thing and there’s a meeting chair and it’s all in writing well and you know there’s a vote of your creditors well so be it, that’s an act of bankruptcy. F now we’re not going to have a look at g but we are going to have a look at f if at a meeting of his or her creditors so this these are sort of sounding like you’re talking formally about being insolvent they are themselves an act of bankruptcy so we’ve had a meeting of his or her creditors he or she admits that he or she is in is in insolvent circumstances and having it doesn’t have to be the entire the entirety of your creditors we can have a look more closely at some of this case law or you’ve got any questions give us a call but if if you’ve been in one of these positions where you’ve had a meeting with your creditors or someone’s been in that position with you where they’ve had a meeting of their creditors and you’ve you know said that you will pass a resolution well these are all factors that point very very heavily as acts of of acts of bankruptcy so g. g now we have had a look at this if a creditor obtains a final judgment so we don’t get a judgment against ralph paligaru for $106,551 we serve him and he doesn’t pay he had six months that’s that is an act of bankruptcy there and then there can be some exceptions for instance where a notice was served in australia within a fixed time and the debtor does not does not comply with the requirements so the bankruptcy number said ralph you’ve got to pay $106,551 within 6 months so that’s actually very generous it’s now as it today today’s the 19th of april 2021. the average creditor gets 21 days and after 21 days you have you have committed an act of bankruptcy. so so where the dead or does not comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the court that he or she has a counter claim so yes well it’s not only that it’s a counter claim set off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt as the case may be THAT that he or she could not could not could not have set up in the action or proceedings in which the judgment was obtained so they had a counter claim and but they could not they couldn’t set up this counter claim so this is a little bit different and look finally finally we’ll have a look at now h. if he or she gives his or her creditors notice that he’s about to suspend payments of his or her debts so we’ve got this situation with mr paligaru and where he’s he’s given not necessarily every one of his creditors but possibly i can think of i can think of a couple who’s given notice and says well i’m not paying because i’m going bankrupt well there you go yeah you’ve committed an act of bankruptcy just then and there there are a few more of these, and we might have a look at that in a separate video this is obviously a technical space so what i do encourage people to do depending on their circumstances we’ve got health checks we’ve got questionnaires you can chat with us on our chat tools in the bottom right corner here of dcpartners.solutions we’d love you to be in contact with us you’ve got someone that owes you money or you owe them money we can help you on either side the debtors side or the creditor side we can give you advice on these pre-insolvency issues so it’s it’s really important what you say what you well you can see for yourself you attend a meeting and you pass resolutions you tell our creditors various things then we can talk through with you what some of your options are ,
so we’ll have a look at some of the remaining acts of bankruptcy there are more there are even more and there’s plenty of ways there’s only 50 ways to leave your lover but i don’t know if there’s 50 ways that you can go bankrupt but we’re going to keep looking and thank you very much for joining in. got any questions, chat with us bottom corner here www.dcpartners.solutions use the chat tool or give us a ring 1300-327123 or you can email me email@example.com. thanks very much bye
well, welcome back to business asset protection where today we’re having a look at the bankruptcy act. this is part four of our series today we’re looking at section 40 (1) (C) and different ways that a person might try to defeat or delay his or her creditors so come join us okay well here we are in section 40 (1)(C) and we’re looking at a a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following: so they’re all equal okay so if if someone gives you a bankruptcy notice for a hundred billion dollars and you don’t pay it well that that is equal to one act of bankruptcy section 40(1)(C) a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy and each in each of the following cases we’ll see as if with intent to defeat or delay his or her creditors well let’s have a look at this very closely so if , if so that’s the question if if with intent to defeat or delay his or her creditors okay so let’s have a really close look at this that’s section 40(1)(c) if we intend to delay to defeat to defeat which is final or to delay which just means it can only be temporary only has to be slight um his or her creditors in brackets one he or she departs or remains from australia so if you’ve departed um well that may be – that may be an event bankruptcy now it doesn’t it doesn’t automatically follow but there are some instances so you do you depart australia or you remain out of australia and and it comes down to – with intent to delay – or defeat his or her creditors. so again it’s not automatic um two he or she departs from his or her dwelling or usual house OR place of business so we’re gonna maybe actually have a quick look at some of this actual case law and we’ll see what it says. 3 he or she otherwise have since himself or herself so that can be you know from australia it could be from you know bondi if that’s where you um depart and you know you just go missing or number four if he or she begins or begins begins to keep house. again it doesn’t have to be permanent but that in itself just the beginning to keep house can can if with intent to defeat or delay his or her creditors he or she departs or remains out of australia he or she departs from his or her her dwelling house or usual place of business or so he or she departs his or her dwelling OR usual place of business so in other words you do a runner. all right well i’m just going to refer a little bit to this book that i’m reading and i think it’s really it’s quite complex it’s a little bit technical but i think if you’ll allow me to just um refer to this book i think you’ll get a little bit out of it um what is it what does it mean and what happens in these circumstances if one of these four tests is is present? that they departed or remain out of australia? departed from his or her home or usual place of business? as absenting himself or herself? or beginning to keep house that is to remain in one’s house now this is what keeping house means it means to remain in one’s house and refusing entry to others to serve a process so just that in itself could could easily be enough it’s not guaranteed you’ve got the covid virus and you’ve been told to quarantine that that would be a perfect excuse? if you’ve got cold or flu-like symptoms that too might be a reason temporarily so to keep house the onus is on yes so the creditor the person that’s trying to bankrupt um is has the owners to establish that the debtor’s intent is to delay or defeat okay so um it does not necessarily have to be the soul intent if it’s if it’s like a collateral attempt intent that that may well be enough um this can be proved directly through the use of statements so um for instance ralph wants to come back he’s choosing to be way you know these these inferences that you can be that can be drawn um use of statements by the debtor or indirectly or indirectly thanks john. um by inference by pro by proving the existence of circumstances which must necessarily cause delay. and which the detour must be presumed to have foreseen or intended to be to be or intended as a necessary result of what he or she was doing. so we could talk through some examples of this defeating or delaying a creditor need not be the debtor’s sole intent in leaving australia or remaining out of australia. now these these cases were pre-covid. so again there’s probably some argument to say well i’m remaining out of australia because it’s impossible to get back or i’d have to do two weeks quarantine like there may be some this there’s some grey here so um possibly so it need not be the need not be the sole intent as long as it’s an intent it’s not enough to simply show that the letters the debtor’s conduct has caused delay it has to be intent intention of delaying or defeating. so it’s it’s a bit technical. i if you’re if you’re either one of in one of these two situations you’re the debtor and you’d like you know to talk through some of the options, we’ve got a pre-insolvency um we’ve got a pre-insolvency division / work and we can do this same work for the creditor so we can talk through and give you some advice on pre-insolvency issues um with quite a bit of precision um these things can be can be uh the absence is they can be an ongoing event of uh bankruptcy so uh it need not uh it could have started ten years ago um if if a person’s uh remaining out of australia because they know the moment they step back in the country uh something’s gonna happen well that in itself may be an event so there can be an ongoing or uh there’s a continuation um these are continuing acts of bankruptcy so we’re going to look at some of the other bits um of the act uh gradually throughout the series um there’s a time element um in in many of these so these can be an ongoing act uh and if you want to have a read of something case law i can make contact with me use our chat tools in dc partners dot solutions bottom right hand corner um of your screen uh there’s a chat tool so join us there um yeah so there is some case law uh if you want some you know general advice um now if you’ve got someone that’s in this position where uh you know they’re keeping house uh they are absent from australia uh they’re remaining outside of australia uh all these kinds of issues uh they’ve done a runner from their usual house um they’re not telling you where they are they’re not answering the phone they are answering the phone that they’re not they won’t tell you they want some of these uh actually. matthew taunton there you go um uh refused to give us uh this is a guy we’re going to um mention and uh he’s he’s uh one of our villains. so you’ll you will find out uh he’s not there yet but uh he’s going onto our blog i promise you i promise you he’s going there so look uh these are some of the cases. um uh the technical as i said uh you want to talk through some of the different details give us a call 1300 327123 um if you’re in one of these positions and uh you need money uh but you know maybe you’ve got a temporary problem well we might still be able to help you 1300-327123 uh we’ve got uh tax debt um type uh facilities um you know if you’ve got a tax problem um and maybe you’re in that position where you’ve got the financial difficulty we we possibly can help you uh on either side of the fence uh the debtor site or the creditor site so give us a call 1-300-327-123 got any questions uh you can chat with us anytime uh www.dcpartners.solutions bottom right hand corner user check tools thanks very much
welcome back mark smith here from business asset protection we’re a division of dc partners solutions uh we’re having a look at s40 of the bankruptcy act. and we’re actually into part 3.
so today we’re looking at s40(1)(b) and we’re looking at transactions that are voidable against your future bankruptcy trustee.
okay so here we are in s40 and we’re going to be nice and familiar.
again if you’re looking at these make sure you’re looking at the most recently in force
version of the bankruptcy act 1966.
because it does change all the time. even if you google it you will probably come to the wrong version. so to get to that latest version, go to this series, you can just click on view series and view the latest. and we’re going to administration proceedings there you go s40. so we’re looking at section today well we’re looking at s40(1)(b). so this is where a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy. in each of the following. so there’s many many many of these and this particular one we’re looking at today s40(1)(b). IF in australia or elsewhere he or she makes a conveyance. now we have a look at the definition of conveyance and i’ve got the definition up there for you to have another look at it’s it’s a way of disposing of or getting rid of makes a conveyance transfer settlement that may have a particular meaning. so we should we should look up a settlement, uh or other disposition. so that leaves it very open. it’s another way of disposing of his or her property, or of any part. so you just get rid of the juices part. or a small part. or any part of his or her property. so it must be his or hers to begin with. and it’s disposed of um in australia or elsewhere you can be a timbuktu.
you could be on the moon. it wouldn’t matter where it was. so that’s only that’s only part one,
way number one. he or she creates a charge on his or her property. now here we go we looked at this in up. above we said that that wasn’t necessarily to do with security? but here it’s where he or she creates a charge on his or her property? and we should again, very technical. but what is what does the word charge mean? we should have a look at this and i’ll try and pop that definition up over my shoulder. here so you can have a look. he or she makes a payment.
BROAD. or he or she incurs an obligation. so you go and borrow 100 million dollars when you know there’s no possible way that you could uh service it. so you get you charge on your property. you make a payment. you give away 5 million bucks. and in circumstances where you can’t pay your other bills. these would be um, sorry so, if in australia they do all these things, that would IF he or she became bankrupt, IF he or she became bankrupt would be void as against the trustees. so this now brings us into s120, s121 and s122. these voidable transactions. so it’s it’s a absolute pandora’s box and just looking further at this word charge, i’ve done some research off-air. and it would appear to me that there’s a very broad interpretation of the word charge. so it basically is going to be mortgage or indebtedness or liability. you could even think of it in terms of hocking. uh you’re going to hock some piece of property uh. it could be big or small. it could be centrepoint tower. you could be you you’ll hock your car um. you create a charge in circumstances that would IF you became bankrupt, be void against your trustee. so it’s something that can be unraveled at at a later point? very broad. very very very broad. so we’re going to have a look at um we haven’t got into voidable transactions. there is, we’re only at at s40(1)(b). so we’ve had a look at clause g. which is bankruptcy notices. uh we’ve had a look at clause (a). if you make a conveyance um for the benefit of your creditors generally. and also these are the ones that would be void uh as against your trustee. so there’s a lot more to go through. and i hope you’re getting the gist of just how broad these powers are? so if you’re in the position where someone has served a bankruptcy notice on you? you think you’re insolvent? you can’t pay your bills? or you’ve got someone else who, you’re a small business? and you’ve got someone that owes you money? and someone’s making payments, incurring obligations, creating charges on their properties, conveying parts of their property, or all of their property? um it’s, it would be really good to talk to you. um give us a call on 1300-327123. uh chat with us at the website, using the tools down in the bottom right hand corner of website. this one, bottom right hand corner uh on our webpage www.dcpartners.solutions – we’ve got an instant message tool .
there you can upload your documents. um as whether you’re, you know you’ve been served a bankruptcy notice? or you’ve got someone who’s indebted to you? and IF you’re looking for someone that’s very very skilled at this debt recovery stuff. so um come and have a talk to us. the first meeting’s obligation free. won’t cost you anything. and we’ll tell you uh very clearly very quickly whether we can or we might be able to help you. we we may not be able to say yes, we definitely can help you but we can give you a clear indication of whether we think we might be able to help you. so happy easter.
today’s the friday the 2nd of april 2021. this is probably going to air on the 3rd April 2021, um but we’re available uh you know very long hours, money never sleeps so they say uh – 1300-327123. or use the instant message chat uh tool uh in the bottom right corner of our screen on www.dcpartners.solutions
so thanks for tuning in uh
next we’re going to get into section 40(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act.
many many other exciting ways uh that you can um uh give the strong hint that you might have committed an act of bankruptcy
thanks very much. 1300-327123 or chat with us bottom right corner of our screen … www.dcpartners.solutions
In this series Mark Smith of DC Partners (Solutions) Pty Ltd sets the scene and discusses those villains or possible villains that we’ll be discussing throughout the remainder of Season 1 and subsequent seasons.
It is believed therefore that some of this profile and other blog materials may be of public interest to those trading with persons and dealing with government officials, in some instances, in Fiji as well as interest to foreign persons providing aid, trade or other support to Fiji.
This profile and other blog materials and article may also be in the public interest of persons from or interested in India.
The public interest of Australia may also be involved – Ralph and his former employer (discussed on this blog, a man named Mohan Kumar) lobbied and received Australian Visa’s and other legitimate benefits from officials and public office holders in Australia.
It is a matter of public record that Mr. Mahony has also represented Mohan Kumar.
In this series Mark Smith of DC Partners (Solutions) Pty Ltd sets the scene and discusses those villains or possible villains that we’ll be discussing throughout the remainder of the Season and subsequent seasons.
Season 1 will focus on:
Real estate – including agents and developers. Miscellaneous other bad players in society Corporate Villains Travel rip-offs Government / malfeasance Iffy lawyers / shyster Insurance racketeer / Banks Receivers, Liquidators and Administrators
The below transcript indicates that Ralph has funds to buy the Dreketi Timber Mill but is unable to meet his monthly obligations.
Here are some recent photos of Dreketi Timber Mill operated by Ralph’s company.
S01E05 podcast – transcript
rogues rascals reviewables rorts rip-offs receivers real estate agents and much much more a whole bunch of R. welcome to season one episode five of the many R’s podcast i’m your presenter mark smith of dc partner solutions and we’d love to hear from you come and join us on our website www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast
well g’day mark smith here it’s uh monday the 29th of march it’s been a very productive couple of months and uh very unique time so that australia’s in at the moment and now is certainly no exception um happy new year if we haven’t spoken to you this year it’s i’m not quite sure where we’ve been up to we’ve been meaning to do an episode or two and we’ve had loads and loads of um uh content and um i’ve actually been a busy boy uh still studying uh wrapping up my law degree and just started on what’s called practical legal training which is
keeping me very busy let’s put it that way so it’s been a very busy time and but please don’t think we’ve forgotten you um i actually talked to the ceo of a company the other day uh he’ll know who he is and um uh he was yeah he was saying he’d missed my blogs so um i found that very inspiring so uh you know who you are um well it’s this episode is dedicated to one man one man and um i’ll put up a picture in a moment i’ll make sure that you uh get the idea um he’s a wonderful man uh he’s a uh he’s a very experienced lawyer uh he overheard him telling someone that he’d been a lawyer uh since before that boy i’m sorry before that lawyer was was a boy uh and he wasn’t talking to me i’m not a lawyer okay um not yet uh studying uh i’m a student and um you never know one day uh but this bloke like certainly says i shouldn’t be one so uh when he when he talks uh i’m sure the whole world listens uh this is a lawyer that um he’s multi-skilled uh he’s he’s very much multi-skilled uh and we’ve got an unbelievable well i said unbelievable you must believe it okay you might find it hard to believe some of the stuff uh that you’re going to hear uh look i say these things on threat that um if i say something that’s untrue and uh well if you say something that’s true generally that’s a defense to defamation if i say uh ivan milat you’re a terrible murderer well he couldn’t sue me because uh he is in fact a terrible murderer and he’s dead but um and so i say various things on threat that that hey i might be sued um well but if i say something that’s true or or it’s substantially true uh then you know that’s that’s quite a defense so uh the things that i’m going to say when i say he’s a multi-skilled person and uh and all the rest uh you might find slightly hard some of these things slightly difficult to believe but i’m relying on the fact that what i’m telling you is true it is uh entirely true so we’re going to talk about a man called john mahony and this is a man who i first had dealings with in 2017 so um he
he’s not someone that’s new to me i’ve kept many thousands of emails uh you know um and i’ve got lots and lots of details i’m a very patient person as um as some people know and anyway without any further ado we’re going to get into the story of john mahony and his wonderful clients uh which include craig adams uh ralph paligaru uh amreta paligaru mohan kumar uh some people might know mohan kumar by another name but we’ll just refer to him as mohan kumar bargo developments now that was a one-time customer as well as well paid some bills anyway uh golden arrow international proprietary limited. there’s so many customers and this man is a genius he’s a genius the way he can manage all the conflicts and look after all the different interests of all the different people all at the one time simultaneously his i just can’t put it any more clearly this is a man with 40 years experience
or is he a man with one year experience 40 times? i don’t know i’m not experienced enough to say but i know he’s been around for a long time let’s put it that way mr mahony’s been around for a very very long time he’s uh a student uh he studied in 1975 i believe uh when uh i might have been in kindergarten he was uh he was out there at law school uh and uh paving the way and he’s had some all sorts of different life experiences uh look i would like to say something very nice and genuine and sincere uh mr mahony is a carer uh he is actually a carer for a uh uh for probably a very nice lady i’ve never i’ve never met her but uh his wife is um someone that’s uh uh well he cares for her so i congratulate him on that
and that might be the last nice thing i say about him but look i’m sure he’s uh
look i think we should get into the story so we’re going to turn over now and consider the uh circumstances of mr mahony and his wonderful law practice mahony law or mahony law at baulkham hills uh we’re going to review a relationship that we’ve had with a guy called john mahony, mahony law at baulkham hills in new south wales and um also we’re going to consider the relationship between ourselves and a couple of persons um called including bargo developments proprietary limited mohan kumar ralph paligaru craig adams and amreeta paligaru and reliance leasing proprietary limited um it’s uh it’s a long story uh it is a long story and uh this has gone on and on and on and on and on and uh it really i won’t say it started uh with a loan to ralph paligaru but i come in in a loan had been given to ralph paligaru interest free interest-free uh not a bad set of terms um for one year from over a hundred thousand dollars from about um august 2016 and uh i came in i became involved in maybe july late july to august 2017 and uh at the time i was doing some work for a company called reliance leasing uh reliance leasing is the lender ralph paligaru is the borrower and uh look the previous year ralph um had ralph still is today 28th of march he’s still the power of attorney for a bloke called mohan kumar and um normally when you’re a power of attorney uh the um document says uh you can’t benefit um you can’t um you can you can’t uh say sell the um the person’s uh the grantors they’re called uh the person that grants the power you can’t sell their assets say to your wife yeah ralph didn’t do that but you couldn’t do that and secretly benefit uh you’re there as a uh like a trustee i suppose um there to represent the uh interests of this mr kumar now it turns out in about october 2016 2015. i mean uh 2015 um uh the power of attorney is granted martin kumar hops on a plane at sydney uh gets off the plane at denpasar where police are waiting for him and uh i don’t know who known kumar is i’ve never met him but um the police are waiting for him and uh this this bloke kumar is allegedly another person he’s got allegedly another name and uh mohan kumar is taken off to india extradited and uh it’s 20 21 he still sits there in jail uh they say he’s uh the indian authorities say i don’t know this bloke is someone else um and um i don’t know i’ve never met him but um anyway we’ll see so ralph uh borrow some money a pair of attorneys granted kumar hops on a plane uh ralph then uh puts a piece of land up for sale 632 old northern road, dural and um he was he was supposed to do that and he did so along comes craig adams and uh you beauty craig adams um this is in early 2016. um craig adams uh says how about we buy 632 old northern road? i’ve got a great i’ve got a great idea says craig uh having a bite off you for um five and a half million dollars and uh his one and a half million down payment and you lend me the rest so um great idea great idea not um dennis english uh he’s a lawyer he’s a sydney-based lawyer uh tells ralph uh hey buddy don’t do this this is a really really poor idea uh it’s not gonna work uh tells him it’s i’m going from memory but uh uses words like fatally flawed it’ll never happen um and uh it’ll never happen meaning the other $4m million bucks will never be paid ralph in his wisdom uh mr mr dennis english says this is such a bad deal i’m having nothing to do with it. good on you dennis english great guy so um no seriously uh. sound advice so as it turned out uh the other $4m million bucks did not get paid maybe some of it got paid a little bit but not the other $4m million bucks is still outstanding now johnny i’m not saying he had anything to do with that part um this is uh the sale happens in about the 26th of may 2016. uh i’m not saying john mahony had anything to do with that but august 2016 a loan is granted by uh reliance leasing uh $115,000 or thereabouts to ralph interest free for one year so off you go ralph there you go free money for a year um and as i said i came in in well actually i came in in march of 2017 i get a call from uh reliance leasing saying oh can you help this bloke can you go and see him he’s got a few worries he can’t sleep at night um so i go and see one early early one morning i think it was the 27th of march 2017 i wander over to 88 perfection avenue, stanhope gardens and that’s the day i first meet ralph and i and he tells me the story he met this um met this chap called craig adams uh handed him the title deeds to this piece of land for $5.5m million bucks and received the grand sum of $1.5m million dollars so um i i didn’t quite believe this so i asked ralph again so tell me where precisely is the deeds he’s given them he’s given the title due to the land to craig adams and and got $1.5m million bucks back on a piece of land that’s worth $5.5 million
so um look in my background uh i’ve worked for knight frank i’ve
bought and sold you know some real estate uh had an MBA at this point i’m actually studying law uh and what i’m hearing is not quite sounding correct so um and at that time i’ve worked for reliance leasing in finance and some other companies registering mortgages and you know helping out with some enforcement things uh and it i was studying uh real property at sydney uni at that particular time so uh it was obvious to me that um ralph who’s at this time the power of attorney for mr kumar, mr kumar has a significant problem uh his power of attorneys handed over the title deeds to solid gold real estate at um 632 old northern road dural to this guy craig adams uh and uh is out the door underwater for $4m million bucks plus interest um so um it seems like a problem my immediate idea is how about we at the very least go register a caveat? make sure that the situation doesn’t get any worse so um i know nothing about what ralph’s really up to at this point until july or august 2017 and at that point uh the loan had already been uh granted in 2016 from reliance leasing (to ralph)and there was another party that was demanding money back from ralph and his wife uh that had loaned ralph money at least i’m going from memory here um uh well they had loaned money to from craig adams, bargo developments possibly a company called golden arrow proprietary limited who own a big development site in worrywood when i say big we’re talking $15m million bucks and another borrower borrowers were ralph and his wife and ralph didn’t tell me this in march 2017 but uh i find out in july that um ralph uh had guaranteed craig adams’s borrowings at this time i think it’s in the order of about $340,000? um yes i think that sounds right about $340,000. give or take
now i don’t know whether john manny advised on that i can’t say but i do know come to late july uh garry steinberg asks ralph uh to start paying interest on his interest free loan so ralph’s interest-free loan from august 2016 onwards it was a one-year deal it was interest-free for a year provide you pay back but after a year then the interest kicks in and um he’s less generous so it’s it’s about 17-18 percent per annum, still not extreme for a second or third mortgage but um but the interest free terms are over so um cut a long story short i don’t know if i can uh i don’t know if i can cut a long story short but um
is this sounding convoluted to you um?
so what does ralph do he goes and sees john mahony and here john mahony does start acting and uh at this point john mahony is doing work for the bill is going to craig adams so there is some john mahony prepares a deed that uh involves craig adams ralph paligaru amreeta paligaru and a brand new company like it had been set up for one two maybe three days called dural alliances proprietary limited and uh here john mahony does get involved uh and on top of this um i later find out that um at this very time um john mahony is a lawyer or mohan kumar so think about this 632 old northern road dural kumar’s a seller ralph is his power of attorney and the purchaser is craig adams craig adams puts down $1.5m million dollars mohan kumar gives craig adams a $4m million dollar loan and john mahony come august 17 is doing legal work for mohan kumar ralph paligaru, amreeta, craig adams bargo and
whether he’s doing work for craig adams, bargo and um golden arrow i can’t say but i can say that craig adams bargo and golden arrow are paying the bill and uh john at john mahony uh prepares a deed and this dude gives ralph an interest in
certainly in the uh warriewood site with 14 15 million dollars uh i believe it also gave him a direct capital interest in mr kumar’s land and mr kumar is the grantor of the power of attorney and later uh ralph and amreeta in both their names do go and put a caveat on the dural land for the money that they’ve lent to craig adams so uh in august this is a little bit convoluted i get that but in august 2017 to pay out 340 around about 340 000 that ralph’s under pressure for here he rolls over the reliance leasing line or he doesn’t pay it it is due in payable he doesn’t pay it and um and he stops paying well he wasn’t paying interest for the first year and at that point he doesn’t pay any more interest and come 2021 he’s paid no interest uh on a one-year deal from 2016 to 17 we’re now 2021 and he still hasn’t paid any interest and claims not to be insulted but um ralph borrow so that that loan’s not getting paid out but another loan that is under pressure uh that was given to um as i said to golden arrow um i mean it’s just unbelievable um i i need to probably show the relationships here
john mahony is advising and uh ralph goes and borrows 540 000 guaranteed by himself his wife and dural alliance he borrows 540 000 at an interest rate of wait for it 6% per month so garry steinberg’s lending him a hundred thousand interest-free which then goes to 18 per annum uh ralph borrows 540 000 at 6% interest a month now it’s three percent if it’s paid on time but six percent a month if you don’t pay it on time so you you do the math we’re talking about $30k something thousand dollars per month that’s not the principle that’s just the interest so um john mahony uh does this prepares this dude and i can show you the invoice i can show you the emails he doesn’t register a caveat on um on the warriewood property eventually ralph doesn’t get paid paid back the 540 000. someone else jumps the queue and they’re one of our friends that we’ve been talking about on this blog called apg australasian property group uh the director is a Maya Purushothaman i can’t say her surname it begins with p, Maya Purushothaman and ian jordan curiously today 2021 ralph has a company in fiji with and jordan
um trading in timber
uh so ralph somehow forgives them forgets? i don’t know but uh anyway johnny mahony does not register the caveat but in the process of um sorry i’ll explain ralph um mahony doesn’t register a caveat for ralph for this 540 thousand dollars that he’s buried at six percent interest per month he doesn’t register the caveat on
the warriewood property nor on 632 old northern road dural but john mahony does lift a caveat that mohan kumar the one that i put on uh in about the 27th of march 2017. john mahony only lifts that and uh well what happens from there well you skip a few steps i i’m telling you this is ridiculous but you skip a few steps and
the $4m million bucks the $4m million dollars that kumar loaned to craig adams uh come july 2019 uh is i’ll put it nicely plundered um by a whole bunch of people uh yeah i walked away with some of that money myself uh and i say i had a legal right to it and i had a registered security but a whole heap of other people to the tune of about 1.7 million ended up with money that um uh according to an affidavit of john mahony they weren’t entitled that’s according to mr money so mr mahony says that these people winning title mr mahony also does say in fairness that i wasn’t entitled yet he was not disagreeable to uh me walking out with close to $200,000 um from this mediation in say july 2019. so uh poor old mr kumar as uh john mahony client uh and ralph is his power of attorney uh poor mr kumar is is in a bad way so that’s part of the backstory it’s it’s long and i don’t expect everyone to be able to take it in but it is complex but uh there we have it so um there’s many other bits in between 2017 and 2021. many many but um and none of them are happy very few of them are happy and none of them are very good for mr kumar so oh
reliance leasing still hasn’t got their money back um and the people that ralph borrowed money from at six percent a month come uh about 2018 or i think yeah about 2018. um probably about july 2018 uh they sort of want it back and they never got it back from the warriewood sale because australasian property group jumped the queue mr mahony uh did the deed in august 2017 but for some reason waited until maybe he was instructed maybe he wasn’t i don’t know but uh mr mahony what we do know is that mr mahony had the capital interest in the warriewood property in august and he did uh put a caveat on the warriewood property in about november 2017 so that’s sort of light years possibly and it’s long enough to be postponed and in the end ralph never got back his 540 thousand dollars that he borrowed um in august 2017 and reliance is still waiting for their money because uh for a long many many reasons uh a withdrawal of cave it was given to mahony in early august 2017 and what i can say safely is that it was used. now what is in debate and you can go to my website and you can look at the cross claim uh reliance claims that they withdrew the authority to use that uh caveat and that there are text messages to that effect
but what we know is that it was handed over uh by john mahony so john i held the withdrawal of taken and john mahony handed it over in circumstances where there were certainly text messages saying no there needs to be extra security and um
i have to tread carefully because mr mahony a lawyer and it’s certainly written to me saying uh i’ve said vile and disgusting things about him i’ve actually put them into affidavits so that’s a different thing so look maybe what i can say is uh my affidavit uh annexes copies of text messages saying do not use this withdrawal of caveat uh because uh the loan to valuation ratio is unacceptably high in other words there’s no equity uh reliance claim to have withdrawn the mahony authority to use that but it’s still used anyway so that’s part of what the fight is about um from august 2017. now march 2021 uh this is just going on and on so uh on the 9th of february 2021, uh six weeks ago uh i’m sitting in a coffee shop with mr steinberg who is the director of uh reliance leasing uh he has at this point uh well before this he’s assigned the debt that ralph owed to reliance he’s assigned that to me and some litigation happened a deed was um was struck (March 2020). ralph signed it
the deed wasn’t complied with i got a judgment from the supreme court of new south wales about the 11th of september 2020 and um on about the 17th of september 2020 uh the bankruptcy notice a bankruptcy notice and the judgment were uh handed over to ralph he was served a bankruptcy notice and so um we get a phone call i’m sitting next to garry steinberg he at this point has sold the debt uh assigned it to me in september 19. and litigation has gone on deeds have ended have been entered uh judgments have been given bankruptcy notices have been served and for some reason john only doesn’t ring me who is the owner of this debt he rings
the former owner the former owner he rings the former owner i can say uh john mahony has sent emails to the former owner mr steinberg in late – correction late 2017 – telling him to the effect oh you better make mark smith go away or you’ll be implicated now john mahony as i said a lawyer for 40 years is using words saying if if you don’t make mark smith go away you’ll be implicated implicated implicated in what um well have a look at what the word implicated means but it has a specific uh meaning and john mahony as a lawyer ought to know precisely what that means and it’s not herarsay this is uh these the word implicated is used in emails true from john mahony to garry steinberg saying you know more or less if mark smith doesn’t uh to quote john mahony uh if if mark smith doesn’t pull his effing head in uh you’ll be implicated uh garry you’ll be implicated so i’m not sure what the uh former owner can do come the 9th of february 2021 but let’s have a listen to a conversation that john mahony says never happened
all right we’re going to now have a listen to a conversation that apparently never took place uh and we’ll listen to this and we’ll also as we’re going through this we’ll note the parts of the email between mr between myself and mr mahony and uh and his reply uh and noticing his reply he replies back to the legal services commissioner (OLSC)of new south wales so that’s that’s the person that gives a lawyer here’s um his ticket uh john mahony his ticket um now i will apologize uh the start the very first 20 seconds or so of the uh the recording uh is not present um it wasn’t recorded uh it certainly started with um uh which i heard uh started with the words grim uh john mahony when he rings uh garry steinberg refers to uh gary as ‘grim’ which uh is short for grim reaper hey grim reaper um do us a favor so on this particular day uh john mahony had been threatening a lawsuit against um garry and his company reliance leasing give me mine gary gary sold his debt uh uh in uh september 2019 and this is uh on the ninth of february uh john mahony threatening to sue gary for a loan that he sold like 18 months before so let’s have a listen to the audio and um and you can also have a look at we’ll go through mr mahony reply uh when he says various things like oh no i didn’t say that um let’s and we might stop this at various points now i apologize the first 30 seconds or so is not very good quality but we do provide a transcript as well so um that will be available and you can probably see the transcript on the bottom of the screen here in youtube listen away
… wrote. Its assigned to Smith. And he’s now suing Ralph.
Right …. That being the case, we’ve got no choice other than to sue you because you haven’t paid Smith the money that you’ve agreed to lend to Ralph to get rid of the debt.
So, I don’t want to do that, obviously, so- …. Now thats John Mahony talking
in long sentences and gary’s uh i’m sitting right next door to uh to gary like you know a couple of feet maybe uh i’ve got very good hearing i’ve got i can hear let’s continue
Mahony: um- can you get Smith to pull his f’ing head in and voluntarily agree to set aside the judgment and bankruptcy notice?
Garry: yeah so that’s gary oh sorry john had just talked and gary said yeah okay so keep going so this is a conversation and it did happen on the 9th of uh february i apologize this we were in a cafe um i’ll keep going. Garry: okay when i spoke to mark last time he wanted to see if ralph was going to start making any payment because nothing’s happened all our copies of abuse from his daughter the deed was uh done in the 11th of march 2020, ralph was required to start making payments of around about 2 000 a month from 30 days after when he sold his property so he went and sold his property uh this is what he wanted he went to the court to get permission to do this and and the court gave him that permission uh he and from may 2020
the house settled about the 3rd of may maybe the 4th so 30 days after that is the
say the early june we started to draw the direct debits ralph gave signed a direct debit authority uh so we’re entitled my company is entitled to be drawing those and let’s continue and none of these direct debits are being paid so that’s from june and this conversation happens in february the next year and this is on top of the period from 17 to 2021 there hasn’t been any money paid at all uh not the the interest installments so this is not the usual conduct you have with a home loan let’s continue gary was just talking about the conversation the abusive conversation uh he had received from ralph’s daughter, mind you she’s texting me at midnight on a saturday night as well so yeah did you hear about that? No, no. okay i won’t even bore you with it um and i think once that happens we get him on an established payment regime we could probably do something for that but mark smith said to me that he didn’t think ralph was ever going to pay.
Well, uh that’s- why would he then proceed to bankrupt him because that then releases Ralph from his debt?
no it doesn’t if you bankrupt a person uh it means they are completely replaced all their assets are vested in a trustee in bankruptcy and uh you’ll make it here believe it or not that ralph’s out there trying to buy a timber mill he can’t find two thousand dollars a month but he’s out there buying a timber mill in fiji uh so john, i don’t quite follow your logic um there’s a difference between wanting to pay and being obliged to pay and i don’t think john’s quite picking up on that uh so he says well why would i bankrupt ralph ralph’s not paying ralph refuses to pay yet he’s out there trying to buy timber mills
why would you spend money to bring about what he- what he thinks is actually the case? Whilstever Ralph stay solvent theres a chance that he will pay…uh
Whilst ever Ralph stay solvent? that’s interesting does route does john mahony think that ralph is solvent?
if he is solvent then why isn’t he paying his monthly installments?
ah okay sorry some another light bulb’s just gone on
Garry: yeah well i wanted to stay solvent too
yeah- well i mean otherwise-otherwise- what is the story between you and Smith as regards that money?
Smith didn’t lend it Ralph, you lent it to Ralph.
Smith is now claiming it as his own.
I mean- you aren’t getting 5 cents to the dollar from Smith or something are you?
Garry: my arrangement is that um anything over 90 days in arrears i sell to mark and then he collects and we have an arrangement on the settlement side so that’s what happened with ralph because it was like 12 months in arrears he took over the debt which i
12 months that’s wishful thinking i took it over in uh i took it over in uh september 19
this had been granted in august 16.
uh so that i’ll make that about three years
i signed i did assign a lot of the documentation to him
i don’t think there was any doubt that you assigned the debt to him. he did
Mahony: and gave him the right to put his own caveat on Ralph’s house before Ralph’s house was sold. And ofcourse when everybody entered into that deed in March last year everyone thought the house was going to be loud noise for about $1.4m
no the only people that thought that was john mahony and and ralph paligaru we’d seen valuations that was worth 1.225 and it sold for $1.215m john mahony he’s not an expert in property we used valuers and everyone thought it was worth 1.4 i don’t think so
Mahony: and that was about the time that was the start of Covid – that was about the time the bottom fell out of the market, one of the mark up um half a day sold for 1.2 therefore the everyone then knew at settlement that the deed that had been signed 2 months before couldn’t be complied with because …
Ralph signed it. John Mahony advised on it. Not everyone knew that it couldn’t be complied with. Ah, we’d complied.
there wasn’t going to be $65,000 coming from the sale. In fact Ralph had to pay money from his own pocket to make the sale happen.
So he had a negative result as opposed to a positive result. Smith and everyone knew that,
Smith cooperated and eventually after screwing 8000 bucks away to the agent, Smith handed over the withdrawal of the caveat.
And then, on that basis of um he um he knew exactly what was going on.
And then there was various conversations between you and Ralph and Smith about the so-called bullsh*t agreement that he put together in Fiji- some heads of agreement something- and then eventually
various conversations. let’s just various conversations john mahony says this is on the 9th of february 2021. 9th of february 2021. there was various conversations let’s just go back this is very very critical because we’re going to have a look at ralph’s uh affidavit and he says nothing about the various conversations he just says there was a moment where ralph was so uh had something put in front of him take it or leave it let’s just go back and we’ll re-listen to that about various conversations this is john mahony own words that were various conversations see if you hear it
Mahony: on that basis of um he um he knew exactly what was going on. And then there was various conversations between you and Ralph and Smith about the so-called bullsh*t agreement that he put together in Fiji- some heads of agreement something- and then eventually on the 26th of May there was a loan agreement which says very clearly that its the money thats required to pay out the loan that has been assigned to Smith.
The logic …
so there was various, various conversations so there wasn’t just take it or leave it conversation there was various conversations now john mahony has obligations and we’ll we’ll have a look here let’s let’s just go to this various conversations um uh on 10th of uh february uh he …. there’s a conv there’s references to tim who’s a lawyer but there’s he calls me a homewrecker. it’s my fault it’s my fault that uh ralph went and borrowed money at six percent a month and lost his family home i mean it’s very sad but um it’s my fault i’m a home wrecker uh this is the uh correspondence from john mahony office on the 12th so i wrote to him on the sixth it says you call me a terrorist
you said i’m a home wrecker and a terrorist who will never be admitted to practice law wow um
and look there’s a whole bunch of conversations he he says uh i accuse him of saying tim i accuse mahony of saying tim is as much a a-hole as me and um mahony who’s a lawyer is talking to garry steinberg who is someone else’s client the client of tim horne and the topic of this email is various further direct contact and threats the threats are well we’re going to sue you uh you’ve already heard that right back at the very beginning of this conversation that we’ve heard uh he says that you know we’re going to have to sue you and he’s now talking about he’s just about to talk on this tape about this sham uh loan document the date of the 26th of may 2020 um to pay up me. of which i received zero dollars and zero cents in reply uh mr and this is the the important bit is here about the various conversations mr mahony in the transcripts three weeks before ralph signs this uh affidavit says what i just what you just heard and then there were various conversations between you and ralph about this so-called bullsh!t agreement some heads of agreement
various conversations now did i photo i don’t think you can photoshop audio but did your ears not hear that i don’t know um
look, dealing with others make any statements grossly uh you know it’s repeatedly threatened my (future) practicing certificate uh communicating with other people’s clients like tim’s clients. once you know that uh if you’re a lawyer once you know that someone else is acting for a particular person and uh mahony knew
18 months before and this is this is not the first conversation solicitor have a look at this this is a great rule this one these are rules from the australian solicitors conduct rules a solicitor must not must not must not doesn’t leave a lot of room for wriggling must not advise or suggest a witness that to us to witness that ralph’s witness he must not advise or suggest to a witness that false or misleading evidence should be given now i’m not saying that uh i’m not saying that mahony suggested that false evidence be given i’m not suggesting that but here’s the clincher nor condone another person doing so (e.g. Ralph doing so). so a solicitor must not condone another person suggesting to a witness that false or misleading evidence should be given
mr mahony knew that there was various conversations and we’ll go to the affidavit of the 2nd of march. um is he condoning false material in ralph’s affidavit? i don’t know? i mean this is all part of a complaint responsible use of the court process frankness a solicitor must not deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the
a solicitor representing a client that is before the court must not act as a mere mouthpiece
and must and must exercise forensic judgment during the course during the case independently after the appropriate consideration of the clients and the instructing solicitors so our friend mr mahony he’s not just the mouthpiece of ralph paligaru he has to must must exercise the forensic judgment during the case independently so yes he’s the lawyer, he still must exercise forensic judgment and according to mr mahony. oh he must be open and frank in his dealings with the legal services commissioner the solicitor must furnish in writing a full and accurate account of his or her conduct in relation to the matter.
can’t wait can’t wait to see the full and accurate account of his conduct.
after he got my email he he then wrote to the he wrote back to me and copied it to the legal services commissioner saying yes indeed this is a matter that the legal services commissioner should investigate and then he goes on and he he replies and says uh no i never uh the comments attributed to me were not made they weren’t made he never said anything about various conversations uh i was not aware tim horne acts for reliance really? i mean wait until you hear what he says tim’s a as big an a-hole he can’t have mediation
and yet the rule says the rule says dealing with regulatory authorities subject only to his or her duty to his client so there’s some privilege this that’s true a solicitor must be open and frank with his in his dealings his or her dealings with the regulatory authority this is the conduct rules 43.2 the solicitor must furnish in writing a full and accurate account of his or her conduct in the matter your beauty all right that let’s see how full and accurate this is part of the reason for this uh uh podcast
wouldn’t it be nice if mr uh mahony does a full and accurate account and says oh sorry mark smith was telling the truth that’d be nice wouldn’t it?
Mahony: is to and the Barrister quite rightly agrees …..
Mahony: the money thats required to pay out the loan that has been assigned to Smith.
The logic is to and the Barrister quite rightly agrees is that we may not have um a- we said we might not have …. We still reckon we have a claim against Smith to set aside the judgment but the fact is we have got a better claim against you because you lent
um so that’s a threat right and uh he’s got he’s making threats to the client of someone else so tim horne is garry’s lawyer and he’s saying well we reckon we’ve got a better claim against you
and this is over this sham 26th of may loan agreement that says uh garry will we’ll look at the document let’s just keep going with the audio
Mahony: to Ralph money under this loan agreements that you are required to pay us so you should have paid him and him pay Ralph and you should have paid Smith. So you breached your contract with Ralph by not paying the money to Smith and pissing him off.
So I mean um- Ralph is quite happy to continue … allow the loans with you in May last year to continue on but you can’t- can’t do that if he goes bankrupt – can he?.
he can’t do that if he goes bankrupt …. so he wants the arrangement with you to go on the the may one he doesn’t want the deed of the 20 of the 11th of march 2020 to go on he doesn’t want that to go on nor the judgment he wants the sham refinancing to go on but he can’t do that if he goes bankrupt can he
And if you are not prepared to make Smith go away
so you have to make smith go away
there’s a bankruptcy notice been issued in september 2019 at 2020 uh 17th it was served saying ralph hey you need to pay me i’m the one with the judgment you need to pay mark smith 106551 but uh mahony saying you need to make smith go away
so it’s garry’s problem but hang on garry loaned the money in in 16 for one year interest-free
it wasn’t paid back the cave it was was withdrawn ralph never got his money from the warriewood property apg got it. ralph then goes and does a settlement with apg on behalf of mr kumar, apg walk out with seven hundred thousand dollars or something like that? ralph then goes into business with and jordan in fiji selling timber?
this is this is quite fabulous isn’t it but it’s GARRY’S fault you it’s your fault gary because you didn’t lend the money to pay smith even though five years before that uh four years or whatever it was uh gary uh paligaru took out an interest-free loan we don’t know where the hundred and six thousand is hundred and fifteen thousand it’s in ralph’s pocket but it’s your fault garry that you didn’t give the money to smith
Mahony: And if you are not prepared to make Smith go away on the basis that Ralph is still going to pay this money to you (whispering)
If you’re not prepared to pay the money to Smith? pay what money to smith there is no money. ralph hasn’t paid it (the 2016 loan back) now i’m whispering in his ear at this time saying oh go get some security on this timber mill he’s buying a timber mill but he can’t pay two thousand bucks a month the timber mill’s worth a million fiji dollars or four million the debt on it is like five seven million fiji dollars uh yet ralph can’t find two thousand a month to pay his obligations he signed a deed.
Mahony: under the loan agreement then Ralph’s got no choice if he wants to survive than to sue you.
Ralph’s got no choice but to sue you? is this sounding weird?
Garry: Let me see what i can do …
ah now this is where tim yeah let’s let’s let’s have a look at mr mahony exact words his exact words i was not oh well maybe maybe we’ll we’ll go back so this is this conversation happened on the 9th on the 10th i write and say this afternoon you have written to mr uh steinberg knowing that tim continues to represent him and provided the attached letter i believe garry informed you yesterday that he had a lawyer tim and that you ought to be speaking with tim that’s tim horne of uh horne legal who would facilitate mediation now i know precisely what’s on the recording and i write this to mahony the day after the recording and mahony writes back oh and i copy this to the professional standards department complaints at the law society and the office of legal services commissioner
now i never forced um mahony to hit reply all mahony and and as i said there’s an obligation here rule 43 dealing with regulatory authorities the solicitor must be open and frank so you tell me in his dealings his or her deals the solicitor must furnish in writing a full and accurate account so in reply what does he say john mahony the 12th so he’s had two days to think about it i write to him the conversation’s on the
9th on the 10th late in the afternoon i write to him and say hang on you’re writing to garry you know he’s got a solicitor he writes back and says dear mr smith let’s copy to tim horne
here’s a clue it’s copied to tim horne i never knew you had a …. i never knew uh tim horne acted for reliance leasing he’s written to tim horne
and you’re about to listen to what you hear oh you’ll hear what you hear i was not aware tim horne asked for reliance as far as i was aware the last solicitor again it is not up to you to advise me who does or does not act for reliance at the time of this dictation the 10th i’ve heard from no solicitor advising me that he or she acts
tim saying i’ve heard from no solicitor well let’s let’s just play and you can listen and you’ll be the judge whether tim is a solicitor for um reliance or not so i’ll just take it back a smidgen
okay let me see what i can do is it worthwhile yeah yeah yeah
absolutely is it worth while you are talking to tim and trying to do some type of mediation
No, no, no um it’s- I can’t talk to him, he is just as much of an arsehole as- as Smith is and uh it is just a waste of time talking to those pricks.
Um but all I am saying is if we don’t know what is going on and before Ralph goes bankrupt he is going to have to sue you –
um so that sounds like another threat? if you don’t know what’s going on before ralph goes bankrupt he’s going to have to sue you? but hang on he just said is it worthwhile uh tim, is it worthwhile having a mediation how’s tim going to do a mediation if he doesn’t act for reliance leasing?
now i accused him two days before i believe you informed did you have a conversation with garry and say does distasteful things about tim?
did you say tim is as much an [ __ ] as smith you declined to speak with garry and my lawyer
tim was acting for both of us is. it true? he writes back and says uh no: the comments attributed to me
to me by you to an alleged conversation i had has contained the first second and third lines were not made by me
so let’s have a look at the first second and third lines
i don’t know how big his screen is or maybe he’s talking about the first second and third paragraphs i don’t know?
what do you reckon if john mahony? do you want him handling your matters?
we’re mates we’re buddies i’m ringing you up and saying we’re going to sue you but we’re mates i don’t want to have to do that this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you
Mahony: it’s a waste of time talking to those pricks it’s a waste of time talking to those pricks tim horne, solicitor’s conduct rule you must be courteous that’s a great one frankness independence it mustn’t be the mouthpiece conflicts concerning former clients uh well formerly there’s this lifting of the caveat issue uh
rule 4 now this is actually the first rule in this solicitors conduct rules um a solicitor must these are fundamental ethical duties act in the best interest of his client in which the solicitor represents okay i don’t have a problem with that the must be honest and courteous in all dealings no i’m not a solicitor by the way um but mahony is. must deliver services legal services competently diligently and as promptly as reasonably reasonably possible avoid any compromise to their integrity avoid any compromise like talking to someone else’s client?
or making threats
Mahony: …. if we don’t know what is going on and before Ralph goes bankrupt he is going to have to sue you – Garry: Okay Yeah alright I said i’ll give you that-
Mahony: and I don’t want to do that because we are mates.
I am just giving you the heads up.
Mahony: What you have to do is say to Smith, I have got Ralph tied up to pay the money to me and once he pays me I’ll pay you and in the meantime, um, just get rid of all these judgments- get rid of this judgment and get rid of the bankruptcy notice and- and move on
so in other words lean on mark smith. mark smith’s got a judgment but lean on him okay but john as a mate and this is off the record i mean this is going on and on and on and we seem to be going from disaster to disaster now we’ve had a storm over and the mill’s
Oh yeah yeah well Ralph’s over there at the moment he’s been over there the last 2 or 3 months
yeah it seems to be one disaster after the other okay so john mahony about to say he can find the money to buy a timber mill the bank’s giving it away for nothing i’ve seen the documents. so that’s a representation okay that’s a representation. i’ve seen the documents uh they’re going to give it away for nothing next to nothing pardon me but you can’t find two thousand dollars a month to pay mark smith
Well he can’t- he can’t help that
no no i understand that
and it is true there was a cyclone and uh look parts of
i’ll put up the photos of the timber mill there you can google dreketi mill d-r-e-k-e-t-i kitty mill ralph paligaru
and you’ll see the photos of the timber mill uh
it did suffer some damage
ralph didn’t repair the damage by the way it’s one of these obligations in the lease
Mahony: He is putting- he is putting- yeah it actually might turn out okay he thinks because of the storm, he will be able to purchase um from the bank, the whole mill, for next to nothing.
He’ll be able to purchase the whole mill from the bank for next to nothing?
so ralph’s got money to buy a timber mill but frankly kiss my ass uh you’re not getting your 2 000 a month now i think he goes on to say I’ve seen the documents so let’s
and he is got a programme now where he is going to um … theres been the storm and a flood and the whole road was washed out.
but i have seen the correspondence between Ralph and um the bank in Fiji and they are going to basically give him the mill to get rid of it because it is worth next to nothing.
So he can- that will actually work out well for him …
freehold land makes up about nine percent of the fijian landmass the rest is native title or crown land so land with a timber mill and a highway frontage and it’s crown land and it’s like five or ten acres or something they’re going to give it away for next to nothing it’s worth next to nothing this is the same person that said ralph’s house is worth 1.4 million dollars john mahony himself real estate expert said 1.4 you’ve got to get at least 1.4 for the house 88 perfection avenue stanhope gardens let’s go back and just listen to that last five seconds again the lands i’ve seen the documents from the bank the the mortgages are possession by the way that’s usually not a good thing and ralph’s the tenant
Mahony: um the bank in Fiji and they are going to basically give him the mill to get rid of it because it is worth next to nothing.
So he can- that will actually work out well for him because he will be able to purchase it for next to nothing and he will then start putting in a mill and eventually build the whole thing up …
how’s he going to purchase if you can’t find two thousand dollars a month
how are you going to purchase a timber mill crown not crown land um freehold land for next to nothing
and eventually build the whole thing up … (whisper)
ah that’s my voice – ask for security on that this land he buys for next to nothing it’s got a timber mill on it it’s like five acres with a highway frontage he’s that mahony’s seen the documents, made a representation i’ve seen the documents they’re going to give it to him for next to nothing the bank the mortgagee in possession? the mortgage in possession is going to give to the tenant who never paid his rent they’re going to give it away for next to nothing? really? why are they mortgagee in possession?
why are they why are they doing a mortgagee sale? if they want to give it away why don’t they just give it away for next to nothing if uh if that was their intention
Mahony: If he goes bankrupt in Australia it means next to nothing to him in Fiji
if he goes bankrupt, doesn’t matter it means next to nothing?
you wait until you hear what these representations he makes says ralph’s safe, earning a good income and living the life of riley
yeah he’s living the life of riley, he’s got no repayments it doesn’t have to doesn’t have to yeah maybe well he’s not in fact he’s not paying his payments but haven’t you listened with your own ears
let’s just go back and we’ll re-listen to that Mahony: If he goes bankrupt in Australia it means next to nothing to him in Fiji
he will just friggen stay in Fiji because
if he goes bankrupt he’ll just friggen stay in fiji that sounds like uh you’re trying to defeat your creditors there? and this is this is a lawyer
speaking to the legal opponent, i’m going to sue you he’s got no choice but to sue you you, he’ll just friggen stay in fiji if he goes bankrupt
so in other words you’ll never you’ll never see him again he’ll never return
Mahony: I don’t know what he and his daughter talked to you about but Smith has basically destroyed the marriage between Ralph and his wife, Amreeta,
smith’s basically destroyed the marriage
yeah. so as i said i i caused him to borrow money at six percent a month Mahony: i wouldn’t be surprised if you never saw ralph again quite frankly
Garry: that’s my concern
Mahony: But, he does want to come back to Australia. I know that.
so he’s staying away. he wants to come back, but he’s choosing to be away.
that is an act of bankruptcy (s40 Bankruptcy Act). thanks john, really nicely said.
Mahony: But if you bankrupt him, that will give him every incentive to stay there
his marriage is basically finished- his family is doing um in fiji
but he is safe and making money in Fiji and living the life of Riley.
Why would he come back if you guys bankrupt him here?
he’s safe and making money in fiji living the life of riley. why would he come back?
so he’s choosing to have sent himself have a look at uh s40 of the bankruptcy act choosing to absent himself
So it is – this is all Smith doing because he is a bull at a gate and he is using blackmail for terror tactics
blackmail and terror tactics?
so holding someone to their obligations? the banks are they terrorists? do they is they guilty of blackmailing people that don’t pay their bills? blackmail and terror tactics let’s just go back
blackmail so he served a bankruptcy notice blackmail
independence must exercise the forensic judgment called for during you know during the case independently after considering the client’s instructions
let’s take care
solicitor must take care to ensure that the solicitor’s advice to invoke the coercive powers of the court is not principally in order to gain to harass or embarrass someone and he’s not principally in order to gain some collateral advantage for his client
blackmail and terror tactics or the solicitor or the instructing solicitor out of court
and then i say this is what i say to the office of legal services commissioner and i copy this to these guys called ypol whoever these people are t price YPOL they’re a group of solicitors oh law cover so that’s uh the professional indemnity insurances for uh Mahony law the outcome of this matter has bearing on mr mahony’s personal interest and a claim previously filed so we previously filed and it’s attached YPOL are the lawyers acting on the record for law cover. those proceedings are to follow resolution of the paligaru matter and realizing of a loss so john mahony said well why would we bankrupt ralph uh we we just want to bring it to an end this has been going on for five years, that’s good enough reason. the court process is under the summons are we say to gain a collateral advantage to the instructions instructing solicitor so this is a responsible this is the conduct rules 21.1.4. a solicitor must not do that that must not use the coercive powers of the court to gain a commercial advantage
a solicitor must take all necessary steps to correct a false statement to an opponent
must not knowingly make a false statement to the opponent
dealing with others must not make statements which grossly exceed the the legitimate assertion of the rights of his client or mislead or intimidate someone, well we’re going to sue you
let’s not threaten disciplinary proceedings against the other person must not use tactics that go beyond legitimate advocacy to embarrass or frustrate another person okay blackmail and terror tactics let’s go back and listen to that so this is this is addressed to me, he knows that uh garry talks to me he didn’t know probably that i was listening in but let’s let’s continue on and keep in mind these uh you know you can’t do things to mislead or intimidate or uh threaten uh criminal or disciplinary proceedings like in other words when you write back to the law society as uh john mahony did
knowing that uh i’m a law student have a
Mahony: his marriage is basically finished- his family is doing um in fiji
but he is safe and making money in Fiji and living the life of Riley.
Why would he come back if you guys bankrupt him here?
So it is – this is all Smith doing because he is a bull at a gate and he is using blackmail for terror tactics and that’s – that’s his modus operandi we understand that- that’s why he will never be a lawyer.
But the fact is he is killing you and
I don’t give a f*ck about Smith but you are my mate.
mark’s killing you. collecting collecting money for a money lender is killing garry
now you’ve just heard garry said well i’ve got i’ve got a lawyer called tim but he’s still he goes on and makes all these representations after he knew two minutes ago that uh he had a lawyer who’s his biggest big [ __ ] as mark smith
Mahony: I want to look after you.
I’ll work with Ralph…
i want to look after you gary. i’ll work with ralph to make sure even though he hasn’t paid he hasn’t made his payments since 2016 i’ll work with him representation i’m making a representation
Mahony: I’ll work with Ralph to make sure he pays but ….
I’ll work with Ralph – to make sure he pays. Let’s go back and listen to that again. You’re my mate.
Mahony: I’ll work with Ralph to make sure he pays as long as he knows he’s not going to go bankrupt so whenever you’re trying to bankrupt him this is another act of bankruptcy by the way section 40 of the bankruptcy act uh if you tell if you if you send your lawyer in to bat for you and say uh ralph’s not paying unless you tell smith to pull his friggen head in
Garry: He won’t go bankrupt, he won’t go bankrupt. Mahony: No he will- he will on the middle of march certainly mid-march smith will go full steam ahead
that’s why i am spending hours of my time now to stop this thing dead… um-
Garry: Okay I’ll have- I’ll have a talk he won’t go for sure
You’ll have to come back to me really quick because otherwise we are going to have to turn our counsel on you i bet you copy that agreement too.
I’ll get you a copy of that agreement too
Yeah beautiful yeah – i mean i appreciate that it has been assigned
we have probably agreed on- i’m sure that is the case- but you need to speak to Smith and make him pull out of this
you need to speak to smith and make him pull out make him he’s got a judgment of the supreme court but we’re leaning on you gary remember that hundred and six hundred and fifteen thousand from 2016 you need to tell smith Mahony: if he doesn’t do this voluntarily and If i dont hear by the end of the week the barristers will be prepared to claim … because we’re just going to have to file
if you don’t make smith go away the barristers are going to claim against you garry, not smith you okay talk to you soon
Garry: there you go you got it straight from the horse’s mouth so we’re going to end that part there that speaks for itself and i’ll wrap up in a separate video in a moment well what did what did you reckon about that uh have you had any experiences with uh john mahony has he acted for you has he acted against you uh are you another lawyer uh do you have you found mr mahony good to deal with uh have you had a different experience uh i’d really love to hear from you uh on our website uh you’ll see just over my shoulder here um it’s got our it’s got our web page uh
www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast and we’ve got an instant message chat tool which is down in the bottom uh right of the screen and you can chat with us and uh we would really love to hear from you or you could give us a call anytime 1300 327 123 we’d really like to talk to you um if maybe maybe you’re also a client and uh you had some involvement in um 632 old northern road or you’ve owed money by anyone that we’ve mentioned today um it could be i don’t know i don’t know what the circumstances are but we would love to hear some more so we’d love to continue the conversation www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast um my name’s mark smith you can ring us anytime if you’ve got any questions uh you’ve got any comments uh again we’d love to hear thank you very much for tuning in season 1 episode 5 of the many r’s podcast
For more information – chat with us live using our instant chat tools (bottom corners), book an appointment or call now on 1300-327123 (till late).
To contact us with any tip-offs, files or information – please use the instant chat tools or form below:
(2AA) If the person authorised is a registered trustee or a solicitor, then, before the person consents to exercise the powers given by the authority, the person must give the debtor the information prescribed by the regulations.
(2C) If the person authorised is a registered trustee or solicitor, the authority signed by the debtor under this section is not effective for the purposes of this Part unless, before the person authorised consents to exercise the powers given by the authority, the debtor gives to the person authorised:
… (ha) if the debtor gives the Official Receiver a debt agreement proposal;
(hb) if a debt agreement proposal given by the debtor to the Official Receiver is accepted by the debtor’s creditors;
(hc) if the debtor breaches a debt agreement;
(hd) if a debt agreement to which the debtor was a party (as a debtor) is terminated under section 185P, 185Q or 185QA;
(i) if he or she signs an authority under section 188;
(j) if a meeting of his or her creditors is called in pursuance of such an authority;
(k) if, without sufficient cause, he or she fails to attend a meeting of his or her creditors called in pursuance of such an authority;
(l) if, having been required by a special resolution of a meeting of his or her creditors so called to execute a personal insolvency agreement or to present a debtor’s petition, he or she fails, without sufficient cause:
(i) to comply with the requirements of this Act as to the execution of the agreement by him or her; or
(ii) to present a debtor’s petition within the time specified in the resolution;
as the case may be;
(m) if a personal insolvency agreement executed by him or her under Part X is:
(i) set aside by the Court; or
(n) if a composition or scheme of arrangement accepted by the debtor’s creditors under Division 6 of Part IV is:
(i) set aside by the Court; or
(o) if the debtor becomes insolvent as a result of one or more transfers of property in accordance with:
(i) a financial agreement (within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975); or
(ii) a Part VIIIAB financial agreement (within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975);
to which the debtor is a party.
(2) In calculating for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(d)(i) the period for which property has been held by the sheriff, any time between the date on which an interpleader summons in respect of the property is taken out and the date on which the proceedings on the summons are finally disposed of, settled or discontinued shall not be taken into account.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(g):
(a) where leave is given by a court to enforce an award made on a submission to arbitration, being an award under which money is payable by a debtor to another person:
(i) the award shall be deemed to be a final order obtained by that person against the debtor; and
(ii) the arbitration proceedings shall be deemed to be the proceeding in which that final order was obtained;
(b) a judgment or order that is enforceable as, or in the same manner as, a final judgment obtained in an action shall be deemed to be a final judgment so obtained and the proceedings in which, or in consequence of which, the judgment or order was obtained shall be deemed to be the action in which it was obtained;
(d) a person who is for the time being entitled to enforce a final judgment or final order for the payment of money shall be deemed to be a creditor who has obtained a final judgment or final order;
(e) a judgment or order for the payment of money made by the Court in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it by this Act shall be deemed to be a judgment or order the execution of which has not been stayed notwithstanding that it may not be enforceable at law by execution; and
(f) an order made after the commencement of this paragraph under the Family Law Act 1975 for the payment by a person of arrears of maintenance for another person shall be deemed to be a final order against the first‑mentioned person obtained by the other person.
(4) The act of bankruptcy specified in paragraph (1)(j) shall be deemed to be committed on the day on which the notices calling the meeting are delivered or sent to the creditors or, if they are not all delivered or sent on the one day, on the day on which the last of the notices is so delivered or sent.
(5) The act of bankruptcy specified in paragraph (1)(l) shall be deemed to be committed on the day after the day on which the period within which the agreement is required to be executed by the debtor or the period within which the petition is required to be presented, as the case may be, expires.
(6) The act of bankruptcy specified in paragraph (1)(m) shall be deemed to be committed on the day on which the agreement is set aside or terminated, as the case may be.
(7) The act of bankruptcy specified in paragraph (1)(n) shall be deemed to be committed on the day on which the composition or scheme of arrangement is set aside or terminated.
(7A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(o):
(a) transfer of property includes a payment of money; and
(b) a person who does something that results in another person becoming the owner of property that did not previously exist is taken to have transferred the property to the other person.
(8) This section applies, so far as it is capable of application, in relation to acts and things done or occurring, and omissions and failures to do acts or things occurring, before, or partly before and partly after, the commencement of this Act, as well as to acts and things done or occurring, and omissions and failures to do acts and things occurring, after the commencement of this Act.
welcome back to business asset protection, mark smith is my name. we’re up to part seven just of section 40 of the bankruptcy act, and there is we’re looking at acts of bankruptcy and there is heaps and heaps of these acts of bankruptcy and to be honest we could go for a week and and still probably not get through them all so today we’re just going to smash through the rest of them from section 40(1)(ha) all the way through to section 40(8) and there’s a lot to get through so strap on your seatbelt and here we go. well here we are section 40(1) of the bankruptcy act. a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases …. now we’ve gone through a b c d e a double d a d e f g h and we’re now up to section HA if the debtor gives and look i’m sorry this will take we’ve got ages to go we’ve all got to go all the way down to h and i’m going to just skim through these and i apologize it is a skim if you’ve got any questions at all come to our website bottom right hand corner dcpartners.solutions and chat with us and what does part 2 of section 40 of the bankruptcy act what does section part 8 know mean? so by all means i understand it’s a scheme we’ll just go through these as quickly as we can and we’ll get through and any questions you’ll come come and talk to me offline we’re available anytime chat with us using the chat tools or call us on 1-300-327-123 now let’s have a look at section ha if a debtor gives the official receiver that’s a mob called afsa afsa.gov.ou a debt agreement so there are these are acts of bankruptcy and once you commit them you cannot go back from them, so very very important that you know that it is an act of bankruptcy and then you know that the what the consequences might be so a debt agreement now we’ll look at debt agreements later in our coverage of the bankruptcy act we’re only looking at what are acts of bankruptcy. so if you’ve got any questions about debt agreements or any of the other things that you come across coming through the rest of this particular video message me offline. hb if a debt agreement proposal is given by the debtor to the official receiver so again official receiver is afsa.gov.au this is out and it’s accepted by your creditors well that’s an act of bankruptcy as well so giving and then if you breach that hc if you breach that well another act of bankruptcy if and so these can you can see that these can accumulate so you might commit an act by giving the official receiver hi giving the official receiver debt agreement proposal but then if you breach it there’s another act of bankruptcy and so you can see that all of these ongoing acts a creditor if you don’t keep your end of the bargain hey credit i can use that against you in a creditor’s petition and we are going to have a look at creditors petitions that’s why we need to wrap this up if you hc if the debtor breaches a debt agreement well there you go that is a an act of bankruptcy hd if a debt agreement to which the party the debtor party was a party is terminated. so if you cease your obligations under that agreement another act. I – if he or she signs an authority under section 188 we’ll look at one section 188 now at the bottom of this particular blog or maybe it’s right at the very top of the of www.dcpartners.solutions of the particular blog that you might be looking at on on on this video you’ll see a link to section 188 so a tag a tag and so you can go and there’s a tag for date agreement there’s a tag for acts of bankruptcy so if you want to go back and see all the different extra bankruptcy use those tags aye did we look at that if he or she signs an authority under section 188 so what does that mean we’ll go to the tag above and look at the section 188 comments now at the moment there is no section 188 comments but they’re coming so this is a ongoing process. J if a meeting of his or her creditors is called in pursuance of such an authority. some of these things might make a bit more sense using the tags K if without sufficient cause he or she fails to attend a meeting of his or her creditors in pursuance of such an authority. so are you getting the gist that once you once you’re into this process of a formal process of insolvency, there are a number of potential acts of bankruptcy that can be used and no 99% of the acts of bankruptcy that are relied on in the courts is the failure under under a bankruptcy notice that’s s40(1)(g) – 99% we’ll just go back up to that 99% maybe 98% of the ones where someone does go bankrupt, happen when happened when you’ve issued a bankruptcy notice and a demand here … ralph plays $106,551 and they fail okay so 99 98 are of that kind. the other 2% percent as i said relate to some of these i guess more obscure methods of committing acts of bankruptcy and they are nevertheless acts of bankruptcy which the courts can use to issue what’s called a sequestration order. so that’s a new concept and there’s a tag above not on youtube but on our web page so go to our web page dcpartners.solutions and this particular blog has a tag for what a sequestration so there will be more and more of these posts and blogs and explanations about sequestration and other other things l where did we get to sorry did we get to k? L if having been required by a special resolution of meeting me of a meeting of his or her creditors to execute a personal insolvency agreement and then you fail. m if a personal insolvency agreement executed by you is set aside by court or if you if it’s terminated or it’s … well it it means that once you’re in you can go to the next there can be a further consequence okay. it’s bankruptcy don’t get me wrong it can provide a lot of protection and a lot of yeah i guess the protection is one way to look at it a relief it can offer relief to a to a debtor who accepts that they have unmanageable debts if you only go part way in and you do one of these part X agreements again up above look at the part X tag and if you want to look at more content if you go part way in it can accelerate you can go to there can be further acts of bankruptcy and that can have consequences. N if a composition or scheme of arrangements. scheme of arrangements we can’t possibly explain all of this one bit at a time but if you’ve got a question again use the tags call us 1300 327123 or instant chat with us using the tool in the bottom corner in if a composition or scheme of arrangement executed under division six of part four is set aside. all these different concepts. again these tags should help you. O if the debtor becomes insolvent as a result of one or more transfers under the family law act so if you’re again if you can’t pay your debts because you’ve gone through a divorce that can be an act of bankruptcy you’ve got to be very very very careful and it may not even be a divorce you you have a these financial binding agreements, so these are prenups these can get you into trouble as well. so an act of bankruptcy is you transfer out your your assets to your spouse. your wife your husband your whatever your companion. and these can have very serious consequences so much so that you could find your entire estate your entire estate is subject to a sequestration order possibly affecting your spouse. like the we we can’t look at all the powers right now but the powers are immense so let’s go on to now on to part two so this is section 40(2) … a person commits an act of bankruptcy oh no now these are not where you commit them but these explain a little bit further about the above acts so in calculating part two in calculating for the purposes of section 40(1)(d)(i) … the period of which that was where the sheriff turns up and attempts to sell your goods your channels and maybe your property these can be an act of bankruptcy so if you find you’re in one of these positions either someone owes you money or you owe someone else any money by all means instant chat with us using the tool or call us 1300-327123 section three well part 3 for the purposes of paragraph one g now that’s the one where someone issues a bankruptcy notice and gives you 21 days now it used to be 6 months during covid and you know there are a lot of ways that you can get around this all of these we we really can’t go through but there are ins and outs that’s what we will say ins and outs and a lot of complexity if you want us to explain it by all means give us a call 1300 327123
section 40(4) the the act of bankruptcy in paragraph 1j will be deemed to be committed now i’ll throw in a link to paragraph s40(1)(j) we’ve gone through that i think today i can’t remember all of these there are so many so look i think in wrapping up there is lots and lots and lots of complexity and again i think we probably best to say if you’re in in any position where the point is that there’s lots of risks in when you become insolvent or when you become under financial pressure there are lots and lots of risks and if you’re exposed to one of those risks and you attend a meeting you get a divorce there are many many risks and so probably the best thing to do if you if you think that you’re facing trouble give us a call 1-300-327-123 or use the chat tool bottom right hand corner www.dcpartners.solutions so we’re actually going to move on next probably here to bankruptcy notices and we’ll have a look at those and if you’ve got any questions by all means chat with us call us 1300 1-300-3273 or use the chat tools www.dcpartners.solutions …. thank you very much.
happy easter it’s mark smith here from business asset protection, a division of dc partner solutions well we’re continuing part two of our series, on … part two of our series on s40 of the bankruptcy act and uh it’s only a small section but wow isn’t it uh incredible? so we’re gonna have a look now at s40(1)(a) and maybe we’ll get to b as well? so sit back and enjoy okay well now we’re looking at uh section 40(1)(a)
and we probably should have a look at b as well here because uh this is probably not going to take a huge amount of time but these are acts of bankruptcy which the court can take into consideration uh this is fit within uh the bankruptcy act acts of bankruptcy proceedings in connection with bankruptcy so uh when there are proceedings or if there are proceedings uh a court can take these things into consideration as proof of your bankruptcy um and let’s probably we should just actually have a look at the word bankruptcy and just see what it actually means um so this is a little bit of interpretation max so let’s have a quick look at the word bankruptcy bankrupt in relation to uh jurisdiction or proceedings means a jurisdiction or proceedings by virtue of this act. bankrupt means a person against whose estate a sequestration order has been made or who has become bankrupt by virtue of them presenting their own debtors petition so a bankrupt is a person whose estate is under administration basically so that’s um that’s a very key concept let’s now have a look at … a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases and there’s quite a few here so we’re not going to go through them all today but let’s have a look at section 40(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. and we’ll see how we go so it’s um in in australia or elsewhere. so you could be in fiji for instance and you make a conveyance in other words that means you transfer you give away you move you kind of value something so you convey or assign his or her property so that could be shares that could be it doesn’t mean securing, giving away security so in other words mortgaging them it means conveying or partying with so losing control of and again this wouldn’t be a um one where a security when a yeah where a secured party sells or conveys it’s where his or her property is conveyed uh i think the assumption here is is conveyed by him or her for the benefit of his or her creditors generally so when a person’s personal assets are conveyed or assigned uh for the benefit of his or her creditors generally uh well that would be indicative of your bankruptcy so um so there’s clearly exceptions to this it suggests if it’s for the benefit of his or her uh creditors well if you were to transfer your uh assets not for the benefit of his or her creditors but you transfer them or assign them nevertheless that might be captured under a different section but this is ones where you’re disposing of your assets for the benefit of your creditors that’s indicative and the court can take that into consideration and later on we’re going to go and have a look at sections 120 to 122 these avoidable transactions so let’s say you give away your assets but not for the benefit of your creditors let’s say you gave the way to your children well we’re going to have a look at really this next section we won’t do it today in this particular video but it’s where you give away your where you make a conveyance that would be void if he or she became bankrupt would be void so this is another way that there are many many ways so we’ll just stick with that this is a very simple concept it’s uh in australia or elsewhere so it doesn’t matter if you go to china you go to russia you go to the other you go to the moon it could be elsewhere other than in australia or in australia. he or she makes a conveyance of or assignment. this is a technical area. if you want to talk about this uh with anyone uh if you’ve got assets well let’s say you’ve got a creditor and they have conveyed or assigned their assets for the benefit of some other credit but not you? that still may be something you can do? so we can talk to you about that 1300-327123 or uh bottom corner on our website, use the instant chat tools on our website www.dcpartners.solutions
uh and you can chat with us uh about that particular situation you can certainly using the instant uh chat tools send us some documents. uh we’ve got forms down the bottom of this particular blog. there’s a form that allows you to upload some documents. so if you’re in that position where someone has conveyed or assigned their assets. uh for the benefit of some other creditor, other than you. um again there’s exceptions, so secured creditors but if they give it away for unsecured creditors or maybe they uh you know try and hide their assets and give them to their children or something like that is an act of bankruptcy able to be unwound? very cool okay got any questions give us a call 1300-327123.
use the instant chat tools on our website www.dcpartners.solutions thank you very much
(i) where the notice was served in Australia–within the time fixed for compliance with the notice; or
(ii) where the notice was served elsewhere–within the time specified by the order giving leave to effect the service;
comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the Court that he or she has a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt or sum payable under the final order, as the case may be, being a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand that he or she could not have set up in the action or proceeding in which the judgment or order was obtained
(i) where the notice was served in Australia–within the time fixed for compliance with the notice; or
(ii) where the notice was served elsewhere–within the time specified by the order giving leave to effect the service;
comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the Court that he or she has a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt or sum payable under the final order, as the case may be, being a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand that he or she could not have set up in the action or proceeding in which the judgment or order was obtained