Many R’s Podcast – S1E8

Transcript

rogues rascals receivables rorts rip-offs receivers real estate agents and much much more this is the many r’s podcast season 1 episode 8 our final episode for season 1 my name is mark smith from dc partner solutions give us a call 1-300-327-123 or contact us chat with us online or use our instant chat tools www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast

well in this episode we’re having a review of 2021 we’re going to see how many R and where R they now for some of them some of the special R’s we’re also gonna have a look ahead at season 2 so what is ’round the corner

well where do we start a recap let’s start with me personally been a little gap between season 1 episode 7.5 and season 1 episode 8 which is today and i’ve had quite an adventure our last episode was on the 15th of september and on the 1st of october i had a huge huge awakening moment and let’s just have a look this photo is a photo of my heart contrary to popular belief there is a heart in there and this is what your this is what a blocked artery looks like and we’re just gonna go and have a look now at an unblocked one and wow this is a stand i actually had a heart attack on the 1st of october and that this missing tree trunk here this very faint line is called my left anterior descending artery and you can see just the tiniest bit of blood sort of getting through and that was quite a crisis so i’ve been i finished my studies in june on my sister’s birthday 16th of june 2021 we moved house on the 28th of june 28th maybe 27th and and took up residence covid the shutdown sydney went into six months of shutdown more or less or five months or however long and i graduated i i elected to graduate in in absentia on the 6th of september for my juris doctor and on the 1st of october i get a very nasty dose of reflux i thought and i can assure you mylanta and those sorts of things did absolutely nothing i i truly thought i did not know i was having a heart attack i thought i had an ulcer or a a dose of reflex or something but turns out no there was a a blocked artery and a very important artery left anterior descending it’s called the widowmaker so i i was gonna drive myself to hospital and good thing well i got my my what i really thought it was just reflux so none of the pains in your in your shoulder so for anyone that’s watching this just you know apparently it felt like a burning reflux right where my where most people’s heart is so i i took myself off to a hospital and within a very very very short period of time i’m talking 20 minutes they’re putting a stent into me so restoring the blood flow and i i would like to i’ll just show you right here that little dot there that’s that’s a scar no no big chest openings they go in through this tiny tiny tiny tiny opening there and i i do have bruises everywhere now unfortunately i i’m on thinners and all sorts of stuff so i i bruise terribly now but i’m alive and i’m very extremely grateful to wonderful doctors who put a stent into me very very quickly and i spent 5 days in hospital so where are they now well sorry where’s our year in review well our blog has actually been on holidays so i had several days in hospital no visitors due to covid and not even my darling wife so i i have great sympathy for those that have been isolated or doing it hard and i feel like i’ve i feel much better since the heart attack i do feel better we’ve this blog has been actually on something of a holiday and well we have decided to at least wrap up season 1 and give you a look at we’ve had plenty of time to think so not everyone has been pleasant to deal with in the aftermath and we’re going to talk about some of that and in this particular episode we’re going to look at where R they now so that’s a wrap on the personal so a number of people said well where’s our blog gone? well come the 1st of october all the nasty letters i had some of our some some of R’S even texting me on holiday i’m texting me in hospital on the very day i’m having my my heart attack they’re texting me and oh dear so anyway we decided to give our blog a bit of a rest for a couple months well you can be sure that not not very many of these opponents have have seen the LIGHT let’s put it that way so some of the blogs will be reintroduced and well here we are here’s our farewell to season 1 so we’re we’re still thinking about all the issues the Blog’s been on holidays but many people have asked well where R they now so um

i i won’t touch on COVID but it has been obviously a very difficult period for many australians and a lot of people that i know as well i can’t cut it i i can’t go past christmas 2021 without saying well i think i think i might i think i’ll make hakan’s his visit with in her majesty’s company i think it’s actually over i think he’s out of jail so i mean that’s that’s where R they now. 131MVR that stands for 131 mona road st ives. and that where where is it now it’s in liquidation and look i’m hearing that there’s there’s big moves a’foot … the liquidator i know i continue to be owed thousands of dollars by that project and well i i and i appointed the liquidator with the assistance of the supreme court of victoria a man called gavin moss and chifley advisory was appointed liquidator well i’m i’m hearing that the liquidator we held public examinations on of the directors of that corporation back in about february or march of 2020. well look i’m hearing that the liquidator has found that the directors and macarthur projects let’s put it this way the director sorry the liquidator wants something like between 7 and 12 million dollars of the company’s money back so the liquidator is looking to the directors and to a company called macarthur projects now i was there i was actually there in the court in the supreme court of new south wales it was actually in the federal court i think i think it was in front of a registrar and you know two days were set aside for public examinations and i was there and one of the questions was okay so you owed a latrobe 7 million dollars is that correct yes that’s right and you repaid that you did yes that’s that’s correct how much did you borrow to repay back the 7 million and these are words the effect and this is all in the public arena so in open court it’s fine for me to discuss it how much did you borrow to pay back the 7 million 12 12. you borrowed 12 to pay back seven yes why’d you do that well i’m just paraphrasing here this is not why did you do that i don’t remember what did you do with the other five don’t recall i mean these are the sorts of these are sorts of questions that we’re at so i mean the liquidators the liquidator has been sitting on this transcript for 12 months or 18 months or whatever and he’s now calling that in well you didn’t need the 12 you only need 7 you borrowed the the company went down the toilet the project 131 mona vale road st ives. did not get finished now exactly whose fault that is i’m not saying whose fault it is but that’s where are they now on 131MVR now let’s have a talk about our other this this whole collective of mates craig adams bargo developments now they’re they’re both in liquidation craig’s in bankruptcy ralph paligaru oh dear one of his companies is in liquidation i put that down that was called dural alliances well mohan kumar he recently had a brush with the torrens assurance fund and lost justice darke we talked about that extensively in episode season 1 episode 7.5 john mahony was his lawyer and unfortunately shot down shot down now let’s let’s have a look at a few files so for the rest of them where are they now well let’s have a look ralph paligaru he’s suing garry steinberg ralph suing garry steinberg and reliance leasing in the supreme court of new south wales now this is the most interesting case because it’s gone precisely absolutely nowhere nowhere so is it a fake lawsuit i mean

you tell me let’s just explore this just a tiny bit more the question is this a fake lawsuit like is this a good question let’s have a look at let’s have a look one of the basic requirements of a lawsuit is the solicitor they’ve got to sign it they’ve got to sign it okay and john mahony is a lawyer he’s been a lawyer for 40 45 50 years i don’t know long long time john money hasn’t signed this document and john only actually has to the any lawyer whoever acts has to sign this signature of legal representative look i mean it’s right there in front of you signature plaintiff plaintiff’s solicitor i certified that under clause whatever that another there are reasonable grounds for believing on the basis of provable facts and a reasonably arguable view of the law that the claim for damages in these proceedings has reasonable prospects of success

that is why john mahony needs to sign this to say okay we’re not here to waste the court’s time well he was the court’s time i and john mahony putting his signature on a piece of paper to say we’re not wasting the court’s time okay well that that signature didn’t happen on the 2nd of march last year now i think that’s that’s coming up to 10 months is that right 10 months 10 months it hasn’t been signed 10 months have gone by and what’s happened with this case well i’ll tell you nothing nothing has happened so this is some correspondence now this is this is a court document this is a court order this is all public on the 7th of december the court ordered the court ordered order this matter is listed for directions on the 10th of february so so much so much has occurred since since it was listed on the second of march that we need a break i mean we’re just so productive so we’re gonna we’re gonna push it out to 11 months there so 10th of february is more than 11 months since it was filed and what’s happened nothing nothing nothing nothing so and and why has nothing happened now who are the parties let’s just remind ourselves who are the parties so we’ve got ralph and reliance leasing parties ralph ignatius paligaru plaintiff, defendant reliance leasing so they’re the parties and and the disputes between them so you would think that that has to be resolved between them but no i don’t know so these aren’t my words these are the words of john mahony and tim horne was my lawyer okay just let’s just refresh tim horne signed this consent judgement on behalf capacity solicitor defendant consents yeah defender consents ralph and amreeta consent consent judge that’s why it’s called a consent judgment it’s judgment by consent yeah we all agree we’re consenting

yet i’m not even a party so why does tim horne say and and john mahony agree what do they agree this is on the 7th of september december 7th of december requests submitted by tim horne for four for me nope no no four reliance leasing the case paligaru versus reliance leasing the request the request is that the matter be listed for directions in february reasons reasons ah the intended settlement of this matter has got nothing to do with me i’m not even a party has been frustrated by a third party

by a third party who’s going to get nothing out of it absolutely nothing the third party’s frustrated this so remind ourselves this authority was to pay to pay me no no no so my company gets positioned at the loan on the first of september 2017 there’s this elaborate pea and thimble trick whatever you want to call it maybe it’s not a trick maybe it is there’s going to be a dispersal from reliance back into the why do why does reliance have to take money out of this pocket and stick it in that one why do they even have to do that well because we’ve got i mean we’ve got a deed here we’ve got a deed of settlement all the fights they’re now over and we’ve solemnly sat down we’ve resolved their differences yet mark smith is now frustrating things how’s mark smith frustrating this not even a party we’re instructed that there remains a possibility that this that this will be resolved shortly and in light of this so i’m just telling you it’s christmas eve if someone wants to resolve this well you know well they’re probably going to have to do something about this that’s you know if you want to p if you if you owned a piece of property and called this debt and reliance leasing is proposing how about we pay you nothing yet yet tim horne tim horn’s a very intelligent man he can go off to the court and say it’s mark smith’s fault because he’s frustrating things i would say that there is well he’s we are instructed there remains a possibility that this will be resolved shortly yeah pigs might fly unless unless a hundred and five thousand dollars it lands up in my pocket plus the interest or you know whatever then the court’s time has just been completely wasted by these two very intelligent people called tim horne and the other party to this is john money they’re both lawyers and and their clients pigs might fly we’re instructed that there that there is a possibility this will be resolved shortly

so that that’s addressing whether this loan is real now we’ll go back and we’ll look some more into this john mahony great lawyer okay he’s handling this he’s running the show he’s he’s the plaintiff’s solicitor and we’ve got ralph ignatius paligaru suing reliance leasing so let’s have a look at this summons and this is where are they now i’m just saying this is where they are i’m not making any judgments i’m just saying this is where they are relief claimed a declaration that the loan agreement of the 26th of may is valid and enforceable so john mahony is after declarations what is the loan agreement of the 26th of may well i’m glad you asked here’s a copy and this is

this is a document to

effectively recycle money so john mahony is after a declaration that this piece of paper is actually valid i mean when you when you start with the assumption that if we sign this piece of paper it’s valid so why would it be invalid

is it is it a mirage i don’t know so the supreme court of new south wales is its time is being taken up and vast money is being spent to determine if this is some sort of scam or mirage or if it’s a declaration that that it’s valid and enforceable ah so the borrower wants a once a declaration from the supreme court that this loan is enforceable but hang on that’s the borrower saying that the it’s a loan and it’s an enforceable loan against the lender well hang on it’s usually the reverse it’s usually the the the lender saying oh hang on we want a declaration that ralph is the money but no no no no this is and so we’re after a declaration that it ought to be specifically performed an order that the defendants specifically perform a carry into effect the loan ah so give us the money give us the money

so okay this is interesting isn’t it so we’ve got this i won’t go into the details because it’s confidential but there is a deed and all the parties on the 11th of march 11th march yes two and a half months before this date they’ve had a big dispute and they agreed to sell okay fine but so hang on the parties dcp litigation reliance ralph and his wife okay well that’s interesting so let’s have a look at the parties on this the summons who are the parties oh well there’s only ralph and reliance

now this is interesting this is normally something that you normally you file something you normally have to sign it you put it in the supreme court where’s the signature i mean can you see it there anyone so it’s an unsigned document who are the parties okay this is ralph and reliance so on the 11th of march all the parties agreed to settle okay right and then on the 26th of may

there’s this agreement to recycle money but hang on didn’t we just settle i mean it gets it gets you know stranger so eleventh march we have this agreement and it and eleventh of march oh i got john mahony ‘s signature on this document for ralph and everybody so everyone agrees if we don’t do what what’s what was agreed to be settled well you can go and get it you can go and get a judgment so this is a consent judgment we consent that if we’re going to do all these things that we agree in may hey march and if we don’t then you can go and file this and and they give us the consent judgment upfront signed by john mahony and later it’s it’s it’s signed by the same people tim horne reliance leasing now he happened to be my lawyers as well and it’s so we jim signs this he was authorised to do so and he was instructed he was given a written instruction by reliance leasing on the third of july let’s go ahead and get this consent judgment because this deed it hasn’t worked out but hang on ralph is seeking specific performance of a loan that you must lend me money but i’m in great of this but you must lend me a hundred and five and a half thousand dollars and what to do is ralph want to get these hundred five thousand dollars no no no no no no here’s the authority just take that from one pocket and stick it in the other i’m in i’m going to the supreme court to force you to take money out of this pocket and put into that pocket wow i mean are you confused what’s the point of all this yeah like it does seem like a bit like smoke and mirrors so it’s it’s a very i mean this is a loan by the way loan 1899

now let’s let’s go back in time to the first of september 2017. one eight double nine oh there you go 1899 so this is a loan that he doesn’t even that ralph wants a order that reliance specifically for form to take it from this pocket and stick it in that pocket but on the first of september 2017 here off reliance leasing this is first of september dear ralph reliance leasing hereby gives you notice that they no longer own the debt ah so where are they now that’s this is a this is some sort of elaborate pea and thimble … something maybe i don’t know reliance leasing gives you notice that they no longer own the debt and that all of it all absolutely you know all all its rights title and interest under the loan agreement guarantees securities it’s giving to my company absolutely absolutely oh there’s the magic words and it’s the loan agreement of the 18th of july and Ralphs got a copy this because i sent a process server in september 2017 i’ve got an affidavit of service that ralph was served this document it’s only two pages but ralph neglected to acknowledge it but ralph was served and he’s now saying well in in may of 2020 26th of may 2020 a debt that was the subject of this settlement dude that involves the replacement it’s called the assignee ralph is now seeking declarations not against me that the reliance leasing must take their own money out of their own pocket and shove it in the other pocket and not give any of it to the to the actual owner so if you were the if you’ve spent four years from 2017 through to 2021 pursuing a hundred thousand dollars and then you sign these deeds and you don’t actually know about this this is this happens all behind your back and then on the 17th of july your lawyer who happens to be reliance’s lawyer yeah they agree well none of these things that were supposed to happen under this debate happen so let’s go and enforce our judgment it’s it’s it must be it must sound very puzzling must sound extremely strange so that’s that’s where ralph is he’s not suing me he’s suing Garry steinberg he’s suing reliance and he’s saying you must you must lend us this these aren’t my words these are ralph’s words we can have a look ralph is sworn   an affidavit so that’s sworn on the second of march and this is all these are all his words um

long story long story but maybe what ralph is saying is that during the there was a meeting that i wasn’t that i didn’t attend but i didn’t even know about during the meeting i ralph had a conversation with mr steinberg to the effect ralph this this is a loan agreement which will refinance the original loan well hang on the original loan oh this one that you you signed over to me yeah yeah that 1899? yeah 1899. the affidavit and this is ralph sworn i wasn’t there i don’t know this is what ralph squares has occurred ralph this is the origin this is a loan agreement which will refinance your original loan i’m prepared to agree to refinance that loan in full in the sof a hundred and five thousand five hundred dollars that’s all you need to pay off the loan say to me paid to Garry steinberg reliance ralph oh so despite smith having taken over the line yeah yeah that’s right smith took it over when did you take that over let’s just refresh yourself first of september 2017. this is what ralph swears so despite smith taking over the loan he will arrange for smith to take no action under the deed that signed in large such that once i signed this agreement all previous agreements relating to the original loan will have been replaced by this agreement now this is a two-party apparently this is a two-party agreement i’m not one of the parties and i think what he’s i think what ralph’s getting at here is Garry saying well he’s my agent really nice to know that wouldn’t it so you know if i’ve got anger and with someone and you know where’s that anger now well maybe it’s it’d be like if you went into westpac and said hey my line with the commonwealth bank can you just make it go away i wish i could say you’re an idiot get out i’ll call call the nutshops anyway ralph’s having this conversation with Garry steinberg apparently this is what ralph says the conversation went by so all previous arrangements relating to the original loan will be replaced is that what’s going to happen Garry yeah yeah that is that is right yes that is right i mean that’s fairly clear yes that is right leave it to me i will take care of smith

really i will take okay how’s that going to work i will take care of smith i will take care of smith so in the first of on the first of october when i’m lying there in hospital the tubes hanging at me and stents and you know having a heart attack wow i was being taken care of i’m actually getting text messages by this pair by ralph and Garry oh you know taking care of me I got a i get a christmas wish today today’s the 24th of december i wish you you know i wish you well from Garry he’s taking care with words no no we want we want Garry to take care with money you know cash Garry to ralph this is on the 26th of may also you only need to pay me what you can afford hang on you pay me to pay off the loan to smith and i’ll take care of smith but you only need to pay me what you can afford

minimum 000 so even if you can’t afford a thousand you pay it to me and i’ll take care of smith ralph yes one thousand is about as much as i can pay and i agree that that will be the repayment no i wasn’t there but this is what they swear what this is what ralph says also as you have no income other than the mill in fiji you won’t have to commence payment under this loan until you start making money like this in the middle of covid two years go by and gary’s making giving undertakings apparently for me

and then the timber mill suddenly blows over in a cyclone very very tragic a lot of destruction so you know i think what gary’s saying here is you don’t have to worry about making any payments i’ll take care of smith yes Garry i agree i will commence payments as soon as the mill starts making money from me and of course the mill’s destroyed so so ralph is forever led off this agreement apparently and i wasn’t even there i wasn’t there and i agreed somehow through Garry steinberg my agent that’s that’s apparently how it all goes so ralph is seeking declarations that this is valid that Garry must remove money from this pocket and stick it in that pocket and that makes mark smith go away despite that so this is on the 25th of 26th of may but in july of the same year last year Garry tells his and my lawyer tim Horne yep sign now this is what an election looks like when you sign something like this and then you file it in the court you have elected you’re never going back on it so are you getting the gist of what i think of Garry steinberg what i think of

what i think of and how i now view these notices of assignment and it’s and how i feel about being taken care of in this way i i hope that tells you where they R now okay we’re going to deep dive in season 2 deep dive and when i say deep like it may be a series of dives we may i actually think that there’s a lot here so we’re not going to get into this in huge detail today but we’re just going to quickly have a look at westpac we’re going to have a look at a couple of more things to do with Garry reliance mahony that whole mess

we may come back to 131mvr as that progresses depending on what the liquidator does and so on we are interested and we’re a creditor and this is a fair game andrew gartrell

very long story adam tilly now this is a guy that loaned money to craig adams and then subsequently loaned money to ralph paligaru and that’s not a crime but well we’re going to look at him in season two as well adam tilly now pacific 8 kesinda oh justin hatfield now justin hatfield’s fingerprints were on lots and lots of these documents that were given to adam tilly and look we we we may need to come back and have a look at aqua law i’m very very disappointed with with them and so we’ll just have a look at it now moving on to westpac well what’s we’ve touched on westpac and there are a few things on our blog already there’s a westpac who why a where and how but just in the very briefest of terms how what. what what is westpac about um

there is quite a lot to this there really actually is quite a lot to westpac and we’ll start with these submissions and these are submissions that were given to the supreme court of new south wales i am certainly not accusing the barristers of any wrongdoing but i am saying that someone misled the barristers and so that is the scandal it’s mr ollis had this seemingly magic cheque book that he could write out to checks for two hundred thousand fifty thousand for four hundred thousand and they would just magically magically put money in his account every day and well that’s bad enough but the real scandal and mr ollis did not go to jail so he was not convicted of any fraud he wasn’t even charged with any fraud

so no one’s accusing him of anything although he did write cheques if we go now to let’s have a look at this individual this word individual only appears once in this document and it appears in paragraph 38 and it says that it is clear and this is what i’m saying the scandal is it is clear on the evidence so this is what the barristers are writing is clear on the on the evidence or at least the evidence that the barristers have seen so if they haven’t seen it well they’re not misleading anyone but if they were not shown it that’s what i’m saying may well be the scandal it is clear on the evidence that the bank made these payments well they certainly made payments and we’re going to show you the bank’s statements in a moment and that and that no individual so that’s fairly clear no individual within the bank knew so maybe the computer knew but they’re saying these barristers in their submissions to the supreme court say that no individual ah within the bank okay so was that someone outside the bank that knew this is well that’s interesting no individual within the bank so that does not mean that individuals outside the bank didn’t know but this is the evidence they’re saying the evidence is that no individuals within the bank knew until so the first individual in the bank knew on the 12th of january 2006 and i am saying that that is false now i’m not accusing the barristers of anything they may well have been kept in the dark or maybe it was an individual outside the bank that knew very interesting no individual  well sorry i keep saying new things until the 12th of january of the drawings being made by alice on his business account so let’s have a look at this business account and see what were those drawings and you be the judge like this this is only a shallow dive we’re going to say i’m saying people inside the bank actually knew

these bank statements are 72 pages long on every single page is his stuff but um

This word invalid now the submission was until the 12th of january 2006. well i’m saying here’s the bank statement seven months early on the 17th of june and i’m saying that an individual in the bank wrote the word invalid and that is knowledge they knew on that day they knew that this was there was an invalidity now that’s not what the the submissions say they say no one knew of the drawings so we’re kind of splitting hairs here but someone knew that there was this invalid replenishment authority and at this point on the 17th of june he was writing checks for forty thousand dollars and there was replenishments happening at forty thousand and eighteen dollars on that day now let’s go let’s march on to page say sixty and i have absolutely so much the the credits there’s 10.3 million dollars going in and out of the account i mean wow i wonder if that was normal and i wonder if anyone was watching this i’m going to say no so this this bloke would come to work every morning and there’d be zero dollars in the account and then by december this is four and a half million dollars just turns up in his bank account in the morning wow that’s a good day 4.1 million dollars he’d write on the 1st of december he wrote a check for 400 000. now if we go back to the the previous one on the 17th of june he’s only writing checks for 40 000 and in six months he’s gotten bolder and he’s now writing checks for four hundred thousand dollars and they’re still being honoured but the evidence the submissions were that no individual within the bank knew until the 12th of january and i’m calling that BS and if we go into the next page yeah this time instead of writing word invalid someone’s written their pco status these are these are bits of evidence of knowledge so again we’ll get we’ll do a deep dive and we’ll get into this in more detail

now let’s go and have a further look at some of the things that we’re going to look at in season 2 and i mentioned steinberg we’re going to have a look at this seemingly innocuous case a national australia bank v smith now i’m not making any of this up and by the way that’s not me that’s someone else by that name this is a case that was heard in 2013 and you know this is this is a public document and ghs that’s that’s a related company of reliance they were part of it we’re going to we’re going to go into this case so that’s something we’re going to have a good dive at

we’re also going to have a look at mr mahony and mr mahony is a is a borrower of of of reliance so Garry steinberg one of his borrowers is reliance and Garry gets a mention in this as well and reliance leasing so this is again this is real this is something that anyone can go to caselaw.nsw.gov.au and put in the name mahony and and the council of the law society took on mr mahony and what did they take him on for well let’s have a look at this they they took an objection to the complaint the solicitor falsely witnessed the signature of this particular person and and who should be there but mr steinberg mr steinberg’s here as well so mr steinberg gets around and it’s it’s i was unaware of some of these things but mr steinberg goes back further with people and the if we jump to this this account this matter of nab v smith well that’s also involves mr steinberg and there’s problems with the signature on documents there as well so these are not my opinions this is not these are factual findings the supreme court or the civil administrative tribunal in the case of the mahony and mr steinberg seems to find his way into you know these situations all the time

andrew gartrell has a problem with the signature as well and Andrew gartrell, i i he knows Garry steinberg as well and adam tilly well adam tilly i don’t know how well he knows mr steinberg although they do know each other and ben and tim horne though well they know mr steinberg mahony knows mr steinberg mohan kumar he’s met mr steinberg and ralph paligaru well the only people here that don’t know each other steinberg knows 131mvr and he’s a creditor of that as well this is you know very troubling

so these are some of the things that we’re going to look at in season 2 there’s going to be plenty more so stay tuned and i’ll come back and we’ll wrap up now

we’ll look in closing thank you so much for joining us in 2021 and 2020 and hopefully you’re joining us again in 2022 we appreciate your efforts we appreciate the messages of support we appreciate the instant chat tools if you have any questions if you have any questions give us a call 1-300-327-123 or come and visit us in the bottom right hand corner of our website www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast

and you can instant chat with us there in the bottom right hand corner if you’ve got any questions at all you want to talk to us you want to send us an email whatever you can call us again as i said 1300 327123 my name is mark smith i’d love to talk to you i’m i’m very keen i’m very willing to talk to anyone anytime about anything so give us a call happy christmas happy new year i hope it’s a great 2022 and thank you again see you soon

Many R’s Podcast – S1E7.5

Transcript

rogues rascals reviewables rorts rip-offs receivers real estate agents and much much more the many rs podcast season 1 episode 7.5 – 7.5 we can’t get all the way to 8 we have to go to 7.5 and we have absolutely breaking news from the new south wales supreme court about our one of our favorite r’s – ralph so stand by welcome to season 1 episode 7.5 if you’ve got any questions give us a call on 1300 327 123 that’s until late or hook up with us on www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast … use the chat tools in the bottom right hand corner thank you 

well welcome this is an unusual set of circumstances this is episode 7.5 this is a follow-on episode from our last one where we talked extensively at the end there about our very good mate ralph paligaru and we happened to run into ralph recently and here’s some some updated photos on on ralph for you but this particular episode is about well a judgment of the new south wales supreme court has literally just come down and it is still hot it is still warm so we’re going to have a look at ralph paligaru john mahony that’s the lawyer or is it mahony i no one has ever explained that to me we’ve got mohan kumar who is sometimes known as Chhota Rajan and we’re going to have a look at he’s a resident of tihar prison in in delhi in india and we’re going to have a look at the supreme court judgment in the matter of mohan kumar and shs well and the registrar general the torrens assurance fund so we can this is a public document and in fact this this has just come out unbeknownst to us we don’t watch these things day and night but someone brought it to our attention that the judgment had just come down on it had come down before we’d actually put out episode seven so we felt it was only right that we updated the record so let’s get on and we’ll have a look at the judgment okay so this is the judgment of the new south wales supreme court and anyone that wants to google this can go to a site called caselaw.nsw.gov.au and just google that and it’s a set of proceedings 2021 proceedings it was heard by justice darke who i have to say i’ve got i’ll make some comments as i go through i think he’s got it absolutely substantially correct he he wouldn’t know some of the very tiny minor facts but but still it’s it’s well worth having a look but look the whole gist of it is the claim for compensation a claim from mohan kumar for compensation from the torrens assurance fund is refused so that’s the decision so we can go through and have a quick look well we can have a long look but anyway it’s a it’s a very extensive document it’s i’m just gonna highlight some of the relevant bits there’s quite a lot and i’ll publish the entire document up on our website www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast i’ll i’ll include some text so you know what to look for but anyway the registrar general of the torrens assurance fund or the landed property in new south wales titles are kept for land and that those titles are kept in a central register called the torrens title register so and when a person loses an interest in land if it’s either by fraud or by some error made by the torrents of by the land and property by the people that keep the titles then that person that suffers loss is entitled to compensation and every time there’s a dealing every time that there’s a transaction involving land okay the registration of a mortgage the transfer when you pay stamp duty and all of that a very small sis collected and it goes into this fund called the torrens assurance fund just in case anything goes wrong so i can say that the trans assurance fund or the registrar general was represented by someone called patricia lane who happened to be one of my lecturers at sydney uni and you can see here the whoa

says here okay well pardon me the plaintiff was represented by patricia lane wow how very very interesting and mr mr mahony was there as well so i’m sorry i got that around the wrong way very very very interesting patricia lane nothing but absolute respect she was a fabulous teacher and unbelievably knowledgeable i might have got that the wrong way around i anyway i assume that this is correct so these proceedings are bought by mohan kumar there has there was obviously no discussions about who mohan kumar is in fine detail but he certainly was the registered proprietor of land at old northern road at dural number 632 old northern road dural and that was if you like the word sold it was sold in may of 2016 by his power of attorney ralph paligaru to a company called bargo developments proprietary limited and i’m just going to sort of these these are public and we’ll just you know talk about these so mankind has claimed an interest in the land as what’s called an unpaid vendor’s lien and i absolutely i met ralph on about the 27th of march in 2017 and he was introduced to me by mr steinberg from reliance leasing and ralph complained he couldn’t sleep at night because he was worried that about worried sick about whether he was going to get paid so when i say this property was sold it wasn’t paid so it was a property piece of land worth 5.5 million dollars which they received only 1.5 million dollars so craig adams is walking around with the title to a $5.5m piece of land having been out of pocket virtually nothing and we’ll have a look we’ll have a look and the money he received he didn’t pay it all to he mortgaged the property and did not pay at all to mohan kumar so as i said in episode 7 that is apparently the fault of the torren’s assurance fund and justice darke did not agree with mahony lawyers and the claim was refused so it’s it’s

we’ll just touch on some of the highlighted points and if you’re really that interested you can download this and read this in in fine detail but it’s justice darke finds at certain times the interest was protected by caveat so the very first thing that that i did i was asked by mr how do i put it i can’t sleep and i said why don’t you just put a caveat on it? so we went and put a caveat on and that was put on about the 27th of march 2017 and that’s how i know when i met ralph paligaru so there it was protected by this caveat some times however during other periods there was no caveat and at that time mr kumar was under the care of john mahony and ralph paligaru so you know precisely why they took them off we don’t know other than what’s in this judgment so we’re just reporting the facts we’ve absolutely there’s no criticisms whatsoever of justice darke or the decision he made and none of this is a you know is a massive surprise but anyway look there was various different mortgages at various different times craig adams the argument is that what the argument was it which didn’t work was that craig adams made use of a withdrawal of caveat form that had been executed on behalf of mr kumar by his attorney mr paligaru ralph paligaru so

and look ultimately craig didn’t pay his mortgage the property was sold by kesinda this is a fact and then there was a huge argument about who got what and i was there so i know it in the proceedings were resolved by way of consent orders on made in july 2019. now i i did actually put up the consent orders in episode 7 and showing exactly who got what and i’ve put here now this is not a criticism of justice darke but i’m just saying the the plaintiff received a total of $527 000 out of 2 million so he was … and he received 500 and this is saying well he actually received 26% of the available funds but that’s not with no disrespect to justice darke that is probably not exactly correct kumar actually received two lots he received 26% but on top of that he received another 9% and who did he give that to he gave that to one of my companies and why did he do that so in fact when you look at these arguments that justice darke talks about and says well hang on i’ve done my calculations to work out whether you lost money or you didn’t and then he talks about causation and who’s to blame in other words who’s to blame for mohan kumar not getting four million dollars or you know two million of the two million and look kumar actually did receive 35 of the available funds so there was two million in something available but he chose to pay he chose to honor an agreement he had with me that where he he actually assigned ralph paligaru actually assigned all of mohan kumar’s interest the whole lot to me and and i had an arrangement where i was going to pay successfully and it turns out that actually the success is 26 of what was available and my cut was nine so when you look at these arguments as we go further down into the document it this is no disrespect to justice darke but he did in fact received more than 26 percent he just gave away nine percent so it was 35 of the available so again absolutely no disrespect the so the plaintiff and so in these circumstances so in these circumstances where he actually got 35 the plaintiff alleges that he has suffered loss or damage resulting from the operation the act and justice darke didn’t didn’t go for that so you know and then it gets into some very long analysis the the loss yeah anyway they’re saying suffered loss by consequence of the registration of the consent casino mortgage so it is true that and i’ve numbered all of these so let’s maybe have a look at these salient facts and these are facts found by a supreme court judge and nothing nothing nothing but respect so absolute fact the the plaintiff mr kumar resides in india well it doesn’t talk about where but or even who he is and actually later on there’s a very curious remark saying well for some reason the plaintiff didn’t appear he didn’t come and give evidence and there you go well the reason he couldn’t give evidence is because he’s in jail so it doesn’t seem that that fact was shared publicly but look here are the here are the passport photos and photos of the arrested person and you tell me if they’re the same person i’m not an expert and i don’t i’ve never been to india i’ve never been to any jails i’ve never met mr kumar it’s just it’s an open secret that’s who he is and no one bothered to share that with justice darke so look the piece of land was as i said 632 old northern road dural and there’s its title particulars ralph sold it i’ve showed you the front page of the contract in episode seven for 5.5 but in fact they received 1.5 was put down and there was a series of arrangements that craig adams was to pay 500 there and a million here and another two and a half and time is of the essence and again this all fits into the argument that mahony lawyers put forward that this is all the fault the fact that there was money lost that’s the fault of the torrens assurance fund and really the taxpayer should be should be coughing up to compensate mr kumar and as i said that was not accepted so the purchase price there number number one two three so let’s just have a look and these are some of the this is under the heading salient facts again not my not my facts these are facts that justice darke the honourable justice darke found so we know on the 31st of may the contract price was 5.5 million only 1.5 was put down but the property was used as a credit card i suppose and a mortgage secured the sum of 2.275 million dollars so 1.5 the fact is the plaintiff received 1.5 million on settlement and whether the other three quarters of a million dollars go well the director of bargo was craig adams so we’d have to ask craig adams but we know that only 1.5 million was ever paid to mr kumar and that’s that so and this is the fact that was the only money that was ever ever paid out of a 5.5 million sale price only ever 1.5 was ever paid so we know that time was of the essence there it is time was at the essence and 1.5 was on on settlement there was after four weeks another half a million dollars was required time of the essence six months later another million dollars and none of this was this contract wasn’t enforced and not only that the salient facts that in may 2016 there was it was hot to the tune of 2.275 but a further a further that’s the kit that i put on there you go i put that on i went into the counter and paid the money and on on or about the 27th of march and ralph could sleep at night then you know so so we know that six months later he mr adams and bargo hocked the the property again there was the initial mortgage was to ar mortgages and then along came in and him now the very first thing i went and did was wrote to him in a name and said stop lending money and stop lending any more money and making mr kumar’s position any worse so literally from that day in march of 2017 they were on notice and they did not and i’ve got copies of the the correspondence i went around that night and you know before six o’clock the next morning in march of 2017 saying oh i i have a habit of dropping the s-bomb sometimes but uh

number one three-quarters of a million went to craig adams’s pocket or somewhere you know and then another four hundred thousand this is still not going into mr kumar’s pocket despite their being a contract despite mr kumar having ralph paligaru on the ground is his power of attorney and on top of that well there’s there’s even more money being borrowed so another 350 000 was was borrowed in august 17 a very interesting date on the third of and then even more so it just goes on and on and on and on and on more and more hocking of this land and again i put in a name on notice of that anyway long long story but there’s more and more hocking of this property going on and in august of 17 even more money was borrowed and you know here’s a full list and i mean i find this extremely interesting there was seven caveats so craig adams obviously well there’s some very harsh findings here about craig adams but there was mr paligaru deposes this is his evidence there were seven caveats in the end seven so seven lots of hocking of money against mr kumar’s interest and mr mr paligaru for whatever reason he had from the day i put the caveat on for mr kumar mr kumar was protected from that point in an m had noticed do not lend any more money he’s in default to mr kumar he has four million dollars and he’s in default and another six yes i think that’s correct another 6k bits on top of the the kb i put on was ripped off and another six were put on so craig is just borrowed and borrowed and buried and borrowed and borrowed and in the end someone said well this is the torrens assurance fund’s fault

justice i didn’t agree with that so i’m with justice darke by the way so ralph further deposes that he was concerned he was concerned i was concerned that there was six more lots of hocking of money and in 2017 now this is after ralph has lifted the cable that i put on mr manny writes to mr adams oh we’re not very very happy here and so you can read this for yourself but this is something i find very interesting paragraph 19. this demanding writes on the 6th of november 2017 i have i have now been contacted directly by the representatives in india of mohan kumar

i i find that very interesting the representatives in india in india so i i i’m curious whether that’s true that’s what it says that’s what the email says i’m curious if it’s true i don’t know i have no idea i’ve never talked to mr kumar ever but apparently some representatives called well i i he says mahony writes i have now been contacted as you’re aware there’s vendor finance as you’re aware you’re in default and you know it goes on now all all along here no response there was no response craig got the email and just ignored it ralph went to fiji some of these things aren’t really relevant but i i am dubious about some of this not of what yeah i’m dubious about the evidence that was given in cross examination mr paligaru agreed that so how did how did mr feligaru sorry how did mr kumar miss out well a cave it was lifted and mr peligaru gave evidence that in november 2017 he gives evidence adam’s according to this email adams knew that the withdrawal form was located in the bottom drawer so of the parker office it’s a long story and you’d have to read it and we’ll send you to sleep if we if we talked about it but paligara gives evidence that before he departed from australia he handed it withdrawal of caveat form in the bottom draw of the desk i used from time to time so craig sorry ralph and craig sometimes shared an office

now credit to ralph justice darke actually says he accepts ralph’s version okay but still rules against them he accepts that this actually happens justice darke accepted that he was told orally on or about the 15th of november you’re only to use this in certain circumstances craig went ahead and used it anyway but i’ll cut to the end let’s

before i get there this is the evidence of of mr mister i’m putting this this is what he says i am putting this which is the withdrawal of kv i’m putting this in this draw do not use it until i have full details of any proposed finance or equity position to be taken to be taken by any prospective partner by any prospective partner or joint venturer with us joint venturer with us

until i have full details of any proposed finance or equity position to be taken by any proposed joint a partner or joint venturer with us so with us so it’s to be there’s an us these are ralph’s own words there is an us and again somewhere in this lengthy document it’s 27 pages long somewhere in this lengthy document justice darke ponders why it was that ralph gave a withdrawal of caveat when

in fact there wasn’t a cave on on the title at that time it was in december and ralph’s evidence is that on the 15th of november he gave he handed craig the withdrawal of caveat but there actually wasn’t a caveat on the title on the 15th of november it was in december so and craig used so craig used that

to remove the december cave it but there was no cave in november so i’m my handwriting here says dubious i’m dubious uh

oh here you go if mr a lie now that really should say question mark if mr paligaru is evidence concerning the signing of the withdrawal of cavity is accepted if it’s accepted the form was signed at a time when the plaintiff had no caviar now justice darke found i mean he accepted ralph’s evidence that it was the honor of that date he did hand craig the withdrawal the plaintiff lodged another one on the 4th of december so precisely why ralph gave this is dubious or curious or it is very puzzling but it is very puzzling but he gave on about the 15th of december the withdrawal of acadia for occasion that hadn’t actually been lodged until the fourth of december three weeks later very curious more correspondence it’s it’s franklin the easy gets mentioned any refinance is also to result in the discharge of the second mortgage over the peligaro home in favor of franklin using holdings anything that you do must be referred to us there’s ian jordan comes in now wonderful friend from australasian property group who are being sued by the liquidator bargo now who appointed the liberator that’d be me the liquidator bargo so when all of this turned to custard i appointed a liquidator and i swore that there was a debt of very close to six million dollars owed to me it once upon a time was owed to mr kumar but courtesy of ralph alegaro on not one but two occasions ralph assigned that collection to me and the six million dollars and that was in july of 2018 and he went ahead and amended that deed on the 13th of november 2018. so precisely again this is this is why i was absolutely certain that this would fail this this argument that it’s the torrens assurance fund’s fault that mr kumar lost all this money it’s his fault it’s the tourist assurance fund’s fault well no it was never even remotely possible that it was their fault because ralph assigned the collection to me and and here he’s on the debt i went to the supreme court of victoria and said hey my company is owed six million dollars by fargo developments and they’re they’ve failed to pay back in in accordance with the terms now we had a look up above let’s just go up above it says he here’s the payment schedule well so time was of the essence so i gave him 21 days and said at a certain point i wrote and said hey you owe us six million dollars by that point with you know or whatever the figure was it was over five and here’s a copy of the here’s a copy of the demand that was was put on fargo they never paid enough thomas of the essence and so they were deemed to be insolvent and so how was it ever possible that mr kumar lost money because of the fault that was caused by the fault of the torrens assurance fund no no the right they didn’t even have standing to go to court mr mr kumar had no standing his his entire loss was given to me into my company to pursue and then mr caligaro obviously thought better of it at some point later and decided oh well that doesn’t suit me to have mark smith collect the money even though he paid me nine percent of the funds which you can work out nine percent of two million dollars about 180 000 so it’s it’s just very puzzling so it’s a long long story and jordan gets a mention ebm now these are craig’s accountants his accounts were a firm at called dbw in um

in north sydney i’ve been to their office late one night the b in dbw was a man called bardela and max mardella and max maximilia maximilio bardella and he he loaned money to he was one of the six people that advanced money his company ebm as distinct from dbw dbw helped with all sorts of manner of wonderful documents in support and all up look there was there’s a long long list of of people that were doubted but i withdraw that there’s a long long list of people that get a mention so there’s as i said there were six caves there’s a there’s a very huge gap this is this i found extremely interesting paragraph 37 three further caveats were lodged on or about the 29th of january 2018. one of these was lodged on behalf of reliance leasing mr steinberg so that’s that’s that’s a steinbeck there and on about the 22nd of february 2018 mahony appears to have become aware of the refinancing so again this is this is something that i do find very very interesting on about the 22nd of february now this is the this is what was put to justice darke manny appears to become aware and he writes manny writes a letter to craig adams now i will say oh we should go and have a look at paragraph 16. this is really very very interesting paragraph 16 it is there is evidence that later in august 2017 mr money was acting for the plaintiff so that’s mr kumar in relation to the proposed development and was also acting for craig evans

so he’s acting for multiple parties and i have in previous episodes i said he’s mr mahony how he was able to manage these and juggle these conflicts or not so much the conflicts but the conflicting interests surely mr kumar has one interest hey i want to be paid and craig adams hey i like this getting free money stuff and i can just use this as my credit card i can keep three quarters of a million then another 400 for me and do whatever the hell he likes so it’s it’s a it’s a really really really stunning thing so 22nd of february mahony writes to adams i enclose a copy of a letter to rely of a letter to reliance from the solicitors for the new first mortgage the existence is of syria the existence so that was considered the existence of a new first mortgage is a serious concern to my client my client’s worried sick he’s in jail in in india doesn’t say that but as as my client has a beneficial interest in the whole of the dural land four million bucks but you just keep adding what he’s saying what he’s trying to say is you just keep adding and adding currently there are nine caveats on the property now

this is this is kind of stunning

on the 9th of march casinda’s lawyers bransgroves kate cooper and name is the senior partner there one such one such document was a withdrawal of kv form that had been signed by mr palgary so according to mr peligaro and the judge believes him okay so according to mr palgary mr palgary who handed craig adams we had a look a little bit a few minutes ago mr peligaro handed craig adams a withdrawal of caveat at a time in the middle of november at a time when there was no cavity on the on the land in in the name of kumar and in paragraph 41 here it’s saying well the mid november 2017 withdrawal of caveat was handed it was used by it was handed up by craig adams on the 25th of january 2018 to to your firm brands groves and and that that form states yes it’s the december this number here is the december cave it so as the withdrawal was signed on the 15th of november for a caveat that hadn’t been put on and ralph had only gone overseas for one week from about the 17th to the 24th of november so for whatever reason ralph never took that caveat withdrawal of kv back and justice darke is critical of that later on and he’s also critical and says well why didn’t you just leave the withdrawal of kavit you went you’re going to feed you why didn’t you just give it to john marty so one must wonder whether john mahony got the entire story i’m finding myself i’m finding myself going to bat for john manny here i’m just wondering so look it’s it’s it’s really quite remarkable he and jordan casinda casinda as on the 9th of march writes a letter cassinder writes a letter to apg to ian jordan and they say well hang on i don’t think you want to i don’t think you want to be behind mr kumar so this is the whole issue about lifting cavities when when caved is lifted we understand from the receiver mr kumar claims an unpaid vendor’s interest in the vicinity of 6 million bucks no doubt these these are the words of brans grabs no doubt your client would prefer not to be behind that claim for a piece of land that’s only worth five or five and a half and and there’s already there’s close to three million dollars already hopped you don’t want to be behind some of the zones six because there’s no equity look this is this is a stunning stunning document here you go this this is one of the curious findings i note in passing that mr paligara gave evidence to the effect that at no time between his leaving the withdrawal in the desk at bargo’s office and march did he receive any communications

about any refinancing he did not receive any communications from mr pelleck from mr adams at no time between march at no time between he’s leaving the withdrawal of kbit form in the desk and in the bargo office and march 18. did he receive any communications from craig arms about any refinancing of the documents that’s the evidence now i i’m going to say justice darke is smart enough to be able to read a transcript of the evidence and that’s what he’s saying he’s saying i wasn’t there okay i certainly was not there and i don’t know i didn’t listen to the evidence that mr paligaru gave but justice darke i know him passing that mr paligaru who gave evidence to the to the effect to the effect so he didn’t actually give direct evidence that at no time between between leaving the withdrawal of caveat and march 18 did he receive any communication so i’m just going to pause it here and we’re going to see we’re just going to have a look at some things all right so at no time at no time between leaving the withdrawal of caveat did he receive any communications from mr adam about the refinancing the dual property at no time up until march so i’ll just jump down to something else that i’ve seen offline curiously on the same day so on the same day another cave it was lodged by the plaintiff so what are we talking about here this was third of april mr mahony sent an email to mr craig adams and keep in mind this is all in the context that mr mahony is saying well it’s the torrens assurance fund’s fault that mr kumar lost money it’s their fault

third of april on the third of april so this refinancing happened on the 25th of january on the third of april justice darke notes on the same day on the same day the third of april another caveat was lodged on by mr kumar so that went on on the third of april and that was recorded that’s this is all public you can anyone can google this egg look up this purchase a copy of that by this caveat the plaintiff again claimed to be the unpaid vendor under this 26th of may sorry 2016 may contract curiously curiously the caveat was apparently signed by mr peligaro as the plaintiff’s attorney on the 30th of january so it’s this continual delay delay delay from the 30th of january to the 3rd of april it’s months here months there in action letting giving craig all this this road so i think you can see where this is sort of coming unstuck but let’s just go back to this other

noted passing that mr paligaru gave evidence to the to the effect that at no time so let’s let’s test this here’s an email now at no time did he receive any communications well that’s different to sending it but did he receive any communications about any refinancing

well here’s an email and we’ll see who sent me this and how did i get it 10th of january now that’s that’s between december and march 10th january john mary wrote craig kumar is not happy with the delay in warriewood settling have you issued a notice to complete do you need do you need my help if your lawyer can’t do it i’ll i’ll just act for you and i’ll keep acting for mr kumar but i can manage all this this is what he’s saying this is ridiculous delay that needs to be sorted mohan kumar reserves all right but hang on he can but if you need a lawyer no command reserves all rights but if you need a lawyer i’m your man do you need a lawyer john john ah 3 54 a.m something’s keeping craig away john please come to the city tomorrow and i’ll reassign property and loan to you

please tell me what time you’re available and i’ll have adam tilley meet us and workout guarantees so all you’ve got to do is guarantee it and i’ll resign so the evidence was at no time palgary gave her the effect of no time between he’s leaving the withdrawal in march did he receive any communications from craig about any refinancing so what’s this adam tilley who’s adam tilley adam tilley will meet you to work out financing guarantees on financing

later that day craig is not my [ __ ] as you put it mr kumar’s rights you know and you keep mortgaging his property ah nine k bits later before you paid for it you keep ralph has signed the transfer transferring [ __ ] so ralph actually had the right to transfer the shares in bargo and and transfer the ownership of the company to mr kumar

therefore he’s in your interest to work to solve the problem now the problem is for you is that not only will you have lost the development value you’re in default of the loans which are secured we’re giving you until 4 pm today the current payout tell us the current payout if you can’t get those figures kumar will will by next monday become the owner and serve lapsing notices

so i don’t know if this is well eleventh mate mate i tried to call you this is going to go pear shape so this is from ralph to justin hatfield who’s justin hatfield oh that’s he wouldn’t be talking about refinancing because just justice darke found at no time was there any evidence he gave it ralph gave evidence to the effect of no time did he receive any communications from mr adams well i suppose this one to to justin hatfield is probably not from but anyway i’m stuck in the middle an asset line who are they they’re money lenders justin hatfield as soon as craig settles warriewood has has to happen in the next 10 days one lender you know cross-collateralize this and that whatever 13.5 million

the current payout figure is 2.7 million dollars to winchester o’rourke that’s tilley uh

at no point at no time the evidence was at no time was there any discussion about refinancing after ralph has those figures kumar will be in a position to refinance general without putting you in default of your loans secured over your property over 88 perfection avenue cross-collateralization is in breach of the sales contracts so a few choice words here the point is he’s he was going to refinance with tilley adam tilley no news warriewood who knows it’s almost a ponzi scheme

and mr hadfield you have facilitated a lot of it

it’s easily resolved once warriewood settles what’s happening with at no point was there any discussion about refinancing ralph ralph wrote what’s happening with tilley refi refinancing it’s fully approved it’s fully approved so the evidence did he receive any communications about any refinancing of the general property

i i’m just not sure whether justice darke saw these communications but they’re there interesting not good enough john mahony’s still on the 11th not good enough client has been waiting months for the mythical warriewood settlement time is up kumar will now register the share transfer well even in april still hasn’t happened also what is the secret about telling us how much people take to free dural of the various blisters kumar will not accept any more delays well apparently he will justin hatfield lumley finance and loans now if this wasn’t about refinancing if this wasn’t about refinancing then you know so it goes on and on and on and on the solicitor is the vendor’s worst nightmare this all comes to craig not communicating and swearing another so there’s craig will lose his family asset liner ruthless mahoney acted for paid on exchange acted against paid on exchange and wants payments so but ralph is organizing the logistics of his daughter’s engagement so let’s see what else there is here’s another email this is to do with maybe not to do with refinancing but this is certainly from craig we’re trying to we’re trying to get as mentioned i have warriewood projects setting on the 29th yet so on the 30th according to justice darke ralph signs a new caveat which he doesn’t put on until the third of april and again all of this is the fault of the torres assurance fund let’s have a look at this one all of these are sent to me by ralph by the way so let’s ralph from ralph to mark that’s me from ralph to mark from ralph to mark 22nd tomorrow tomorrow so this property settled on the sorry the the use of the caveat occurred on the 25th of january and there was communications between

at no point did he receive any communications from mr adams about any refinancing of the general poverty well i’m going to say i’m sorry that on the 25th of january there’s another communication but tomorrow so tomorrow is the 23rd of january this is before before the cave it is used gents mr lalich this is another one the evidence was there’s no communication about refinancing from craig well mr lalich is one of craig’s lawyers

you know so they’re they’re meeting up on ralph is meeting with justin hatfield and justin hatfield this wouldn’t be anything to do with a refinancing would it lumley finance and loans accredited finance broker well i’m you know i am i’ve said i’m dubious about that evidence that ralph has has given to the effect that there was at no time did he receive any communications yet you know this is not a communication about refinancing from justin hatfield who’s a mortgage broker craig adams you know so this is here see you there see you there so as you can see there’s quite a lot to this particular judgment and we’re only up to page six of 27 and it really does go on but i’m just highlighting a few key bits i’ll just return now to this other thing and i’ve said that i am dubious about i’m not calling saying that people are outright lying but i am highly dubious about some of the aspects of what was put in front of justice darke and i’ll take you back to this one paragraph 19 mr mahony on the 6th of november now this is at a time when there was no yes there was no caveat on the land according to ralph’s evidence on the 15th of november ralph then went and put went and handed craig adams a withdrawal of the cave yet that wasn’t on and then in december one was put on so in the evidence this is mr manny wrote to craig adams on 6th of november when there was no caveat and he says and we’ve talked about this just before i have i this is what manny writes now this is important because he says it’s true and i’ll show you i’ll show you something else so this is on the 6th of november 2017. now i’m going to show you something in 2018 that causes me to be dubious i mr money i have now been in contact directly oh sorry i have now been contacted directly by the representatives in india of mr kumar so someone in india has contacted mr kumar as you’re aware kumar is the vendor there’s a vendor finance you’re in default and in december 17 he’s mahony is writing and why why are we saying this well money’s been paid he owes the duty of care to mr kumar and according to his his correspondence he’s in contact with him so he must if you believe what he’s writing he must accept that he did over duty of care and so as a matter of urgency as a matter of urgency well there’s no caveat so it the kv doesn’t actually go on for another month and is subsequently withdrawn using a withdrawal behavior that ralph did not give to mr manny he left it in a drawer according to ralph he left it in a drawer in bargo’s office as a matter of urgency as the basis of you know the encumbrances a copy of this certificate of title a copy of the five caveats we’ve we have we have been instructed so did someone in india according to i’ve been contacted directly by representatives in india we have now been we have been instructed to determine whether all can be removed through lapsing notice or through litigation so at this point well at this point

at this point the mortgagee is the first monkey is in the name properties and they’re on notice because of my letter there are notice of this interest so we’ve told them i told them absolutely do not lend any more money and subsequent to this more money was lent and but again the argument that money law is using is that this is all the fault of the torrents assurance fund it’s all their fault all of this you know as a matter of urgency we’ve been instructed to you know start laughing things can we lapse them can we can we have media litigation and there’s no response so there’s no response this is the 6th of november and academia does go on in december and is subsequently withdrawn using a withdrawal academia date of the 15th of november of their abouts so we asked to find out the current balance on the n m nine he says he’s been contacted by people in india directly that’s now directly in his email of november 2017. the ralph please provide me the contact details for the indians so he doesn’t even know who his client is he’s only dealing with this is a year later he’s either lost the phone number let’s be generous and say he’s lost the phone number please provide me contact details he doesn’t know he doesn’t know the name he doesn’t know the phone number according to this this is the way i’d read it please provide contact details not just the phone number person phone number emails you know what their relationship as you are unable to do anything to further this matter i need to speak with the indians to have you replaced whoa to have you replaced as their attorney

why did i donate why did it take until october 18 the land’s been sold by that point but yet a year before he’s saying in november the year before he’s saying i was a man of urgency we need to find out and start lapsing things

i’m saying look let’s let’s have a look now there is a i’m just going to throw it up on the screen here we’ve got signed by ralph peligaru in july and november 2018 twice ralph has assigned a claim that mr mahony sorry that mr kumar would have against mr manny for professional negligence now i don’t know if that’s i don’t know if that claim has legs or not but mr mahony is being employed and sending out bills for hundreds of thousands of dollars 90 to 100 000 or thereabouts two mr kumar so he must have owed he he must feel that he owes a duty of care it took him until october to 2018 after the property sold after the property has been had nine caveats go on it’s it’s really interesting but yet the argument is it’s all the fault forget all of this stuff it’s all the torrents assurances fund’s fault they’re to blame the state government has to has to cough up money i still don’t understand why you don’t want to save your house ralph i’m still here to help i’m still here to help well wow that’s fantastic now let’s go back to we’ll go back to this i have now been contacted directly by representatives in india well i’ve been in contact with them myself you know for several years let’s have a look at some of the stuff that’s being said

here’s what i wrote i’m not going to give you the person’s details did mr manny ever speak with any family members of mr kumar in november 2017. paragraph 19 says he did hi mark no he or ralph has never spoken to any family member only you were the first to approach us the first this poor bastard’s sitting over in jail in india now i’m this is not mr kumar this is a representative but this poor bastard is sitting in jail he’s had his four million dollars plundered and i am the first to contact them

first that’s pretty clear okay then i go on in in the court judgment manny gives evidence he has described he has had discussions with someone in india in india not just ralph someone in india

the reply who is that someone there has to be a name i believe him i do believe this man

by sayings just by just saying someone in court it doesn’t make any sense he has to give details and here’s specifically what i did send to the contact i have now been in contact directly i have now been contacted directly by the representatives in india in india

no name paragraph 16. he’s just making it up he’s just making it up

wow now things aren’t i’m just repeating this i’m personally speaking for myself i am dubious like i actually am dubious that this is true i have now been contacted directly but this is what a lawyer with 40 years experience his writing in 6th of november could he have saved that last 400 grand could he have i don’t know

at this point in november 17 none of this none of this claim has been assigned to me so he could have saved maybe four hundred thousand to he could have saved two million dollars maybe and he in his own words he’s saying well we’ve been we have been instructed now if this is correct if he has been contacted directly well he’s in the same email he’s saying we’ve been instructed to determine whether any of the caveats can be removed through lapsing notices or why didn’t he do that he’s been instructed hang on you’re a lawyer you’re instructed why don’t you do it

so again we’re only up to page six it’s it’s it’s a staggering staggering document and full credit to full credit to justice he does i think a very good job with the material he’s been presented now he’s been presented things saying well he’s had contacts with people in india justice darke clearly has absolutely no idea and absolutely no no criticism he doesn’t know he makes the observation we haven’t seen mr we haven’t seen mr kumar record he didn’t he didn’t come and give evidence well okay reason good reason for that he can’t he’s locked up apparently i don’t know so look let’s skip right to the end now and i will say this i will say this this is a very long well it’s not overly long but it’s a lot lengthy and it’s well considered it is well considered third of april manny sent a letter to mr adams mr adams unfortunately unfortunately however our clients our clients have come to no other conclusion than that you have fraudulently also delivered to the solicitor casino the withdrawal of cavity fraud it’s very big if you’re going to say fraud it’s the bar is very very high in all the circumstances in april of 2018 in all the circumstances man is writing in all circumstances we have been instructed again he’s got an instruction to report your actions to the new south wales police for fraud so what did he do with that instruction third of april he’s got the instructions to report you for for fraud and third of april same day they re-lodged the caveat but he’d been sitting on that caveat from since the 30th of january now would it have made any difference i don’t know i don’t know if he’d lodged the cave on the 30th of january it may or may not have made any difference but all i do know is they sat on it they sat on it mr mr mahony or mr paligari where the evidence is the finding the finding of justice darke is that curiously the caveat was apparently signed by the power of attorney mr kunma oh sorry mr palgar on the 30th of january when the plaintiff’s second the second favorite remained on the title so the withdrawal of cave it had been handed over but it still remained so casino actually had the withdrawal um

at the time beligari signed another one on the 30th he must have known that the withdrawal of it had been used yet on the third of april they’re writing letters saying oh we’ve just discovered it and there was a previous finding on the 22nd on the 22nd i said i’ll talk about this gap paragraph 3738 i talk about this gap three further cavetts were lodged on the 29th now this this whole this and one of these i was involved with in some way the reliance leasing one this was lodged on the 29th of january and that stopped putting it on stopped the cinder having theirs properly registered their mortgage i probably registered and the removal of n m and apg’s and there was this obviously this giant clog now ralph apparently signs the the next caveat on the 30th but at this point reliance got theirs on apg got this on slightly behind the one that i was involved in reliance and then lumley that’s that’s the finance broker they got theirs on as well and then on the 30th ralph must have known so he goes and signs another one but claims they don’t know until the 22nd of february 2018 mr mr money appears to have become aware of the refinancing transaction appears so that’s interesting very interesting and right the existence of the new mortgage is of serious concern to my client yet ralph has signed another caveat on the 30th and it’s of such a serious concern he didn’t did nothing with it from the 30th of january until the 3rd of april it’s it’s that it’s there are some questions here so

we then move on the total claim that was made by kumar against the torrens assurance fund is one point called 1.9 million dollars

paragraph 59 is submitted that there are good and now the registrar general says there’s good reasons to doubt the evidence of obviously allegory the registrar general says that there was good reason to doubt the evidence of mr palgary

now we look at the determination what did the court find paragraph 68 i have reservations so just justice star can only deal with the material that’s before him he he he doesn’t do his absolute credit i think he’s done a brilliant job okay but he may not have had all the material put in front of him either by rob calgary or by the torrens assurance fund they may simply not have known as paragraph 68 i have reservations about aspects you find some of it implausible

paragraph 69 despite my reservations i’ve ultimately come to the conclusion mr paligara’s evidence should be accepted so that’s pretty good but it doesn’t change the result the result is how many

paragraph 61 i further find mr adams in making use he was acting making useful withdrawal of cave it was acting contrary to the instructions

on the material that was put before justice darke and i don’t know if that included those emails well i do know that i’ll put it up again peligaro said that at no time was there a correspondence about the refinance but coming back to paragraph 7172 paragraph 71 i accept mr paligara’s evidence to the effect that neither he nor the plaintiff himself had any knowledge of the transaction that’s about the refinancing now again i do not know whether the emails the one tomorrow with lalich and hatfield and there’s a series of them that i put up i do not know whether they’ve been put up to justice darke and considered but on what was can what was put before him he says he accepts mr palgary’s evidence okay i’m prepared to conclude that mr pelic that mr adams acted dishonestly in this really in this respect

paragraph 72 for the above reason i’m prepared to find that mr adam acted this acted fraudulently and making use of the withdrawal of k-bits but okay so that’s to get money on the turns assurance fund there has to be dishonesty or fraud or a mistake by the current assurance fund the registrar general’s department and on top of that you have to prove that it led to loss now that was that’s the whole thing that i’ve always said well hang on i think you’ve postponed yourself ralph by handing this over and look i i’ll just show we’ll go through these other pages there’s lots and lots and lots here okay lots of analysis but the plaintiff submitted that the equity he could have mr kumar could have been four hundred thousand dollars better off and now on top of that there’s interest okay so we’re talking still a lot of money here a lot of money and it was as i said there was a two million dollar kitty apg received out of that fund 725 thousand dollars that’s three quarters of a million dollars and ralph and ian jordan the director of apg have a company together i don’t know precisely i was in the mediation in july 2019 but i didn’t go and shut the door and chat with ian jordan i didn’t and so apg work out with a lot of money now the liquidator is now chasing that and saying well that was a preference and we’ll see where that all goes as i said there’s a whole lot of analysis here and it’s it’s going to be impossible to just go through them all but i’ll put this up on our website let’s have a look at these last two pages in my opinion in my opinion the whole of the loss or damage should be regarded as the consequences of the acts or omissions of the plaintiff the conduct of mr pelago as the plaintiff’s agent in relation to the withdrawal of the caveat the very means by which mr adams was able to perpetrate his fraud that’s to blame so i think as i said earlier justice did find that there was fraudulent conduct but you’ve got to say that okay that that fraud led to the loss and there’s pages and pages of analysis the bottom line is justin darke did not find did not find that it really would have made any difference whether whether there was fraud or not the the post-painting conduct and the arming and all of that it was really the conduct of mr palgary was in in my view plainly negligent he failed to take reasonable care for the interest of the plaintiff that is particularly the case in circumstances from november 17 mr paligara was not only aware of fargo’s breaches so they failed to pay they had to pay 1.5 which they did on this 5.5 million dollar transaction and they had to pay 500 000 within four weeks and another one and a half million or two million or something after that and then another two and a half million so he was aware that they’d missed all of those it was incredible i said third of november 2017 we’ve got the email from mr mahony who says he’s been contacted directly by representatives in india as a matter of urgency and yet justice darke says in particular this is particularly the case in circumstances where from november 2017 mr paligara was not only aware of the breaches under the contract but also had concerns about mr adams’s dealing that he’s hocking the property and he knew he must have known that

he must have known that’s what justice darke thoughts to make the signed withdrawal of caveat form available to mr adams in those circumstances strikes me as contacted contract conduct that is very negligent if not reckless

mr adam utilized the means that were available to him to carry out the fraud applying a common sense approach the conduct of mr palgary should should be regarded as the cause of the claimed loss four million dollars just down the toilet of mr kumar’s money four million dollars down the toilet to my mind it is it is a cause of the loss as much as the conduct of mr adams himself it is a case where there are truly successive causes of the loss it is it is thus it can’t be concluded that the loss or damage was as a consequence of the axial or remission of the sorry that it was a consequence of the acts or omissions of the plaintiff and thus no entitlement it wasn’t the fault of the torrens assurance fund and just to rub it in just a tiny bit more paragraph 22 122 the plaintiff will be dismissed the statement claims dismissed the court will order the court will further order that the plaintiff pay the registrar general’s costs so there you have it a a terrible terrible tale we’ll come back and wrap up in a minute

well how is that for an incredible defeat justice darke as has really nailed that i think and well you would think that that’s the end of it but apparently ralph and john mahony are off thinking thinking about thinking about an appeal can you can you believe it thinking about an appeal on top of that there is another case which i’ve just put up the details about ralph is also personally suing the torrens assurance fund with his wife henrika and a very similar thing around the same time as all of this happened with mr kumar at a very similar time ralph borrowed money at six percent a month and five hundred forty thousand dollars six percent a month from a company called franklin yeezy and for better or worse for better or worse it also the well mr for whatever reason we talked about delays incredibly there was a a delay between about august 2017 and december 2017 very similar periods where ralph failed to put a caveat for neglected to put a caveat on land at warriewood owned by golden arrow international and other craigslist companies and subsequently he missed out on 540 thousand dollars and kept on paying six percent interest a month and in case you can’t work it out that’s like thirty something thousand in the first month and when you don’t pay it just balloons and balloons and like literally i did some sums at one stage it was like fifty four thousand dollars a month interest it was up to so but the trouble is i i think i haven’t seen the judgment and if even when i do get a copy of the judgment or if it’s being dismissed or whatever i’ll make sure if i get the documents we’ll post them and because they’re public documents and um

very similar facts you know i imagine i can’t see how he could possibly win where he he’s going to claim well it’s the torrens assurance fund’s fault that that craig in this instance i think they were just slack and i didn’t put either mahony or paligaru was slack i don’t know who so i’m not portioning blame there but what i do know is there’s a period of four months and there was no caveat on this warriewood land and in the meantime you saw how many caveats craig adams put on bargo he put justice many on maybe justice many he put enough there was lots of occasions put on warriewood as well and ralph missed out and it goes on to pay 30000 a month interest and that’s clearly not sustainable so you would think so where’s this all going time will tell time really will tell but you know to the best of my knowledge ralph’s insolvent we’ve got a we have mike i personally have a consent judgment against ralph $106551 we filed a creditor’s petition and ralph is trying to have it set aside one that he consented to so it’s going to be very interesting he’s managed to get that adjourn until april so in the meantime if there’s any uh

if there’s anyone out there that also has owed money and a lot of money you’re very welcome to come and join the party join the action join the creditors petition for your supporting creditor and it wouldn’t surprise me who you are so again if you’re owed money come and join the action if you’ve got any questions if you know any facts if you’ve got any thoughts we’d love to hear from you www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast or give us a call 1-300-327-123 if you do go to our website check out the link in the bottom right hand corner there’s into the message chat tool we’d love to hear from you and you know thank you very much thanks for tuning in bye

rogues rascals reviewables rorts rip-offs receivers real estate agents and much much more the many rs podcast season 1 episode 7.5 – 7.5 we can’t get all the way to 8 we have to go to 7.5 and we have absolutely breaking news from the new south wales supreme court about our one of our favorite r’s – ralph so stand by welcome to season 1 episode 7.5 if you’ve got any questions give us a call on 1300 327 123 that’s until late or hook up with us on www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast … use the chat tools in the bottom right hand corner thank you 

well welcome this is an unusual set of circumstances this is episode 7.5 this is a follow-on episode from our last one where we talked extensively at the end there about our very good mate ralph paligaru and we happened to run into ralph recently and here’s some some updated photos on on ralph for you but this particular episode is about well a judgment of the new south wales supreme court has literally just come down and it is still hot it is still warm so we’re going to have a look at ralph paligaru john mahony that’s the lawyer or is it mahony i no one has ever explained that to me we’ve got mohan kumar who is sometimes known as Chhota Rajan and we’re going to have a look at he’s a resident of tihar prison in in delhi in india and we’re going to have a look at the supreme court judgment in the matter of mohan kumar and shs well and the registrar general the torrens assurance fund so we can this is a public document and in fact this this has just come out unbeknownst to us we don’t watch these things day and night but someone brought it to our attention that the judgment had just come down on it had come down before we’d actually put out episode seven so we felt it was only right that we updated the record so let’s get on and we’ll have a look at the judgment okay so this is the judgment of the new south wales supreme court and anyone that wants to google this can go to a site called caselaw.nsw.gov.au and just google that and it’s a set of proceedings 2021 proceedings it was heard by justice darke who i have to say i’ve got i’ll make some comments as i go through i think he’s got it absolutely substantially correct he he wouldn’t know some of the very tiny minor facts but but still it’s it’s well worth having a look but look the whole gist of it is the claim for compensation a claim from mohan kumar for compensation from the torrens assurance fund is refused so that’s the decision so we can go through and have a quick look well we can have a long look but anyway it’s a it’s a very extensive document it’s i’m just gonna highlight some of the relevant bits there’s quite a lot and i’ll publish the entire document up on our website www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast i’ll i’ll include some text so you know what to look for but anyway the registrar general of the torrens assurance fund or the landed property in new south wales titles are kept for land and that those titles are kept in a central register called the torrens title register so and when a person loses an interest in land if it’s either by fraud or by some error made by the torrents of by the land and property by the people that keep the titles then that person that suffers loss is entitled to compensation and every time there’s a dealing every time that there’s a transaction involving land okay the registration of a mortgage the transfer when you pay stamp duty and all of that a very small sis collected and it goes into this fund called the torrens assurance fund just in case anything goes wrong so i can say that the trans assurance fund or the registrar general was represented by someone called patricia lane who happened to be one of my lecturers at sydney uni and you can see here the whoa

says here okay well pardon me the plaintiff was represented by patricia lane wow how very very interesting and mr mr mahony was there as well so i’m sorry i got that around the wrong way very very very interesting patricia lane nothing but absolute respect she was a fabulous teacher and unbelievably knowledgeable i might have got that the wrong way around i anyway i assume that this is correct so these proceedings are bought by mohan kumar there has there was obviously no discussions about who mohan kumar is in fine detail but he certainly was the registered proprietor of land at old northern road at dural number 632 old northern road dural and that was if you like the word sold it was sold in may of 2016 by his power of attorney ralph paligaru to a company called bargo developments proprietary limited and i’m just going to sort of these these are public and we’ll just you know talk about these so mankind has claimed an interest in the land as what’s called an unpaid vendor’s lien and i absolutely i met ralph on about the 27th of march in 2017 and he was introduced to me by mr steinberg from reliance leasing and ralph complained he couldn’t sleep at night because he was worried that about worried sick about whether he was going to get paid so when i say this property was sold it wasn’t paid so it was a property piece of land worth 5.5 million dollars which they received only 1.5 million dollars so craig adams is walking around with the title to a $5.5m piece of land having been out of pocket virtually nothing and we’ll have a look we’ll have a look and the money he received he didn’t pay it all to he mortgaged the property and did not pay at all to mohan kumar so as i said in episode 7 that is apparently the fault of the torren’s assurance fund and justice darke did not agree with mahony lawyers and the claim was refused so it’s it’s

we’ll just touch on some of the highlighted points and if you’re really that interested you can download this and read this in in fine detail but it’s justice darke finds at certain times the interest was protected by caveat so the very first thing that that i did i was asked by mr how do i put it i can’t sleep and i said why don’t you just put a caveat on it? so we went and put a caveat on and that was put on about the 27th of march 2017 and that’s how i know when i met ralph paligaru so there it was protected by this caveat some times however during other periods there was no caveat and at that time mr kumar was under the care of john mahony and ralph paligaru so you know precisely why they took them off we don’t know other than what’s in this judgment so we’re just reporting the facts we’ve absolutely there’s no criticisms whatsoever of justice darke or the decision he made and none of this is a you know is a massive surprise but anyway look there was various different mortgages at various different times craig adams the argument is that what the argument was it which didn’t work was that craig adams made use of a withdrawal of caveat form that had been executed on behalf of mr kumar by his attorney mr paligaru ralph paligaru so

and look ultimately craig didn’t pay his mortgage the property was sold by kesinda this is a fact and then there was a huge argument about who got what and i was there so i know it in the proceedings were resolved by way of consent orders on made in july 2019. now i i did actually put up the consent orders in episode 7 and showing exactly who got what and i’ve put here now this is not a criticism of justice darke but i’m just saying the the plaintiff received a total of $527 000 out of 2 million so he was … and he received 500 and this is saying well he actually received 26% of the available funds but that’s not with no disrespect to justice darke that is probably not exactly correct kumar actually received two lots he received 26% but on top of that he received another 9% and who did he give that to he gave that to one of my companies and why did he do that so in fact when you look at these arguments that justice darke talks about and says well hang on i’ve done my calculations to work out whether you lost money or you didn’t and then he talks about causation and who’s to blame in other words who’s to blame for mohan kumar not getting four million dollars or you know two million of the two million and look kumar actually did receive 35 of the available funds so there was two million in something available but he chose to pay he chose to honor an agreement he had with me that where he he actually assigned ralph paligaru actually assigned all of mohan kumar’s interest the whole lot to me and and i had an arrangement where i was going to pay successfully and it turns out that actually the success is 26 of what was available and my cut was nine so when you look at these arguments as we go further down into the document it this is no disrespect to justice darke but he did in fact received more than 26 percent he just gave away nine percent so it was 35 of the available so again absolutely no disrespect the so the plaintiff and so in these circumstances so in these circumstances where he actually got 35 the plaintiff alleges that he has suffered loss or damage resulting from the operation the act and justice darke didn’t didn’t go for that so you know and then it gets into some very long analysis the the loss yeah anyway they’re saying suffered loss by consequence of the registration of the consent casino mortgage so it is true that and i’ve numbered all of these so let’s maybe have a look at these salient facts and these are facts found by a supreme court judge and nothing nothing nothing but respect so absolute fact the the plaintiff mr kumar resides in india well it doesn’t talk about where but or even who he is and actually later on there’s a very curious remark saying well for some reason the plaintiff didn’t appear he didn’t come and give evidence and there you go well the reason he couldn’t give evidence is because he’s in jail so it doesn’t seem that that fact was shared publicly but look here are the here are the passport photos and photos of the arrested person and you tell me if they’re the same person i’m not an expert and i don’t i’ve never been to india i’ve never been to any jails i’ve never met mr kumar it’s just it’s an open secret that’s who he is and no one bothered to share that with justice darke so look the piece of land was as i said 632 old northern road dural and there’s its title particulars ralph sold it i’ve showed you the front page of the contract in episode seven for 5.5 but in fact they received 1.5 was put down and there was a series of arrangements that craig adams was to pay 500 there and a million here and another two and a half and time is of the essence and again this all fits into the argument that mahony lawyers put forward that this is all the fault the fact that there was money lost that’s the fault of the torrens assurance fund and really the taxpayer should be should be coughing up to compensate mr kumar and as i said that was not accepted so the purchase price there number number one two three so let’s just have a look and these are some of the this is under the heading salient facts again not my not my facts these are facts that justice darke the honourable justice darke found so we know on the 31st of may the contract price was 5.5 million only 1.5 was put down but the property was used as a credit card i suppose and a mortgage secured the sum of 2.275 million dollars so 1.5 the fact is the plaintiff received 1.5 million on settlement and whether the other three quarters of a million dollars go well the director of bargo was craig adams so we’d have to ask craig adams but we know that only 1.5 million was ever paid to mr kumar and that’s that so and this is the fact that was the only money that was ever ever paid out of a 5.5 million sale price only ever 1.5 was ever paid so we know that time was of the essence there it is time was at the essence and 1.5 was on on settlement there was after four weeks another half a million dollars was required time of the essence six months later another million dollars and none of this was this contract wasn’t enforced and not only that the salient facts that in may 2016 there was it was hot to the tune of 2.275 but a further a further that’s the kit that i put on there you go i put that on i went into the counter and paid the money and on on or about the 27th of march and ralph could sleep at night then you know so so we know that six months later he mr adams and bargo hocked the the property again there was the initial mortgage was to ar mortgages and then along came in and him now the very first thing i went and did was wrote to him in a name and said stop lending money and stop lending any more money and making mr kumar’s position any worse so literally from that day in march of 2017 they were on notice and they did not and i’ve got copies of the the correspondence i went around that night and you know before six o’clock the next morning in march of 2017 saying oh i i have a habit of dropping the s-bomb sometimes but uh

number one three-quarters of a million went to craig adams’s pocket or somewhere you know and then another four hundred thousand this is still not going into mr kumar’s pocket despite their being a contract despite mr kumar having ralph paligaru on the ground is his power of attorney and on top of that well there’s there’s even more money being borrowed so another 350 000 was was borrowed in august 17 a very interesting date on the third of and then even more so it just goes on and on and on and on and on more and more hocking of this land and again i put in a name on notice of that anyway long long story but there’s more and more hocking of this property going on and in august of 17 even more money was borrowed and you know here’s a full list and i mean i find this extremely interesting there was seven caveats so craig adams obviously well there’s some very harsh findings here about craig adams but there was mr paligaru deposes this is his evidence there were seven caveats in the end seven so seven lots of hocking of money against mr kumar’s interest and mr mr paligaru for whatever reason he had from the day i put the caveat on for mr kumar mr kumar was protected from that point in an m had noticed do not lend any more money he’s in default to mr kumar he has four million dollars and he’s in default and another six yes i think that’s correct another 6k bits on top of the the kb i put on was ripped off and another six were put on so craig is just borrowed and borrowed and buried and borrowed and borrowed and in the end someone said well this is the torrens assurance fund’s fault

justice i didn’t agree with that so i’m with justice darke by the way so ralph further deposes that he was concerned he was concerned i was concerned that there was six more lots of hocking of money and in 2017 now this is after ralph has lifted the cable that i put on mr manny writes to mr adams oh we’re not very very happy here and so you can read this for yourself but this is something i find very interesting paragraph 19. this demanding writes on the 6th of november 2017 i have i have now been contacted directly by the representatives in india of mohan kumar

i i find that very interesting the representatives in india in india so i i i’m curious whether that’s true that’s what it says that’s what the email says i’m curious if it’s true i don’t know i have no idea i’ve never talked to mr kumar ever but apparently some representatives called well i i he says mahony writes i have now been contacted as you’re aware there’s vendor finance as you’re aware you’re in default and you know it goes on now all all along here no response there was no response craig got the email and just ignored it ralph went to fiji some of these things aren’t really relevant but i i am dubious about some of this not of what yeah i’m dubious about the evidence that was given in cross examination mr paligaru agreed that so how did how did mr feligaru sorry how did mr kumar miss out well a cave it was lifted and mr peligaru gave evidence that in november 2017 he gives evidence adam’s according to this email adams knew that the withdrawal form was located in the bottom drawer so of the parker office it’s a long story and you’d have to read it and we’ll send you to sleep if we if we talked about it but paligara gives evidence that before he departed from australia he handed it withdrawal of caveat form in the bottom draw of the desk i used from time to time so craig sorry ralph and craig sometimes shared an office

now credit to ralph justice darke actually says he accepts ralph’s version okay but still rules against them he accepts that this actually happens justice darke accepted that he was told orally on or about the 15th of november you’re only to use this in certain circumstances craig went ahead and used it anyway but i’ll cut to the end let’s

before i get there this is the evidence of of mr mister i’m putting this this is what he says i am putting this which is the withdrawal of kv i’m putting this in this draw do not use it until i have full details of any proposed finance or equity position to be taken to be taken by any prospective partner by any prospective partner or joint venturer with us joint venturer with us

until i have full details of any proposed finance or equity position to be taken by any proposed joint a partner or joint venturer with us so with us so it’s to be there’s an us these are ralph’s own words there is an us and again somewhere in this lengthy document it’s 27 pages long somewhere in this lengthy document justice darke ponders why it was that ralph gave a withdrawal of caveat when

in fact there wasn’t a cave on on the title at that time it was in december and ralph’s evidence is that on the 15th of november he gave he handed craig the withdrawal of caveat but there actually wasn’t a caveat on the title on the 15th of november it was in december so and craig used so craig used that

to remove the december cave it but there was no cave in november so i’m my handwriting here says dubious i’m dubious uh

oh here you go if mr a lie now that really should say question mark if mr paligaru is evidence concerning the signing of the withdrawal of cavity is accepted if it’s accepted the form was signed at a time when the plaintiff had no caviar now justice darke found i mean he accepted ralph’s evidence that it was the honor of that date he did hand craig the withdrawal the plaintiff lodged another one on the 4th of december so precisely why ralph gave this is dubious or curious or it is very puzzling but it is very puzzling but he gave on about the 15th of december the withdrawal of acadia for occasion that hadn’t actually been lodged until the fourth of december three weeks later very curious more correspondence it’s it’s franklin the easy gets mentioned any refinance is also to result in the discharge of the second mortgage over the peligaro home in favor of franklin using holdings anything that you do must be referred to us there’s ian jordan comes in now wonderful friend from australasian property group who are being sued by the liquidator bargo now who appointed the liberator that’d be me the liquidator bargo so when all of this turned to custard i appointed a liquidator and i swore that there was a debt of very close to six million dollars owed to me it once upon a time was owed to mr kumar but courtesy of ralph alegaro on not one but two occasions ralph assigned that collection to me and the six million dollars and that was in july of 2018 and he went ahead and amended that deed on the 13th of november 2018. so precisely again this is this is why i was absolutely certain that this would fail this this argument that it’s the torrens assurance fund’s fault that mr kumar lost all this money it’s his fault it’s the tourist assurance fund’s fault well no it was never even remotely possible that it was their fault because ralph assigned the collection to me and and here he’s on the debt i went to the supreme court of victoria and said hey my company is owed six million dollars by fargo developments and they’re they’ve failed to pay back in in accordance with the terms now we had a look up above let’s just go up above it says he here’s the payment schedule well so time was of the essence so i gave him 21 days and said at a certain point i wrote and said hey you owe us six million dollars by that point with you know or whatever the figure was it was over five and here’s a copy of the here’s a copy of the demand that was was put on fargo they never paid enough thomas of the essence and so they were deemed to be insolvent and so how was it ever possible that mr kumar lost money because of the fault that was caused by the fault of the torrens assurance fund no no the right they didn’t even have standing to go to court mr mr kumar had no standing his his entire loss was given to me into my company to pursue and then mr caligaro obviously thought better of it at some point later and decided oh well that doesn’t suit me to have mark smith collect the money even though he paid me nine percent of the funds which you can work out nine percent of two million dollars about 180 000 so it’s it’s just very puzzling so it’s a long long story and jordan gets a mention ebm now these are craig’s accountants his accounts were a firm at called dbw in um

in north sydney i’ve been to their office late one night the b in dbw was a man called bardela and max mardella and max maximilia maximilio bardella and he he loaned money to he was one of the six people that advanced money his company ebm as distinct from dbw dbw helped with all sorts of manner of wonderful documents in support and all up look there was there’s a long long list of of people that were doubted but i withdraw that there’s a long long list of people that get a mention so there’s as i said there were six caves there’s a there’s a very huge gap this is this i found extremely interesting paragraph 37 three further caveats were lodged on or about the 29th of january 2018. one of these was lodged on behalf of reliance leasing mr steinberg so that’s that’s that’s a steinbeck there and on about the 22nd of february 2018 mahony appears to have become aware of the refinancing so again this is this is something that i do find very very interesting on about the 22nd of february now this is the this is what was put to justice darke manny appears to become aware and he writes manny writes a letter to craig adams now i will say oh we should go and have a look at paragraph 16. this is really very very interesting paragraph 16 it is there is evidence that later in august 2017 mr money was acting for the plaintiff so that’s mr kumar in relation to the proposed development and was also acting for craig evans

so he’s acting for multiple parties and i have in previous episodes i said he’s mr mahony how he was able to manage these and juggle these conflicts or not so much the conflicts but the conflicting interests surely mr kumar has one interest hey i want to be paid and craig adams hey i like this getting free money stuff and i can just use this as my credit card i can keep three quarters of a million then another 400 for me and do whatever the hell he likes so it’s it’s a it’s a really really really stunning thing so 22nd of february mahony writes to adams i enclose a copy of a letter to rely of a letter to reliance from the solicitors for the new first mortgage the existence is of syria the existence so that was considered the existence of a new first mortgage is a serious concern to my client my client’s worried sick he’s in jail in in india doesn’t say that but as as my client has a beneficial interest in the whole of the dural land four million bucks but you just keep adding what he’s saying what he’s trying to say is you just keep adding and adding currently there are nine caveats on the property now

this is this is kind of stunning

on the 9th of march casinda’s lawyers bransgroves kate cooper and name is the senior partner there one such one such document was a withdrawal of kv form that had been signed by mr palgary so according to mr peligaro and the judge believes him okay so according to mr palgary mr palgary who handed craig adams we had a look a little bit a few minutes ago mr peligaro handed craig adams a withdrawal of caveat at a time in the middle of november at a time when there was no cavity on the on the land in in the name of kumar and in paragraph 41 here it’s saying well the mid november 2017 withdrawal of caveat was handed it was used by it was handed up by craig adams on the 25th of january 2018 to to your firm brands groves and and that that form states yes it’s the december this number here is the december cave it so as the withdrawal was signed on the 15th of november for a caveat that hadn’t been put on and ralph had only gone overseas for one week from about the 17th to the 24th of november so for whatever reason ralph never took that caveat withdrawal of kv back and justice darke is critical of that later on and he’s also critical and says well why didn’t you just leave the withdrawal of kavit you went you’re going to feed you why didn’t you just give it to john marty so one must wonder whether john mahony got the entire story i’m finding myself i’m finding myself going to bat for john manny here i’m just wondering so look it’s it’s it’s really quite remarkable he and jordan casinda casinda as on the 9th of march writes a letter cassinder writes a letter to apg to ian jordan and they say well hang on i don’t think you want to i don’t think you want to be behind mr kumar so this is the whole issue about lifting cavities when when caved is lifted we understand from the receiver mr kumar claims an unpaid vendor’s interest in the vicinity of 6 million bucks no doubt these these are the words of brans grabs no doubt your client would prefer not to be behind that claim for a piece of land that’s only worth five or five and a half and and there’s already there’s close to three million dollars already hopped you don’t want to be behind some of the zones six because there’s no equity look this is this is a stunning stunning document here you go this this is one of the curious findings i note in passing that mr paligara gave evidence to the effect that at no time between his leaving the withdrawal in the desk at bargo’s office and march did he receive any communications

about any refinancing he did not receive any communications from mr pelleck from mr adams at no time between march at no time between he’s leaving the withdrawal of kbit form in the desk and in the bargo office and march 18. did he receive any communications from craig arms about any refinancing of the documents that’s the evidence now i i’m going to say justice darke is smart enough to be able to read a transcript of the evidence and that’s what he’s saying he’s saying i wasn’t there okay i certainly was not there and i don’t know i didn’t listen to the evidence that mr paligaru gave but justice darke i know him passing that mr paligaru who gave evidence to the to the effect to the effect so he didn’t actually give direct evidence that at no time between between leaving the withdrawal of caveat and march 18 did he receive any communication so i’m just going to pause it here and we’re going to see we’re just going to have a look at some things all right so at no time at no time between leaving the withdrawal of caveat did he receive any communications from mr adam about the refinancing the dual property at no time up until march so i’ll just jump down to something else that i’ve seen offline curiously on the same day so on the same day another cave it was lodged by the plaintiff so what are we talking about here this was third of april mr mahony sent an email to mr craig adams and keep in mind this is all in the context that mr mahony is saying well it’s the torrens assurance fund’s fault that mr kumar lost money it’s their fault

third of april on the third of april so this refinancing happened on the 25th of january on the third of april justice darke notes on the same day on the same day the third of april another caveat was lodged on by mr kumar so that went on on the third of april and that was recorded that’s this is all public you can anyone can google this egg look up this purchase a copy of that by this caveat the plaintiff again claimed to be the unpaid vendor under this 26th of may sorry 2016 may contract curiously curiously the caveat was apparently signed by mr peligaro as the plaintiff’s attorney on the 30th of january so it’s this continual delay delay delay from the 30th of january to the 3rd of april it’s months here months there in action letting giving craig all this this road so i think you can see where this is sort of coming unstuck but let’s just go back to this other

noted passing that mr paligaru gave evidence to the to the effect that at no time so let’s let’s test this here’s an email now at no time did he receive any communications well that’s different to sending it but did he receive any communications about any refinancing

well here’s an email and we’ll see who sent me this and how did i get it 10th of january now that’s that’s between december and march 10th january john mary wrote craig kumar is not happy with the delay in warriewood settling have you issued a notice to complete do you need do you need my help if your lawyer can’t do it i’ll i’ll just act for you and i’ll keep acting for mr kumar but i can manage all this this is what he’s saying this is ridiculous delay that needs to be sorted mohan kumar reserves all right but hang on he can but if you need a lawyer no command reserves all rights but if you need a lawyer i’m your man do you need a lawyer john john ah 3 54 a.m something’s keeping craig away john please come to the city tomorrow and i’ll reassign property and loan to you

please tell me what time you’re available and i’ll have adam tilley meet us and workout guarantees so all you’ve got to do is guarantee it and i’ll resign so the evidence was at no time palgary gave her the effect of no time between he’s leaving the withdrawal in march did he receive any communications from craig about any refinancing so what’s this adam tilley who’s adam tilley adam tilley will meet you to work out financing guarantees on financing

later that day craig is not my [ __ ] as you put it mr kumar’s rights you know and you keep mortgaging his property ah nine k bits later before you paid for it you keep ralph has signed the transfer transferring [ __ ] so ralph actually had the right to transfer the shares in bargo and and transfer the ownership of the company to mr kumar

therefore he’s in your interest to work to solve the problem now the problem is for you is that not only will you have lost the development value you’re in default of the loans which are secured we’re giving you until 4 pm today the current payout tell us the current payout if you can’t get those figures kumar will will by next monday become the owner and serve lapsing notices

so i don’t know if this is well eleventh mate mate i tried to call you this is going to go pear shape so this is from ralph to justin hatfield who’s justin hatfield oh that’s he wouldn’t be talking about refinancing because just justice darke found at no time was there any evidence he gave it ralph gave evidence to the effect of no time did he receive any communications from mr adams well i suppose this one to to justin hatfield is probably not from but anyway i’m stuck in the middle an asset line who are they they’re money lenders justin hatfield as soon as craig settles warriewood has has to happen in the next 10 days one lender you know cross-collateralize this and that whatever 13.5 million

the current payout figure is 2.7 million dollars to winchester o’rourke that’s tilley uh

at no point at no time the evidence was at no time was there any discussion about refinancing after ralph has those figures kumar will be in a position to refinance general without putting you in default of your loans secured over your property over 88 perfection avenue cross-collateralization is in breach of the sales contracts so a few choice words here the point is he’s he was going to refinance with tilley adam tilley no news warriewood who knows it’s almost a ponzi scheme

and mr hadfield you have facilitated a lot of it

it’s easily resolved once warriewood settles what’s happening with at no point was there any discussion about refinancing ralph ralph wrote what’s happening with tilley refi refinancing it’s fully approved it’s fully approved so the evidence did he receive any communications about any refinancing of the general property

i i’m just not sure whether justice darke saw these communications but they’re there interesting not good enough john mahony’s still on the 11th not good enough client has been waiting months for the mythical warriewood settlement time is up kumar will now register the share transfer well even in april still hasn’t happened also what is the secret about telling us how much people take to free dural of the various blisters kumar will not accept any more delays well apparently he will justin hatfield lumley finance and loans now if this wasn’t about refinancing if this wasn’t about refinancing then you know so it goes on and on and on and on the solicitor is the vendor’s worst nightmare this all comes to craig not communicating and swearing another so there’s craig will lose his family asset liner ruthless mahoney acted for paid on exchange acted against paid on exchange and wants payments so but ralph is organizing the logistics of his daughter’s engagement so let’s see what else there is here’s another email this is to do with maybe not to do with refinancing but this is certainly from craig we’re trying to we’re trying to get as mentioned i have warriewood projects setting on the 29th yet so on the 30th according to justice darke ralph signs a new caveat which he doesn’t put on until the third of april and again all of this is the fault of the torres assurance fund let’s have a look at this one all of these are sent to me by ralph by the way so let’s ralph from ralph to mark that’s me from ralph to mark from ralph to mark 22nd tomorrow tomorrow so this property settled on the sorry the the use of the caveat occurred on the 25th of january and there was communications between

at no point did he receive any communications from mr adams about any refinancing of the general poverty well i’m going to say i’m sorry that on the 25th of january there’s another communication but tomorrow so tomorrow is the 23rd of january this is before before the cave it is used gents mr lalich this is another one the evidence was there’s no communication about refinancing from craig well mr lalich is one of craig’s lawyers

you know so they’re they’re meeting up on ralph is meeting with justin hatfield and justin hatfield this wouldn’t be anything to do with a refinancing would it lumley finance and loans accredited finance broker well i’m you know i am i’ve said i’m dubious about that evidence that ralph has has given to the effect that there was at no time did he receive any communications yet you know this is not a communication about refinancing from justin hatfield who’s a mortgage broker craig adams you know so this is here see you there see you there so as you can see there’s quite a lot to this particular judgment and we’re only up to page six of 27 and it really does go on but i’m just highlighting a few key bits i’ll just return now to this other thing and i’ve said that i am dubious about i’m not calling saying that people are outright lying but i am highly dubious about some of the aspects of what was put in front of justice darke and i’ll take you back to this one paragraph 19 mr mahony on the 6th of november now this is at a time when there was no yes there was no caveat on the land according to ralph’s evidence on the 15th of november ralph then went and put went and handed craig adams a withdrawal of the cave yet that wasn’t on and then in december one was put on so in the evidence this is mr manny wrote to craig adams on 6th of november when there was no caveat and he says and we’ve talked about this just before i have i this is what manny writes now this is important because he says it’s true and i’ll show you i’ll show you something else so this is on the 6th of november 2017. now i’m going to show you something in 2018 that causes me to be dubious i mr money i have now been in contact directly oh sorry i have now been contacted directly by the representatives in india of mr kumar so someone in india has contacted mr kumar as you’re aware kumar is the vendor there’s a vendor finance you’re in default and in december 17 he’s mahony is writing and why why are we saying this well money’s been paid he owes the duty of care to mr kumar and according to his his correspondence he’s in contact with him so he must if you believe what he’s writing he must accept that he did over duty of care and so as a matter of urgency as a matter of urgency well there’s no caveat so it the kv doesn’t actually go on for another month and is subsequently withdrawn using a withdrawal behavior that ralph did not give to mr manny he left it in a drawer according to ralph he left it in a drawer in bargo’s office as a matter of urgency as the basis of you know the encumbrances a copy of this certificate of title a copy of the five caveats we’ve we have we have been instructed so did someone in india according to i’ve been contacted directly by representatives in india we have now been we have been instructed to determine whether all can be removed through lapsing notice or through litigation so at this point well at this point

at this point the mortgagee is the first monkey is in the name properties and they’re on notice because of my letter there are notice of this interest so we’ve told them i told them absolutely do not lend any more money and subsequent to this more money was lent and but again the argument that money law is using is that this is all the fault of the torrents assurance fund it’s all their fault all of this you know as a matter of urgency we’ve been instructed to you know start laughing things can we lapse them can we can we have media litigation and there’s no response so there’s no response this is the 6th of november and academia does go on in december and is subsequently withdrawn using a withdrawal academia date of the 15th of november of their abouts so we asked to find out the current balance on the n m nine he says he’s been contacted by people in india directly that’s now directly in his email of november 2017. the ralph please provide me the contact details for the indians so he doesn’t even know who his client is he’s only dealing with this is a year later he’s either lost the phone number let’s be generous and say he’s lost the phone number please provide me contact details he doesn’t know he doesn’t know the name he doesn’t know the phone number according to this this is the way i’d read it please provide contact details not just the phone number person phone number emails you know what their relationship as you are unable to do anything to further this matter i need to speak with the indians to have you replaced whoa to have you replaced as their attorney

why did i donate why did it take until october 18 the land’s been sold by that point but yet a year before he’s saying in november the year before he’s saying i was a man of urgency we need to find out and start lapsing things

i’m saying look let’s let’s have a look now there is a i’m just going to throw it up on the screen here we’ve got signed by ralph peligaru in july and november 2018 twice ralph has assigned a claim that mr mahony sorry that mr kumar would have against mr manny for professional negligence now i don’t know if that’s i don’t know if that claim has legs or not but mr mahony is being employed and sending out bills for hundreds of thousands of dollars 90 to 100 000 or thereabouts two mr kumar so he must have owed he he must feel that he owes a duty of care it took him until october to 2018 after the property sold after the property has been had nine caveats go on it’s it’s really interesting but yet the argument is it’s all the fault forget all of this stuff it’s all the torrents assurances fund’s fault they’re to blame the state government has to has to cough up money i still don’t understand why you don’t want to save your house ralph i’m still here to help i’m still here to help well wow that’s fantastic now let’s go back to we’ll go back to this i have now been contacted directly by representatives in india well i’ve been in contact with them myself you know for several years let’s have a look at some of the stuff that’s being said

here’s what i wrote i’m not going to give you the person’s details did mr manny ever speak with any family members of mr kumar in november 2017. paragraph 19 says he did hi mark no he or ralph has never spoken to any family member only you were the first to approach us the first this poor bastard’s sitting over in jail in india now i’m this is not mr kumar this is a representative but this poor bastard is sitting in jail he’s had his four million dollars plundered and i am the first to contact them

first that’s pretty clear okay then i go on in in the court judgment manny gives evidence he has described he has had discussions with someone in india in india not just ralph someone in india

the reply who is that someone there has to be a name i believe him i do believe this man

by sayings just by just saying someone in court it doesn’t make any sense he has to give details and here’s specifically what i did send to the contact i have now been in contact directly i have now been contacted directly by the representatives in india in india

no name paragraph 16. he’s just making it up he’s just making it up

wow now things aren’t i’m just repeating this i’m personally speaking for myself i am dubious like i actually am dubious that this is true i have now been contacted directly but this is what a lawyer with 40 years experience his writing in 6th of november could he have saved that last 400 grand could he have i don’t know

at this point in november 17 none of this none of this claim has been assigned to me so he could have saved maybe four hundred thousand to he could have saved two million dollars maybe and he in his own words he’s saying well we’ve been we have been instructed now if this is correct if he has been contacted directly well he’s in the same email he’s saying we’ve been instructed to determine whether any of the caveats can be removed through lapsing notices or why didn’t he do that he’s been instructed hang on you’re a lawyer you’re instructed why don’t you do it

so again we’re only up to page six it’s it’s it’s a staggering staggering document and full credit to full credit to justice he does i think a very good job with the material he’s been presented now he’s been presented things saying well he’s had contacts with people in india justice darke clearly has absolutely no idea and absolutely no no criticism he doesn’t know he makes the observation we haven’t seen mr we haven’t seen mr kumar record he didn’t he didn’t come and give evidence well okay reason good reason for that he can’t he’s locked up apparently i don’t know so look let’s skip right to the end now and i will say this i will say this this is a very long well it’s not overly long but it’s a lot lengthy and it’s well considered it is well considered third of april manny sent a letter to mr adams mr adams unfortunately unfortunately however our clients our clients have come to no other conclusion than that you have fraudulently also delivered to the solicitor casino the withdrawal of cavity fraud it’s very big if you’re going to say fraud it’s the bar is very very high in all the circumstances in april of 2018 in all the circumstances man is writing in all circumstances we have been instructed again he’s got an instruction to report your actions to the new south wales police for fraud so what did he do with that instruction third of april he’s got the instructions to report you for for fraud and third of april same day they re-lodged the caveat but he’d been sitting on that caveat from since the 30th of january now would it have made any difference i don’t know i don’t know if he’d lodged the cave on the 30th of january it may or may not have made any difference but all i do know is they sat on it they sat on it mr mr mahony or mr paligari where the evidence is the finding the finding of justice darke is that curiously the caveat was apparently signed by the power of attorney mr kunma oh sorry mr palgar on the 30th of january when the plaintiff’s second the second favorite remained on the title so the withdrawal of cave it had been handed over but it still remained so casino actually had the withdrawal um

at the time beligari signed another one on the 30th he must have known that the withdrawal of it had been used yet on the third of april they’re writing letters saying oh we’ve just discovered it and there was a previous finding on the 22nd on the 22nd i said i’ll talk about this gap paragraph 3738 i talk about this gap three further cavetts were lodged on the 29th now this this whole this and one of these i was involved with in some way the reliance leasing one this was lodged on the 29th of january and that stopped putting it on stopped the cinder having theirs properly registered their mortgage i probably registered and the removal of n m and apg’s and there was this obviously this giant clog now ralph apparently signs the the next caveat on the 30th but at this point reliance got theirs on apg got this on slightly behind the one that i was involved in reliance and then lumley that’s that’s the finance broker they got theirs on as well and then on the 30th ralph must have known so he goes and signs another one but claims they don’t know until the 22nd of february 2018 mr mr money appears to have become aware of the refinancing transaction appears so that’s interesting very interesting and right the existence of the new mortgage is of serious concern to my client yet ralph has signed another caveat on the 30th and it’s of such a serious concern he didn’t did nothing with it from the 30th of january until the 3rd of april it’s it’s that it’s there are some questions here so

we then move on the total claim that was made by kumar against the torrens assurance fund is one point called 1.9 million dollars

paragraph 59 is submitted that there are good and now the registrar general says there’s good reasons to doubt the evidence of obviously allegory the registrar general says that there was good reason to doubt the evidence of mr palgary

now we look at the determination what did the court find paragraph 68 i have reservations so just justice star can only deal with the material that’s before him he he he doesn’t do his absolute credit i think he’s done a brilliant job okay but he may not have had all the material put in front of him either by rob calgary or by the torrens assurance fund they may simply not have known as paragraph 68 i have reservations about aspects you find some of it implausible

paragraph 69 despite my reservations i’ve ultimately come to the conclusion mr paligara’s evidence should be accepted so that’s pretty good but it doesn’t change the result the result is how many

paragraph 61 i further find mr adams in making use he was acting making useful withdrawal of cave it was acting contrary to the instructions

on the material that was put before justice darke and i don’t know if that included those emails well i do know that i’ll put it up again peligaro said that at no time was there a correspondence about the refinance but coming back to paragraph 7172 paragraph 71 i accept mr paligara’s evidence to the effect that neither he nor the plaintiff himself had any knowledge of the transaction that’s about the refinancing now again i do not know whether the emails the one tomorrow with lalich and hatfield and there’s a series of them that i put up i do not know whether they’ve been put up to justice darke and considered but on what was can what was put before him he says he accepts mr palgary’s evidence okay i’m prepared to conclude that mr pelic that mr adams acted dishonestly in this really in this respect

paragraph 72 for the above reason i’m prepared to find that mr adam acted this acted fraudulently and making use of the withdrawal of k-bits but okay so that’s to get money on the turns assurance fund there has to be dishonesty or fraud or a mistake by the current assurance fund the registrar general’s department and on top of that you have to prove that it led to loss now that was that’s the whole thing that i’ve always said well hang on i think you’ve postponed yourself ralph by handing this over and look i i’ll just show we’ll go through these other pages there’s lots and lots and lots here okay lots of analysis but the plaintiff submitted that the equity he could have mr kumar could have been four hundred thousand dollars better off and now on top of that there’s interest okay so we’re talking still a lot of money here a lot of money and it was as i said there was a two million dollar kitty apg received out of that fund 725 thousand dollars that’s three quarters of a million dollars and ralph and ian jordan the director of apg have a company together i don’t know precisely i was in the mediation in july 2019 but i didn’t go and shut the door and chat with ian jordan i didn’t and so apg work out with a lot of money now the liquidator is now chasing that and saying well that was a preference and we’ll see where that all goes as i said there’s a whole lot of analysis here and it’s it’s going to be impossible to just go through them all but i’ll put this up on our website let’s have a look at these last two pages in my opinion in my opinion the whole of the loss or damage should be regarded as the consequences of the acts or omissions of the plaintiff the conduct of mr pelago as the plaintiff’s agent in relation to the withdrawal of the caveat the very means by which mr adams was able to perpetrate his fraud that’s to blame so i think as i said earlier justice did find that there was fraudulent conduct but you’ve got to say that okay that that fraud led to the loss and there’s pages and pages of analysis the bottom line is justin darke did not find did not find that it really would have made any difference whether whether there was fraud or not the the post-painting conduct and the arming and all of that it was really the conduct of mr palgary was in in my view plainly negligent he failed to take reasonable care for the interest of the plaintiff that is particularly the case in circumstances from november 17 mr paligara was not only aware of fargo’s breaches so they failed to pay they had to pay 1.5 which they did on this 5.5 million dollar transaction and they had to pay 500 000 within four weeks and another one and a half million or two million or something after that and then another two and a half million so he was aware that they’d missed all of those it was incredible i said third of november 2017 we’ve got the email from mr mahony who says he’s been contacted directly by representatives in india as a matter of urgency and yet justice darke says in particular this is particularly the case in circumstances where from november 2017 mr paligara was not only aware of the breaches under the contract but also had concerns about mr adams’s dealing that he’s hocking the property and he knew he must have known that

he must have known that’s what justice darke thoughts to make the signed withdrawal of caveat form available to mr adams in those circumstances strikes me as contacted contract conduct that is very negligent if not reckless

mr adam utilized the means that were available to him to carry out the fraud applying a common sense approach the conduct of mr palgary should should be regarded as the cause of the claimed loss four million dollars just down the toilet of mr kumar’s money four million dollars down the toilet to my mind it is it is a cause of the loss as much as the conduct of mr adams himself it is a case where there are truly successive causes of the loss it is it is thus it can’t be concluded that the loss or damage was as a consequence of the axial or remission of the sorry that it was a consequence of the acts or omissions of the plaintiff and thus no entitlement it wasn’t the fault of the torrens assurance fund and just to rub it in just a tiny bit more paragraph 22 122 the plaintiff will be dismissed the statement claims dismissed the court will order the court will further order that the plaintiff pay the registrar general’s costs so there you have it a a terrible terrible tale we’ll come back and wrap up in a minute

well how is that for an incredible defeat justice darke as has really nailed that i think and well you would think that that’s the end of it but apparently ralph and john mahony are off thinking thinking about thinking about an appeal can you can you believe it thinking about an appeal on top of that there is another case which i’ve just put up the details about ralph is also personally suing the torrens assurance fund with his wife henrika and a very similar thing around the same time as all of this happened with mr kumar at a very similar time ralph borrowed money at six percent a month and five hundred forty thousand dollars six percent a month from a company called franklin yeezy and for better or worse for better or worse it also the well mr for whatever reason we talked about delays incredibly there was a a delay between about august 2017 and december 2017 very similar periods where ralph failed to put a caveat for neglected to put a caveat on land at warriewood owned by golden arrow international and other craigslist companies and subsequently he missed out on 540 thousand dollars and kept on paying six percent interest a month and in case you can’t work it out that’s like thirty something thousand in the first month and when you don’t pay it just balloons and balloons and like literally i did some sums at one stage it was like fifty four thousand dollars a month interest it was up to so but the trouble is i i think i haven’t seen the judgment and if even when i do get a copy of the judgment or if it’s being dismissed or whatever i’ll make sure if i get the documents we’ll post them and because they’re public documents and um

very similar facts you know i imagine i can’t see how he could possibly win where he he’s going to claim well it’s the torrens assurance fund’s fault that that craig in this instance i think they were just slack and i didn’t put either mahony or paligaru was slack i don’t know who so i’m not portioning blame there but what i do know is there’s a period of four months and there was no caveat on this warriewood land and in the meantime you saw how many caveats craig adams put on bargo he put justice many on maybe justice many he put enough there was lots of occasions put on warriewood as well and ralph missed out and it goes on to pay 30000 a month interest and that’s clearly not sustainable so you would think so where’s this all going time will tell time really will tell but you know to the best of my knowledge ralph’s insolvent we’ve got a we have mike i personally have a consent judgment against ralph $106551 we filed a creditor’s petition and ralph is trying to have it set aside one that he consented to so it’s going to be very interesting he’s managed to get that adjourn until april so in the meantime if there’s any uh

if there’s anyone out there that also has owed money and a lot of money you’re very welcome to come and join the party join the action join the creditors petition for your supporting creditor and it wouldn’t surprise me who you are so again if you’re owed money come and join the action if you’ve got any questions if you know any facts if you’ve got any thoughts we’d love to hear from you www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast or give us a call 1-300-327-123 if you do go to our website check out the link in the bottom right hand corner there’s into the message chat tool we’d love to hear from you and you know thank you very much thanks for tuning in bye

Many R’s Podcast – S1E6

Podcast Mark Smith

Many R’s Podcast – S01E06 for more information and indepth villain profiles – visit our webpage

https://www.dcpartners.solutions/products-services/blog/podcast/

To share this video: https://youtu.be/t3SAWQaqWks

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.

Season 1, Episode 6 will focus on:

00:00 – Start, opening music 00:14 – Intro from Mark Smith

00:27 – contact details

00:37 – Personal chat with Mark Smith, what Mark Smith’s been up to and what’s been happening with the Many R’s Podcast

01:00 – Reflections on the Covid World and opportunities

01:25 – End of Law Degree studies and personal reflections

03:36 – outline of show contents

03:45 – more on show contents

03:57 – Bunnings Gift Cards

04:08 – Matthew James Taunton – MBO Estates / Abel Agencies Box Hill

04:20 – Hakan Kutup

04:22 – Mahony Law / John Mahony & Law Cover plus Ralph Paligaru and Amreeta Paligaru

04:40 – Mohan Kumar

04:45 – Philip Beazley, Greg Walker, Karen Vee Walker

05:00 – Automotive sector

05:43 – Franchising

05:58 – Receivers

06:06 – Caernarvon Cherry, Bonny Glen Fruits, Fiona & Bernard Hall of Biteriot Operations

06:16 – DCP Capital

06:26 – DCP Capital – tax debt lending

06:36 – Corporations Law and Company insolvency lending

07:36 – Lightspeed Mortgage Management

08:24 – Sydney & Orange offices

08:44 – DCP Capital – Orange Development fund and forthcoming information memorandum

09:04 – Look ahead to S1E7.

10:24 – Credits

To share this video: https://youtu.be/t3SAWQaqWks

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

#5r #5rpodcast #marksmith #manyrspodcast #ManyRs

Transcript:

S01E06 podcast – transcript

season 1 episode 6 of the many R’s podcast welcome back it is uh wednesday the 16th of june 2021, my sister’s birthday, and i’m in uh freezing cold orange right at the moment but uh i’m as happy as larry and i look forward to telling you about that right now got any questions give us a call 1-300-327-123 or go to our website uh bottom right-hand corner uh dc partners dot solutions and uh click on the uh instant chat message thank you what a rusty introduction i’m very very sorry um it’s been a long time now i have been i’ve had probably the busiest uh few months in my life and today is wednesday the 16th of june  2021.

uh it is uh the afternoon i’m in orange at our new house actually believe it or not um we uh we’re we’re covid uh uh were covid safe out here and um look this covid thing has been wonderful and in lots of ways um and it’s it’s meant it’s freed up all sorts of reasons why uh you don’t need to be in sydney you don’t need to be in a capital city uh with the online world so here we are um at orange uh in my new studio and um my new home office and in studio and i’m looking out there’s snow out the window uh it’s it’s melted but uh it was snowing here uh several days ago and our property’s actually called snowgums so it’s been absolutely wonderful and why is it being wonderful well two days ago um one of the biggest events in my life uh came one of one of the biggest chapters in my life actually came to an end i’ve been studying a thing called a juris doctor which is a postgraduate law degree uh it’s a masters uh 24 um subjects um i’m a busy boy uh you know i’ve got an mba i’ve got uh businesses and uh been running litigation funding uh for a range of different people um and uh i’m a busy busy boy and i started in i think it was like the 17th of february 2014. i’m extremely privileged, i’m definitely white i’m middle-aged i’m male and i’ve been on a commonwealth supported place since um which is a which is a code for a subsidised law degree at THE best university well arguably the best university in australia and it has been a sensational sensational ride and i’m just so privileged and i know i’m privileged so um and apart from being white male and middle-aged and all that, we’re in a great part of the world and you know i’m just bubbling and enthusing with um happiness i uh i felt a huge relief um at the end of my studies and uh i was writing a 4000 word uh essay on the inviolability of the person uh which is very interesting and i’m happy to you know share with anyone or talk about it 1-300-327-123 i just couldn’t be happier so um i’ve got uh well we’ve got a very interesting program it’s just like a bit of a catch-up program and we’re not going to do our next episode until well we’re still in sydney so we’re partly in sydney and we’re partly in orange and um uh well it’s out of orange there you go but um uh we’re we’re on mount canobolas to be precise so uh have a look biggest mountain between sydney and uh perth it’s about 1 300m, we’re about one thousand meters above the sea level 1,004m there you go 1004m above sea level so that’s like Katoomba and it is just a sensational beautiful place and um we’re coming here on you know at the end of june 2021 we’re moving we’re um we’re keeping a base in sydney and uh we’re gonna spend a lot of time up here and there’s so many uh sort of interesting work options out here and uh look we’ll talk about some of those throughout the program so um this particular episode i hope you enjoyed it’s a bit different uh it’s been a while and i apologize i have i am a bit rusty uh but um let’s see how we go so what are we gonna talk about today well we’ve got some we’ve got some new villains um to talk about we’ve got some old villains who are coming back and uh let’s um well there’s the phone okay well we’ll cut a break there. okay well on the show today uh we’re going to i mentioned we’ve got some old and some new villains sorry there’s the camera we’ve got some old and some new villains so um

well this is going to surprise you, bunnings i’ve uh i’ll just run through the topics and then we’ll we’ll do a more detailed dive into them so bunnings and their gift cards this is uh property in the property area we’re going to catch up on a new villain we’ve got a new mate called matthew james taunton from um his business was called mbo estates um uh it’s now known as Abel Agency uh they’re out at the box hill in in sydney we’re going to catch up on hakan qatar got some news there uh Mahony law and john mahony and lore cover we’re going to talk on about them we’re going to catch up on the latest on ralph paligaru we’re not going to go too much into that because we’ll just give a general update we’re not going to talk about specific cases and we’re certainly not going to prejudice any cases but we’ll just have a quick update on the comings and goings of ralph paligaru um and Amreeta um um. Mohan Kumar. we’ll touch on him. philip beazley now he’s a lawyer john mahony is a lawyer as well but we’ve got phillip beazley who’s a lawyer for ah greg walker, so just very quickly we’re not going to slander anyone here but we’re going to quickly catch up on gregory uh john walker and karen v walker um. we’ve got an automotive um page a very good friend of mine is uh in the automotive business and um the automotive money lending business to be precise and uh some of you may know, i ruffled some feathers uh i um uh i wrote something and uh anyway i’ve got a tiny reaction so but uh look there’s there’s definitely smoke when you when you see smoke well there’s some often fire well there’s a lot of smoke here so uh we’re going to we’ll touch on about our website as well we’re doing some major revamp this is the benefit of finishing my law degree we’ll get heaps of time now so we can um uh sort of spend time getting some of these things right so yes there’s a motor dealers and an automotive page so we’re we’re very interested in shonky’s um in that uh in that line of business um. franchising um this is this is really uh what my uh my letter sort of touched a raw nerve wow. um okay but uh well we’re specifically talking about some changes to the franchise codes um i’ll give you links um in a moment uh we’ll very briefly touch on receivers um well liquidators and receivers are very quickly there we’ve got a little bit of news on our on our on our dear friends from Caernarvon Cherry and Bonny glen bernard and fiona hall um and uh. in the money business well we’re actually uh we’ve been doing some litigation funding for quite some time and so we are very very interested in the money space and uh our website you’ll see that um especially we’re certainly going to do something last year on tax debt lending um but uh watch this space because um we are very interested in in that and uh having just completed my law degree i did a lot of stuff on corporations law and um so the the tax debt uh lending is is more for company lending so um we’ve got a um we’ve got a business called dcp capital which we’ll talk about and there’ll be links in our website but uh uh coming out of covid and i’m sorry if that sounded insensitive i said that covid had been great uh it’s obviously been terrible and dreadful but um it’s um it’s changed the world uh there’s no doubt about that and uh coming out of it for better and worse um but uh coming out of it um uh well some some businesses um need help. so um you might wonder why do we do these blogs and um well we’re interested in people and we’re interested in you know people getting a fair crack and all the rest and um there’s many many businesses that um it’s now the 16th of june 2021.

i have no doubt that there’ll be a lot of activity with um our friends at the tax office and uh you know someone’s going to pay for the um you know the virus and uh generally that’s going to be done through the tax system in some way so we want to help people sort of meet their obligations um and so we’ve got a new product there. but in the money space we’ve got a um a company that has come to our attention called lightspeed lightspeed mortgage management i think they’re called and i’ll put up some links to lightspeed and i stumbled across this particular article i’m going to put a link to it is it’s very interesting i i um a friend of a friend

did some borrowing from well actually didn’t do the borrowing they got offered a loan from light speed but uh there were light speed in sending out the the court papers and uh

i’ll put up we’ll put up some information about these um these documents they’re quite stunning and this is we’ll explain how i speak to business and we’ll put in a link to the particular article that they caught my eye about lightspeed um and as i said we’re doing some work on our website now we are relocating um from sydney (to Orange) but we’re keeping a branch in sydney um and uh and i’ll certainly spend about four days a fortnight in sydney um and so what would that be about seven or eight days uh fortnight in orange and in the regions and getting work done uh so that i can come to sydney and um uh but you know there’s all sorts of opportunities oh sorry and back in orange um uh under our dcp capital arm uh there are some very very very good development opportunities so we’re putting together some funds some of you may know we had a litigation fund uh so we’re putting together some property funds and so there’s some very interesting uh there’s a information memorandum coming out in a few weeks so as i said this bit of a catch-up episode now we’ll get into the bunning situation. well it’s now actually the 2nd of july 2021, and um look for one reason or another we’re going to put all this content into uh episode 7 but uh we’ll just use this episode (episode 6) as a bit of a catch-up and uh i hope you enjoyed it so far um we talked about uh why they’ve been a huge delay for a couple of months between the last episode i think episode 5 we’ve just also published episode 4 um so look uh it’s been a hugely hugely busy time for me uh finishing studies um started in 2014 in february 2014 finishing those studies moving um place and you know in the last couple of days sydney’s gone into the lockdown uh so the timing probably uh really couldn’t be well it’s it’s terrible that the lockdown is very unfortunate but um uh getting out of sydney and at least for uh you know one at least the work part of the time out here in orange is you know a real opportunity so um we thought it was best to just publish the um this particular episode and then we’ll go on to season 1 episode 7 and we’ll talk about the bunning scam the uh catch up on some of our new and um emerging and some of our older villains uh which we’ll talk about in you know in much greater detail so uh tune in very very soon we’re going to start recording uh season 1 episode 7 very soon and uh that should hopefully be up in the next few days thanks very much, bye.

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:

Andrew Gartrell profile

Andrew Borrodell Gartrell

Andrew Borrodell Gartrell, son of Harold Borrodell Gartrell (Borry) from Borrodell Vineyard near Orange.

Andrew, a former fruit grower from Nashdale and part time author (see his previous work – Dear Fred) is now a property developer near Angeles, Luzon, Philippines. Andrew loves to hang out at Phillies Sports Bar and cheer on the Brisbane Broncos with one of several young lady friends.

https://www.facebook.com/ChampionPropertiesInc/

Photo gallery

  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties
  • Andrew Borrodell Gartrell Champion Properties

What next, got a tip-off?

How would you rate your experiences with Andrew Gartrell?

How do you rate the Champion Properties workmanship?

Would you like to tell us confidentially about your experiences?

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 confidential tip-offs, files or information – please use the instant chat tools or form below:

Bankruptcy Part X: Personal Insolvency Agreements (s188)

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 188

Debtor may authorise trustee or solicitor to be controlling trustee

             (1)  A debtor who desires that his or her affairs be dealt with under this Part without his or her estate being sequestrated and:

                     (a)  is personally present or ordinarily resident in Australia;

                     (b)  has a dwelling-house or place of business in Australia;

                     (c)  is carrying on business in Australia, either personally or by means of an agent or manager; or

                     (d)  is a member of a firm or partnership carrying on business in Australia by means of a partner or partners or of an agent or manager;

may sign an authority in accordance with the approved form naming and authorising a registered trustee, a solicitor or the Official Trustee to call a meeting of the debtor‘s creditors and to take control of the debtor‘s property.

             (2)  An authority signed by a debtor under this section is not effective for the purposes of this Part unless:

                     (a)  if the person authorised is a registered trustee or solicitor–the person has consented in writing to exercise the powers given by the authority; and

                    (aa)  if the person authorised is the Official Trustee–an Official Receiver has given the debtor written approval to name the Official Trustee in the authority.

       (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.

       (2AB)  If the person authorised is the Official Trustee, then, before the Official Receiver gives approval to name the Official Trustee in the authority, the Official Receiver must give the debtor the information prescribed by the regulations.

          (2A)  The regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which a person (other than the Official Trustee or a registered trustee) is ineligible to act as a controlling trustee under this Part.

          (2B)  An authority signed by a debtor under this section is not effective for the purposes of this Part if, at the time the authority is signed, the person authorised:

                     (a)  is not the Official Trustee or a registered trustee; and

                     (b)  is ineligible, under the regulations, to act as a controlling trustee under this Part.

          (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:

                     (a)  a statement of the debtor‘s affairs; and

                     (b)  a proposal for dealing with them under this Part.

Note:          Section 6A sets out requirements for statements of affairs.

          (2D)  If the person authorised is the Official Trustee, the authority signed by the debtor under this section is not effective for the purposes of this Part unless, before an Official Receiver gives approval to name the Official Trustee in the authority, the debtor gives to the Official Receiver:

                     (a)  a statement of the debtor‘s affairs; and

                     (b)  a proposal for dealing with them under this Part.

Note:          Section 6A sets out requirements for statements of affairs.

          (2E)  A proposal for dealing with the debtor‘s affairs under this Part must include a draft personal insolvency agreement.

Note:          Section 188A sets out requirements for personal insolvency agreements.

             (3)  An authority under this section that is effective for the purposes of this Part is not revocable by the debtor.

             (4)  Subject to subsection 192(1), a debtor cannot give an authority within 6 months of giving another authority, unless the Court grants leave to do so.

             (5)  A registered trustee or solicitor who consents to exercise the powers given by an authority must, within 2 business days of consenting, give a copy of:

                     (a)  the authority; and

                     (b)  the debtor‘s statement of affairs;

to the Official Receiver.

             (6)  When an authority becomes effective, the person authorised by it becomes the controlling trustee.

Source: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba1966142/s188.html

More info on Bankruptcy?

What is a Bankruptcy Notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966? The Act defines Bankruptcy Notices as follows:

Do you have a problem with a Bankruptcy Notices? Have you been served a Bankruptcy Notices? Does someone owe you money and you’d like to issue a Bankruptcy Notices?

Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.

Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.

We offer a free first appointment to anyone who is in financial trouble and can assist and advise on any Bankruptcy Notices or a related matter. To book your free appointment – click here.

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

To learn more about Mark Smith, his training and expertise – click here to go to his profile page

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

Follow Mark on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mrmarkjsmith

Acts of Bankruptcy – s40(1)(ha) to s40(8) Bankruptcy Act 1966.

bankruptcy

How does a Bankruptcy Notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 work?

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40(1)(ha)-s40(8)

Acts of bankruptcy

(1)  A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases: ….

… (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

                             (ii)  terminated;

                     (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

                             (ii)  terminated;

                     (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.

Source: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba1966142/s40.html

Need finance?

Need finance for your business – big or small? Even if you need funds for a tax debt or other problem – we may be able to assist – click here for next steps.

More info on Bankruptcy?

What is a Bankruptcy Notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966? The Act defines Bankruptcy Notices as follows:

Do you have a problem with a Bankruptcy Notices? Have you been served a Bankruptcy Notices? Does someone owe you money and you’d like to issue a Bankruptcy Notices?

Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.

Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.

We offer a free first appointment to anyone who is in financial trouble and can assist and advise on any Bankruptcy Notices or a related matter. To book your free appointment – click here.

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

To learn more about Mark Smith, his training and expertise – click here to go to his profile page

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

Follow Mark on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mrmarkjsmith

Transcript

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.

Acts of Bankruptcy – s40(1)(d-h) Bankruptcy Act 1966.

bankruptcy

How does a Bankruptcy Notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 work?

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40(1)(d-h)

  

Acts of bankruptcy

(1)  A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases: ….

                   (d)  if:

                              (i)  execution has been issued against him or her under process of a court and any of his or her property has, in consequence, either been sold by the sheriff or held by the sheriff for 21 days; or

                             (ii)  execution has been issued against him or her under process of a court and has been returned unsatisfied;

                  (daa)  if the debtor presents a debtor‘s petition under this Act;

                   (da)  if the debtor presents to the Official Receiver a declaration under section 54A;

                     (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:

                              (i)  present a debtor‘s petition; or

                             (ii)  sign an authority under section 188 and inform the chair of the meeting, in writing, of the name of the person in whose favour the authority has been signed;

Source: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba1966142/s40.html

Need finance?

Need finance for your business – big or small? Even if you need funds for a tax debt or other problem – we may be able to assist – click here for next steps.

More info on Bankruptcy?

What is a Bankruptcy Notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966? The Act defines Bankruptcy Notices as follows:

Do you have a problem with a Bankruptcy Notices? Have you been served a Bankruptcy Notices? Does someone owe you money and you’d like to issue a Bankruptcy Notices?

Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.

Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.

We offer a free first appointment to anyone who is in financial trouble and can assist and advise on any Bankruptcy Notices or a related matter. To book your free appointment – click here.

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

To learn more about Mark Smith, his training and expertise – click here to go to his profile page

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

Follow Mark on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mrmarkjsmith

Transcript

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 mark@dcpartners.solutions. thanks very much bye

Acts of Bankruptcy – s40(1)(c) Bankruptcy Act 1966.

bankruptcy

How does a Bankruptcy Notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 work?

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40(1)(b)

Acts of bankruptcy

(1)  A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases: ….

                     (c)  if, with intent to defeat or delay his or her creditors:

                              (i)  he or she departs or remains out of Australia;

                             (ii)  he or she departs from his or her dwelling-house or usual place of business;

                            (iii)  he or she otherwise absents himself or herself; or

                            (iv)  he or she begins to keep house;

Source: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba1966142/s40.html

Need finance?

Need finance for your business – big or small? Even if you need funds for a tax debt or other problem – we may be able to assist – click here for next steps.

More info on Bankruptcy?

What is a Bankruptcy Notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966? The Act defines Bankruptcy Notices as follows:

Do you have a problem with a Bankruptcy Notices? Have you been served a Bankruptcy Notices? Does someone owe you money and you’d like to issue a Bankruptcy Notices?

Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.

Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.

We offer a free first appointment to anyone who is in financial trouble and can assist and advise on any Bankruptcy Notices or a related matter. To book your free appointment – click here.

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

To learn more about Mark Smith, his training and expertise – click here to go to his profile page

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

Follow Mark on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mrmarkjsmith

Transcript

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

Acts of Bankruptcy – s40(1)(b) Bankruptcy Act 1966.

bankruptcy

How does a Bankruptcy Notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 work?

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40(1)(b)

Acts of bankruptcy

(1)  A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases: ….

(b)  if in Australia or elsewhere:

                              (i)  he or she makes a conveyance, transfer, settlement or other disposition of his or her property or of any part of his or her property;

                             (ii)  he or she creates a charge on his or her property or on any part of his or her property;

                            (iii)  he or she makes a payment; or

                            (iv)  he or she incurs an obligation;

                            that would, if he or she became a bankrupt, be void as against the trustee;

Source: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba1966142/s40.html

Need finance?

Need finance for your business – big or small? Even if you need funds for a tax debt or other problem – we may be able to assist – click here for next steps.

More info on Bankruptcy?

What is a Bankruptcy Notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966? The Act defines Bankruptcy Notices as follows:

Do you have a problem with a Bankruptcy Notices? Have you been served a Bankruptcy Notices? Does someone owe you money and you’d like to issue a Bankruptcy Notices?

Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.

Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.

We offer a free first appointment to anyone who is in financial trouble and can assist and advise on any Bankruptcy Notices or a related matter. To book your free appointment – click here.

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

To learn more about Mark Smith, his training and expertise – click here to go to his profile page

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

Follow Mark on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mrmarkjsmith

Transcript

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

Acts of Bankruptcy – s40(1)(a) Bankruptcy Act 1966.

bankruptcy

How does a Bankruptcy Notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 work?

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40

Acts of bankruptcy

(1)  A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases: ….

(a)  if in Australia or elsewhere he or she makes a conveyance or assignment of his or her property for the benefit of his or her creditors generally;

Source: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba1966142/s40.html

Need finance?

Need finance for your business – big or small? Even if you need funds for a tax debt or other problem – we may be able to assist – click here for next steps.

More info on Bankruptcy?

What is a Bankruptcy Notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966?

Do you have a problem with a Bankruptcy Notices? Have you been served a Bankruptcy Notices? Does someone owe you money and you’d like to issue a Bankruptcy Notices?

Any questions about Bankruptcy Notices? Live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late, or alternatively complete the form below and we’ll reply to you promptly.

Watch our video tutorial, live chat with us in the bottom right corner or call us on 1300-327123 till late.

We offer a free first appointment to anyone who is in financial trouble and can assist and advise on any Bankruptcy Notices or a related matter. To book your free appointment – click here.

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

To learn more about Mark Smith, his training and expertise – click here to go to his profile page

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

Follow Mark on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mrmarkjsmith

Transcript:

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