Mark Smith Blog – S1E1

Sharing a happy success story from one of our clients.

Blogging from Nashdale, NSW – our Orange DCP Solutions office and site.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to instant chat with us using the chat tools in the bottom right hand corners, call us at 1300-327123 or complete the feedback form below.

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:

Mansoor Davood Abadi

Do you know this guy? Mansoor Davood Abadi

Mansoor Davood Abadi

Likes driving other peoples cars (and not paying).

Believed to have driven car to QLD, swapped number plates to continue to drive a car he doesn’t own.

Car looks like this / Qld number plates.

What next?

How would you rate Mansoor?

Would you like to tell us confidentially about your experiences?

Do you know his whereabouts or the whereabouts of our Toyota 86 GTS?

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.

Many R’s Podcast – S1E5

Podcast Mark Smith

Many R’s Podcast – S01E05 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/s1UAVaWYiok

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.

Public interest

The purpose of this podcast is not to ridicule or defame. Despite the light hearted manner of the presentation, the podcast is necessary to ventilate serious issues in the public interest. Mr. Mahony is on the roll of solicitors of the NSW Supreme Court and represents a number of persons including Ralph Paligaru purports to have connections to people in high public offices in Fiji – Cabinet Ministers having, he claims, attended Marist College as a Schoolboy in Fiji where he has said that he formed relationships with persons later coming to occupy, as I mentioned, high public offices in Fiji. It is believed that some of these connections include to persons within the Reserve Bank of FijiFiji Hardwood Corporation and a number of Government Departments.

It is believed therefore that some of this profile and other blog materials may be of public interest to those trading with persons and dealing with government officials, in some instances, in Fiji as well as interest to foreign persons providing aid, trade or other support to Fiji.

This profile may also be of interest to Australians – Australia contributes a substantial sum of aid to Fiji and naturally as a sovereign nation we have an interest in the good governance of the Country of Fiji – one of our closest neighbours together with an interest in efficient and proper utilisation of Australia’s Aid provided to Fiji.

Regrettably, Fiji, it is reported, has a problem with corruption along with other countries within the region.

This profile and other blog materials and article may also be in the public interest of persons from or interested in India.

The public interest of Australia may also be involved – Ralph and his former employer (discussed on this blog, a man named Mohan Kumar) lobbied and received Australian Visa’s and other legitimate benefits from officials and public office holders in Australia.

It is a matter of public record that Mr. Mahony has also represented Mohan Kumar.

john mahony 1
John Mahony – circa 2010

Season 1, Episode 5 will focus on:

The John Mahony catchup episode:

0:00​ Start – intro music

0:30​ introduction

5:40​ background – dealings with John Mahony

25:10​ conversation and commentary

1:05:36​ wrap up

1:06:47​ credits

To share this video: https://youtu.be/s1UAVaWYiok

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

Ralph’s timber mill – Dreketi

The below transcript indicates that Ralph has funds to buy the Dreketi Timber Mill but is unable to meet his monthly obligations.

Here are some recent photos of Dreketi Timber Mill operated by Ralph’s company.

  • dreketi mill

Transcript:

S01E05 podcast – transcript

rogues rascals reviewables rorts rip-offs receivers real estate agents and much much more a whole bunch of R. welcome to season one episode five of the many R’s podcast i’m your presenter mark smith of dc partner solutions and we’d love to hear from you come and join us on our website www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast

well g’day mark smith here it’s uh monday the 29th of march it’s been a very productive couple of months and uh very unique time so that australia’s in at the moment and now is certainly no exception um happy new year if we haven’t spoken to you this year it’s i’m not quite sure where we’ve been up to we’ve been meaning to do an episode or two and we’ve had loads and loads of um uh content and um i’ve actually been a busy boy uh still studying uh wrapping up my law degree and just started on what’s called practical legal training which is

keeping me very busy let’s put it that way so it’s been a very busy time and but please don’t think we’ve forgotten you um i actually talked to the ceo of a company the other day uh he’ll know who he is and um uh he was yeah he was saying he’d missed my blogs so um i found that very inspiring so uh you know who you are um well it’s this episode is dedicated to one man one man and um i’ll put up a picture in a moment i’ll make sure that you uh get the idea um he’s a wonderful man uh he’s a uh he’s a very experienced lawyer uh he overheard him telling someone that he’d been a lawyer uh since before that boy i’m sorry before that lawyer was was a boy uh and he wasn’t talking to me i’m not a lawyer okay um not yet uh studying uh i’m a student and um you never know one day uh but this bloke like certainly says i shouldn’t be one so uh when he when he talks uh i’m sure the whole world listens uh this is a lawyer that um he’s multi-skilled uh he’s he’s very much multi-skilled uh and we’ve got an unbelievable well i said unbelievable you must believe it okay you might find it hard to believe some of the stuff uh that you’re going to hear uh look i say these things on threat that um if i say something that’s untrue and uh well if you say something that’s true generally that’s a defense to defamation if i say uh ivan milat you’re a terrible murderer well he couldn’t sue me because uh he is in fact a terrible murderer and he’s dead but um and so i say various things on threat that that hey i might be sued um well but if i say something that’s true or or it’s substantially true uh then you know that’s that’s quite a defense so uh the things that i’m going to say when i say he’s a multi-skilled person and uh and all the rest uh you might find slightly hard some of these things slightly difficult to believe but i’m relying on the fact that what i’m telling you is true it is uh entirely true so we’re going to talk about a man called john mahony and this is a man who i first had dealings with in 2017 so um he

he’s not someone that’s new to me i’ve kept many thousands of emails uh you know um and i’ve got lots and lots of details i’m a very patient person as um as some people know and anyway without any further ado we’re going to get into the story of john mahony and his wonderful clients uh which include craig adams uh ralph paligaru uh amreta paligaru mohan kumar uh some people might know mohan kumar by another name but we’ll just refer to him as mohan kumar bargo developments now that was a one-time customer as well as well paid some bills anyway uh golden arrow international proprietary limited. there’s so many customers and this man is a genius he’s a genius the way he can manage all the conflicts and look after all the different interests of all the different people all at the one time simultaneously his i just can’t put it any more clearly this is a man with 40 years experience

or is he a man with one year experience 40 times? i don’t know i’m not experienced enough to say but i know he’s been around for a long time let’s put it that way mr mahony’s been around for a very very long time he’s uh a student uh he studied in 1975 i believe uh when uh i might have been in kindergarten he was uh he was out there at law school uh and uh paving the way and he’s had some all sorts of different life experiences uh look i would like to say something very nice and genuine and sincere uh mr mahony is a carer uh he is actually a carer for a uh uh for probably a very nice lady i’ve never i’ve never met her but uh his wife is um someone that’s uh uh well he cares for her so i congratulate him on that

and that might be the last nice thing i say about him but look i’m sure he’s uh

look i think we should get into the story so we’re going to turn over now and consider the uh circumstances of mr mahony and his wonderful law practice mahony law or mahony law at baulkham hills uh we’re going to review a relationship that we’ve had with a guy called john mahony, mahony law at baulkham hills in new south wales and um also we’re going to consider the relationship between ourselves and a couple of persons um called including bargo developments proprietary limited mohan kumar ralph paligaru craig adams and amreeta paligaru and reliance leasing proprietary limited um it’s uh it’s a long story uh it is a long story and uh this has gone on and on and on and on and on and uh it really i won’t say it started uh with a loan to ralph paligaru but i come in in a loan had been given to ralph paligaru interest free interest-free uh not a bad set of terms um for one year from over a hundred thousand dollars from about um august 2016 and uh i came in i became involved in maybe july late july to august 2017 and uh at the time i was doing some work for a company called reliance leasing uh reliance leasing is the lender ralph paligaru is the borrower and uh look the previous year ralph um had ralph still is today 28th of march he’s still the power of attorney for a bloke called mohan kumar and um normally when you’re a power of attorney uh the um document says uh you can’t benefit um you can’t um you can you can’t uh say sell the um the person’s uh the grantors they’re called uh the person that grants the power you can’t sell their assets say to your wife yeah ralph didn’t do that but you couldn’t do that and secretly benefit uh you’re there as a uh like a trustee i suppose um there to represent the uh interests of this mr kumar now it turns out in about october 2016 2015. i mean uh 2015 um uh the power of attorney is granted martin kumar hops on a plane at sydney uh gets off the plane at denpasar where police are waiting for him and uh i don’t know who known kumar is i’ve never met him but um the police are waiting for him and uh this this bloke kumar is allegedly another person he’s got allegedly another name and uh mohan kumar is taken off to india extradited and uh it’s 20 21 he still sits there in jail uh they say he’s uh the indian authorities say i don’t know this bloke is someone else um and um i don’t know i’ve never met him but um anyway we’ll see so ralph uh borrow some money a pair of attorneys granted kumar hops on a plane uh ralph then uh puts a piece of land up for sale 632 old northern road, dural and um he was he was supposed to do that and he did so along comes craig adams and uh you beauty craig adams um this is in early 2016. um craig adams uh says how about we buy 632 old northern road? i’ve got a great i’ve got a great idea says craig uh having a bite off you for um five and a half million dollars and uh his one and a half million down payment and you lend me the rest so um great idea great idea not um dennis english uh he’s a lawyer he’s a sydney-based lawyer uh tells ralph uh hey buddy don’t do this this is a really really poor idea uh it’s not gonna work uh tells him it’s i’m going from memory but uh uses words like fatally flawed it’ll never happen um and uh it’ll never happen meaning the other $4m million bucks will never be paid ralph in his wisdom uh mr mr dennis english says this is such a bad deal i’m having nothing to do with it. good on you dennis english great guy so um no seriously uh. sound advice so as it turned out uh the other $4m million bucks did not get paid maybe some of it got paid a little bit but not the other $4m million bucks is still outstanding now johnny i’m not saying he had anything to do with that part um this is uh the sale happens in about the 26th of may 2016. uh i’m not saying john mahony had anything to do with that but august 2016 a loan is granted by uh reliance leasing uh $115,000 or thereabouts to ralph interest free for one year so off you go ralph there you go free money for a year um and as i said i came in in well actually i came in in march of 2017 i get a call from uh reliance leasing saying oh can you help this bloke can you go and see him he’s got a few worries he can’t sleep at night um so i go and see one early early one morning i think it was the 27th of march 2017 i wander over to 88 perfection avenue, stanhope gardens and that’s the day i first meet ralph and i and he tells me the story he met this um met this chap called craig adams uh handed him the title deeds to this piece of land for $5.5m
million bucks and received the grand sum of $1.5m million dollars so um i i didn’t quite believe this so i asked ralph again so tell me where precisely is the deeds he’s given them he’s given the title due to the land to craig adams and and got $1.5m million bucks back on a piece of land that’s worth $5.5 million

so um look in my background uh i’ve worked for knight frank i’ve

bought and sold you know some real estate uh had an MBA at this point i’m actually studying law uh and what i’m hearing is not quite sounding correct so um and at that time i’ve worked for reliance leasing in finance and some other companies registering mortgages and you know helping out with some enforcement things uh and it i was studying uh real property at sydney uni at that particular time so uh it was obvious to me that um ralph who’s at this time the power of attorney for mr kumar, mr kumar has a significant problem uh his power of attorneys handed over the title deeds to solid gold real estate at um 632 old northern road dural to this guy craig adams uh and uh is out the door underwater for $4m
million bucks plus interest um so um it seems like a problem my immediate idea is how about we at the very least go register a caveat? make sure that the situation doesn’t get any worse so um i know nothing about what ralph’s really up to at this point until july or august 2017 and at that point uh the loan had already been uh granted in 2016 from reliance leasing (to ralph)and there was another party that was demanding money back from ralph and his wife uh that had loaned ralph money at least i’m going from memory here um uh well they had loaned money to from craig adams, bargo developments possibly a company called golden arrow proprietary limited who own a big development site in worrywood when i say big we’re talking $15m million bucks and another borrower borrowers were ralph and his wife and ralph didn’t tell me this in march 2017 but uh i find out in july that um ralph uh had guaranteed craig adams’s borrowings at this time i think it’s in the order of about $340,000? um yes i think that sounds right about $340,000. give or take

now i don’t know whether john manny advised on that i can’t say but i do know come to late july uh garry steinberg asks ralph uh to start paying interest on his interest free loan so ralph’s interest-free loan from august 2016 onwards it was a one-year deal it was interest-free for a year provide you pay back but after a year then the interest kicks in and um he’s less generous so it’s it’s about 17-18 percent per annum, still not extreme for a second or third mortgage but um but the interest free terms are over so um cut a long story short i don’t know if i can uh i don’t know if i can cut a long story short but um

is this sounding convoluted to you um?

so what does ralph do he goes and sees john mahony and here john mahony does start acting and uh at this point john mahony is doing work for the bill is going to craig adams so there is some john mahony prepares a deed that uh involves craig adams ralph paligaru amreeta paligaru and a brand new company like it had been set up for one two maybe three days called dural alliances proprietary limited and uh here john mahony does get involved uh and on top of this um i later find out that um at this very time um john mahony is a lawyer or mohan kumar so think about this 632 old northern road dural kumar’s a seller ralph is his power of attorney and the purchaser is craig adams craig adams puts down $1.5m million dollars mohan kumar gives craig adams a $4m million dollar loan and john mahony come august 17 is doing legal work for mohan kumar ralph paligaru, amreeta, craig adams bargo and

whether he’s doing work for craig adams, bargo and um golden arrow i can’t say but i can say that craig adams bargo and golden arrow are paying the bill and uh john at john mahony uh prepares a deed and this dude gives ralph an interest in

certainly in the uh warriewood site with 14 15 million dollars uh i believe it also gave him a direct capital interest in mr kumar’s land and mr kumar is the grantor of the power of attorney and later uh ralph and amreeta in both their names do go and put a caveat on the dural land for the money that they’ve lent to craig adams so uh in august this is a little bit convoluted i get that but in august 2017 to pay out 340 around about 340 000 that ralph’s under pressure for here he rolls over the reliance leasing line or he doesn’t pay it it is due in payable he doesn’t pay it and um and he stops paying well he wasn’t paying interest for the first year and at that point he doesn’t pay any more interest and come 2021 he’s paid no interest uh on a one-year deal from 2016 to 17 we’re now 2021 and he still hasn’t paid any interest and claims not to be insulted but um ralph borrow so that that loan’s not getting paid out but another loan that is under pressure uh that was given to um as i said to golden arrow um i mean it’s just unbelievable um i i need to probably show the relationships here

john mahony is advising and uh ralph goes and borrows 540 000 guaranteed by himself his wife and dural alliance he borrows 540 000 at an interest rate of wait for it 6% per month so garry steinberg’s lending him a hundred thousand interest-free which then goes to 18 per annum uh ralph borrows 540 000 at 6% interest a month now it’s three percent if it’s paid on time but six percent a month if you don’t pay it on time so you you do the math we’re talking about $30k something thousand dollars per month that’s not the principle that’s just the interest so um john mahony uh does this prepares this dude and i can show you the invoice i can show you the emails he doesn’t register a caveat on um on the warriewood property eventually ralph doesn’t get paid paid back the 540 000. someone else jumps the queue and they’re one of our friends that we’ve been talking about on this blog called apg australasian property group uh the director is a Maya Purushothaman i can’t say her surname it begins with p, Maya Purushothaman and ian jordan curiously today 2021 ralph has a company in fiji with and jordan

um trading in timber

uh so ralph somehow forgives them forgets? i don’t know but uh anyway johnny mahony does not register the caveat but in the process of um sorry i’ll explain ralph um mahony doesn’t register a caveat for ralph for this 540 thousand dollars that he’s buried at six percent interest per month he doesn’t register the caveat on

the warriewood property nor on 632 old northern road dural but john mahony does lift a caveat that mohan kumar the one that i put on uh in about the 27th of march 2017. john mahony only lifts that and uh well what happens from there well you skip a few steps i i’m telling you this is ridiculous but you skip a few steps and

the $4m million bucks the $4m million dollars that kumar loaned to craig adams uh come july 2019 uh is i’ll put it nicely plundered um by a whole bunch of people uh yeah i walked away with some of that money myself uh and i say i had a legal right to it and i had a registered security but a whole heap of other people to the tune of about 1.7 million ended up with money that um uh according to an affidavit of john mahony they weren’t entitled that’s according to mr money so mr mahony says that these people winning title mr mahony also does say in fairness that i wasn’t entitled yet he was not disagreeable to uh me walking out with close to $200,000 um from this mediation in say july 2019. so uh poor old mr kumar as uh john mahony client uh and ralph is his power of attorney uh poor mr kumar is is in a bad way so that’s part of the backstory it’s it’s long and i don’t expect everyone to be able to take it in but it is complex but uh there we have it so um there’s many other bits in between 2017 and 2021. many many but um and none of them are happy very few of them are happy and none of them are very good for mr kumar so oh

reliance leasing still hasn’t got their money back um and the people that ralph borrowed money from at six percent a month come uh about 2018 or i think yeah about 2018. um probably about july 2018 uh they sort of want it back and they never got it back from the warriewood sale because australasian property group jumped the queue mr mahony uh did the deed in august 2017 but for some reason waited until maybe he was instructed maybe he wasn’t i don’t know but uh mr mahony what we do know is that mr mahony had the capital interest in the warriewood property in august and he did uh put a caveat on the warriewood property in about november 2017 so that’s sort of light years possibly and it’s long enough to be postponed and in the end ralph never got back his 540 thousand dollars that he borrowed um in august 2017 and reliance is still waiting for their money because uh for a long many many reasons uh a withdrawal of cave it was given to mahony in early august 2017 and what i can say safely is that it was used. now what is in debate and you can go to my website and you can look at the cross claim uh reliance claims that they withdrew the authority to use that uh caveat and that there are text messages to that effect

but what we know is that it was handed over uh by john mahony so john i held the withdrawal of taken and john mahony handed it over in circumstances where there were certainly text messages saying no there needs to be extra security and um

i have to tread carefully because mr mahony a lawyer and it’s certainly written to me saying uh i’ve said vile and disgusting things about him i’ve actually put them into affidavits so that’s a different thing so look maybe what i can say is uh my affidavit uh annexes copies of text messages saying do not use this withdrawal of caveat uh because uh the loan to valuation ratio is unacceptably high in other words there’s no equity uh reliance claim to have withdrawn the mahony authority to use that but it’s still used anyway so that’s part of what the fight is about um from august 2017. now march 2021 uh this is just going on and on so uh on the 9th of february 2021, uh six weeks ago uh i’m sitting in a coffee shop with mr steinberg who is the director of uh reliance leasing uh he has at this point uh well before this he’s assigned the debt that ralph owed to reliance he’s assigned that to me and some litigation happened a deed was um was struck (March 2020). ralph signed it

the deed wasn’t complied with i got a judgment from the supreme court of new south wales about the 11th of september 2020 and um on about the 17th of september 2020 uh the bankruptcy notice a bankruptcy notice and the judgment were uh handed over to ralph he was served a bankruptcy notice and so um we get a phone call i’m sitting next to garry steinberg he at this point has sold the debt uh assigned it to me in september 19. and litigation has gone on deeds have ended have been entered uh judgments have been given bankruptcy notices have been served and for some reason john only doesn’t ring me who is the owner of this debt he rings

the former owner the former owner he rings the former owner i can say uh john mahony has sent emails to the former owner mr steinberg in late – correction late 2017 – telling him to the effect oh you better make mark smith go away or you’ll be implicated now john mahony as i said a lawyer for 40 years is using words saying if if you don’t make mark smith go away you’ll be implicated implicated implicated in what um well have a look at what the word implicated means but it has a specific uh meaning and john mahony as a lawyer ought to know precisely what that means and it’s not herarsay this is uh these the word implicated is used in emails true from john mahony to garry steinberg saying you know more or less if mark smith doesn’t uh to quote john mahony uh if if mark smith doesn’t pull his effing head in uh you’ll be implicated uh garry you’ll be implicated so i’m not sure what the uh former owner can do come the 9th of february 2021 but let’s have a listen to a conversation that john mahony says never happened

all right we’re going to now have a listen to a conversation that apparently never took place uh and we’ll listen to this and we’ll also as we’re going through this we’ll note the parts of the email between mr between myself and mr mahony and uh and his reply uh and noticing his reply he replies back to the legal services commissioner (OLSC)of new south wales so that’s that’s the person that gives a lawyer here’s um his ticket uh john mahony his ticket um now i will apologize uh the start the very first 20 seconds or so of the uh the recording uh is not present um it wasn’t recorded uh it certainly started with um uh which i heard uh started with the words grim uh john mahony when he rings uh garry steinberg refers to uh gary as ‘grim’ which uh is short for grim reaper hey grim reaper um do us a favor so on this particular day uh john mahony had been threatening a lawsuit against um garry and his company reliance leasing give me mine gary gary sold his debt uh uh in uh september 2019 and this is uh on the ninth of february uh john mahony threatening to sue gary for a loan that he sold like 18 months before so let’s have a listen to the audio and um and you can also have a look at we’ll go through mr mahony reply uh when he says various things like oh no i didn’t say that um let’s and we might stop this at various points now i apologize the first 30 seconds or so is not very good quality but we do provide a transcript as well so um that will be available and you can probably see the transcript on the bottom of the screen here in youtube listen away

… wrote. Its assigned to Smith. And he’s now suing Ralph.

Right ….
That being the case, we’ve got no choice other than to sue you because you haven’t paid Smith the money that you’ve agreed to lend to Ralph to get rid of the debt.

Right

So, I don’t want to do that, obviously, so- …. Now thats John Mahony talking

in long sentences and gary’s uh i’m sitting right next door to uh to gary like you know a couple of feet maybe uh i’ve got very good hearing i’ve got i can hear let’s continue

Mahony: um- can you get Smith to pull his f’ing head in and voluntarily agree to set aside the judgment and bankruptcy notice?

Garry: yeah so that’s gary oh sorry john had just talked and gary said yeah okay so keep going so this is a conversation and it did happen on the 9th of uh february i apologize this we were in a cafe um i’ll keep going. Garry: okay when i spoke to mark last time he wanted to see if ralph was going to start making any payment because nothing’s happened all our copies of abuse from his daughter the deed was uh done in the 11th of march 2020, ralph was required to start making payments of around about 2 000 a month from 30 days after when he sold his property so he went and sold his property uh this is what he wanted he went to the court to get permission to do this and and the court gave him that permission uh he and from may 2020

the house settled about the 3rd of may maybe the 4th so 30 days after that is the

say the early june we started to draw the direct debits ralph gave signed a direct debit authority uh so we’re entitled my company is entitled to be drawing those and let’s continue and none of these direct debits are being paid so that’s from june and this conversation happens in february the next year and this is on top of the period from 17 to 2021 there hasn’t been any money paid at all uh not the the interest installments so this is not the usual conduct you have with a home loan let’s continue gary was just talking about the conversation the abusive conversation uh he had received from ralph’s daughter, mind you she’s texting me at midnight on a saturday night as well so yeah did you hear about that? No, no. okay i won’t even bore you with it um and i think once that happens we get him on an established payment regime we could probably do something for that but mark smith said to me that he didn’t think ralph was ever going to pay.

Well, uh that’s- why would he then proceed to bankrupt him because that then releases Ralph from his debt?

no it doesn’t if you bankrupt a person uh it means they are completely replaced all their assets are vested in a trustee in bankruptcy and uh you’ll make it here believe it or not that ralph’s out there trying to buy a timber mill he can’t find two thousand dollars a month but he’s out there buying a timber mill in fiji uh so john, i don’t quite follow your logic um there’s a difference between wanting to pay and being obliged to pay and i don’t think john’s quite picking up on that uh so he says well why would i bankrupt ralph ralph’s not paying ralph refuses to pay yet he’s out there trying to buy timber mills

why would you spend money to bring about what he- what he thinks is actually the case? Whilstever Ralph stay solvent theres a chance that he will pay…uh

Whilst ever Ralph stay solvent? that’s interesting does route does john mahony think that ralph is solvent?

if he is solvent then why isn’t he paying his monthly installments?

ah okay sorry some another light bulb’s just gone on

Garry: yeah well i wanted to stay solvent too

yeah- well i mean otherwise-otherwise- what is the story between you and Smith as regards that money?

Smith didn’t lend it Ralph, you lent it to Ralph.

Smith is now claiming it as his own.

I mean- you aren’t getting 5 cents to the dollar from Smith or something are you?

Garry: my arrangement is that um anything over 90 days in arrears i sell to mark and then he collects and we have an arrangement on the settlement side so that’s what happened with ralph because it was like 12 months in arrears he took over the debt which i

12 months that’s wishful thinking i took it over in uh i took it over in uh september 19

this had been granted in august 16.

uh so that i’ll make that about three years

i signed i did assign a lot of the documentation to him

i don’t think there was any doubt that you assigned the debt to him. he did

Mahony: and gave him the right to put his own caveat on Ralph’s house before Ralph’s house was sold. And ofcourse when everybody entered into that deed in March last year everyone thought the house was going to be loud noise for about $1.4m

no the only people that thought that was john mahony and and ralph paligaru we’d seen valuations that was worth 1.225 and it sold for $1.215m john mahony he’s not an expert in property we used valuers and everyone thought it was worth 1.4 i don’t think so

Mahony: and that was about the time that was the start of Covid – that was about the time the bottom fell out of the market, one of the mark up um half a day sold for 1.2 therefore the everyone then knew at settlement that the deed that had been signed 2 months before couldn’t be complied with because …

Ralph signed it. John Mahony advised on it. Not everyone knew that it couldn’t be complied with. Ah, we’d complied.

there wasn’t going to be $65,000 coming from the sale. In fact Ralph had to pay money from his own pocket to make the sale happen.

So he had a negative result as opposed to a positive result. Smith and everyone knew that,

Smith cooperated and eventually after screwing 8000 bucks away to the agent, Smith handed over the withdrawal of the caveat.

And then, on that basis of um he um he knew exactly what was going on.

And then there was various conversations between you and Ralph and Smith about the so-called bullsh*t agreement that he put together in Fiji- some heads of agreement something- and then eventually

various conversations. let’s just various conversations john mahony says this is on the 9th of february 2021. 9th of february 2021. there was various conversations let’s just go back this is very very critical because we’re going to have a look at ralph’s uh affidavit and he says nothing about the various conversations he just says there was a moment where ralph was so uh had something put in front of him take it or leave it let’s just go back and we’ll re-listen to that about various conversations this is john mahony own words that were various conversations see if you hear it

Mahony: on that basis of um he um he knew exactly what was going on. And then there was various conversations between you and Ralph and Smith about the so-called bullsh*t agreement that he put together in Fiji- some heads of agreement something- and then eventually on the 26th of May there was a loan agreement which says very clearly that its the money thats required to pay out the loan that has been assigned to Smith.

The logic …

so there was various, various conversations so there wasn’t just take it or leave it conversation there was various conversations now john mahony has obligations and we’ll we’ll have a look here let’s let’s just go to this various conversations um uh on 10th of uh february uh he …. there’s a conv there’s references to tim who’s a lawyer but there’s he calls me a homewrecker. it’s my fault it’s my fault that uh ralph went and borrowed money at six percent a month and lost his family home i mean it’s very sad but um it’s my fault i’m a home wrecker uh this is the uh correspondence from john mahony office on the 12th so i wrote to him on the sixth it says you call me a terrorist

you said i’m a home wrecker and a terrorist who will never be admitted to practice law wow um

and look there’s a whole bunch of conversations he he says uh i accuse him of saying tim i accuse mahony of saying tim is as much a a-hole as me and um mahony who’s a lawyer is talking to garry steinberg who is someone else’s client the client of tim horne and the topic of this email is various further direct contact and threats the threats are well we’re going to sue you uh you’ve already heard that right back at the very beginning of this conversation that we’ve heard uh he says that you know we’re going to have to sue you and he’s now talking about he’s just about to talk on this tape about this sham uh loan document the date of the 26th of may 2020 um to pay up me. of which i received zero dollars and zero cents in reply uh mr and this is the the important bit is here about the various conversations mr mahony in the transcripts three weeks before ralph signs this uh affidavit says what i just what you just heard and then there were various conversations between you and ralph about this so-called bullsh!t agreement some heads of agreement

various conversations now did i photo i don’t think you can photoshop audio but did your ears not hear that i don’t know um

look, dealing with others make any statements grossly uh you know it’s repeatedly threatened my (future) practicing certificate uh communicating with other people’s clients like tim’s clients. once you know that uh if you’re a lawyer once you know that someone else is acting for a particular person and uh mahony knew

18 months before and this is this is not the first conversation solicitor have a look at this this is a great rule this one these are rules from the australian solicitors conduct rules a solicitor must not must not must not doesn’t leave a lot of room for wriggling must not advise or suggest a witness that to us to witness that ralph’s witness he must not advise or suggest to a witness that false or misleading evidence should be given now i’m not saying that uh i’m not saying that mahony suggested that false evidence be given i’m not suggesting that but here’s the clincher nor condone another person doing so (e.g. Ralph doing so).
so a solicitor must not condone another person suggesting to a witness that false or misleading evidence should be given

mr mahony knew that there was various conversations and we’ll go to the affidavit of the 2nd of march. um is he condoning false material in ralph’s affidavit? i don’t know? i mean this is all part of a complaint responsible use of the court process frankness a solicitor must not deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the

court

a solicitor representing a client that is before the court must not act as a mere mouthpiece

and must and must exercise forensic judgment during the course during the case independently after the appropriate consideration of the clients and the instructing solicitors so our friend mr mahony he’s not just the mouthpiece of ralph paligaru he has to must must exercise the forensic judgment during the case independently so yes he’s the lawyer, he still must exercise forensic judgment and according to mr mahony. oh he must be open and frank in his dealings with the legal services commissioner the solicitor must furnish in writing a full and accurate account of his or her conduct in relation to the matter.

can’t wait can’t wait to see the full and accurate account of his conduct.

after he got my email he he then wrote to the he wrote back to me and copied it to the legal services commissioner saying yes indeed this is a matter that the legal services commissioner should investigate and then he goes on and he he replies and says uh no i never uh the comments attributed to me were not made they weren’t made he never said anything about various conversations uh i was not aware tim horne acts for reliance really? i mean wait until you hear what he says tim’s a as big an a-hole he can’t have mediation

and yet the rule says the rule says dealing with regulatory authorities subject only to his or her duty to his client so there’s some privilege this that’s true a solicitor must be open and frank with his in his dealings his or her dealings with the regulatory authority this is the conduct rules 43.2 the solicitor must furnish in writing a full and accurate account of his or her conduct in the matter your beauty all right that let’s see how full and accurate this is part of the reason for this uh uh podcast

wouldn’t it be nice if mr uh mahony does a full and accurate account and says oh sorry mark smith was telling the truth that’d be nice wouldn’t it?

Mahony: is to and the Barrister quite rightly agrees …..

Mahony: the money thats required to pay out the loan that has been assigned to Smith.

The logic is to and the Barrister quite rightly agrees is that we may not have um a- we said we might not have …. We still reckon we have a claim against Smith to set aside the judgment but the fact is we have got a better claim against you because you lent

um so that’s a threat right and uh he’s got he’s making threats to the client of someone else so tim horne is garry’s lawyer and he’s saying well we reckon we’ve got a better claim against you

and this is over this sham 26th of may loan agreement that says uh garry will we’ll look at the document let’s just keep going with the audio

Mahony: to Ralph money under this loan agreements that you are required to pay us so you should have paid him and him pay Ralph and you should have paid Smith. So you breached your contract with Ralph by not paying the money to Smith and pissing him off.

So I mean um- Ralph is quite happy to continue … allow the loans with you in May last year to continue on but you can’t- can’t do that if he goes bankrupt – can he?.

he can’t do that if he goes bankrupt …. so he wants the arrangement with you to go on the the may one he doesn’t want the deed of the 20 of the 11th of march 2020 to go on he doesn’t want that to go on nor the judgment he wants the sham refinancing to go on but he can’t do that if he goes bankrupt can he

And if you are not prepared to make Smith go away

so you have to make smith go away

there’s a bankruptcy notice been issued in september 2019 at 2020 uh 17th it was served saying ralph hey you need to pay me i’m the one with the judgment you need to pay mark smith 106551 but uh mahony saying you need to make smith go away

so it’s garry’s problem but hang on garry loaned the money in in 16 for one year interest-free

it wasn’t paid back the cave it was was withdrawn ralph never got his money from the warriewood property apg got it. ralph then goes and does a settlement with apg on behalf of mr kumar, apg walk out with seven hundred thousand dollars or something like that? ralph then goes into business with and jordan in fiji selling timber?

this is this is quite fabulous isn’t it but it’s GARRY’S fault you it’s your fault gary because you didn’t lend the money to pay smith even though five years before that uh four years or whatever it was uh gary uh paligaru took out an interest-free loan we don’t know where the hundred and six thousand is hundred and fifteen thousand it’s in ralph’s pocket but it’s your fault garry that you didn’t give the money to smith

Mahony: And if you are not prepared to make Smith go away on the basis that Ralph is still going to pay this money to you (whispering)

If you’re not prepared to pay the money to Smith? pay what money to smith there is no money. ralph hasn’t paid it (the 2016 loan back) now i’m whispering in his ear at this time saying oh go get some security on this timber mill he’s buying a timber mill but he can’t pay two thousand bucks a month the timber mill’s worth a million fiji dollars or four million the debt on it is like five seven million fiji dollars uh yet ralph can’t find two thousand a month to pay his obligations he signed a deed.

Mahony: under the loan agreement then Ralph’s got no choice if he wants to survive than to sue you.

Ralph’s got no choice but to sue you? is this sounding weird?

Garry: Let me see what i can do …

ah now this is where tim yeah let’s let’s let’s have a look at mr mahony exact words his exact words i was not oh well maybe maybe we’ll we’ll go back so this is this conversation happened on the 9th on the 10th i write and say this afternoon you have written to mr uh steinberg knowing that tim continues to represent him and provided the attached letter i believe garry informed you yesterday that he had a lawyer tim and that you ought to be speaking with tim that’s tim horne of uh horne legal who would facilitate mediation now i know precisely what’s on the recording and i write this to mahony the day after the recording and mahony writes back oh and i copy this to the professional standards department complaints at the law society and the office of legal services commissioner

now i never forced um mahony to hit reply all mahony and and as i said there’s an obligation here rule 43 dealing with regulatory authorities the solicitor must be open and frank so you tell me in his dealings his or her deals the solicitor must furnish in writing a full and accurate account so in reply what does he say john mahony the 12th so he’s had two days to think about it i write to him the conversation’s on the

9th on the 10th late in the afternoon i write to him and say hang on you’re writing to garry you know he’s got a solicitor he writes back and says dear mr smith let’s copy to tim horne

here’s a clue it’s copied to tim horne
i never knew you had a …. i never knew uh tim horne acted for reliance leasing he’s written to tim horne

and you’re about to listen to what you hear oh you’ll hear what you hear i was not aware tim horne asked for reliance as far as i was aware the last solicitor again it is not up to you to advise me who does or does not act for reliance at the time of this dictation the 10th i’ve heard from no solicitor advising me that he or she acts

tim saying i’ve heard from no solicitor well let’s let’s just play and you can listen and you’ll be the judge whether tim is a solicitor for um reliance or not so i’ll just take it back a smidgen

okay let me see what i can do is it worthwhile yeah yeah yeah

absolutely is it worth while you are talking to tim and trying to do some type of mediation

No, no, no um it’s- I can’t talk to him, he is just as much of an arsehole as- as Smith is and uh it is just a waste of time talking to those pricks.

Um but all I am saying is if we don’t know what is going on and before Ralph goes bankrupt he is going to have to sue you –

um so that sounds like another threat? if you don’t know what’s going on before ralph goes bankrupt he’s going to have to sue you? but hang on he just said is it worthwhile uh tim, is it worthwhile having a mediation how’s tim going to do a mediation if he doesn’t act for reliance leasing?

now i accused him two days before i believe you informed did you have a conversation with garry and say does distasteful things about tim?

did you say tim is as much an [ __ ] as smith you declined to speak with garry and my lawyer

tim was acting for both of us is. it true? he writes back and says uh no: the comments attributed to me

to me by you to an alleged conversation i had has contained the first second and third lines were not made by me

so let’s have a look at the first second and third lines

i don’t know how big his screen is or maybe he’s talking about the first second and third paragraphs i don’t know?

what do you reckon if john mahony? do you want him handling your matters?

we’re mates we’re buddies i’m ringing you up and saying we’re going to sue you but we’re mates i don’t want to have to do that this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you

Mahony: it’s a waste of time talking to those pricks it’s a waste of time talking to those pricks tim horne, solicitor’s conduct rule you must be courteous that’s a great one frankness independence it mustn’t be the mouthpiece conflicts concerning former clients uh well formerly there’s this lifting of the caveat issue uh

rule 4 now this is actually the first rule in this solicitors conduct rules um a solicitor must these are fundamental ethical duties act in the best interest of his client in which the solicitor represents okay i don’t have a problem with that the must be honest and courteous in all dealings no i’m not a solicitor by the way um but mahony is. must deliver services legal services competently diligently and as promptly as reasonably reasonably possible avoid any compromise to their integrity avoid any compromise like talking to someone else’s client?

or making threats

Mahony: …. if we don’t know what is going on and before Ralph goes bankrupt he is going to have to sue you –
Garry: Okay Yeah alright I said i’ll give you that-

Mahony: and I don’t want to do that because we are mates.

I am just giving you the heads up.

Mahony: What you have to do is say to Smith, I have got Ralph tied up to pay the money to me and once he pays me I’ll pay you and in the meantime, um, just get rid of all these judgments- get rid of this judgment and get rid of the bankruptcy notice and- and move on

so in other words lean on mark smith. mark smith’s   got a judgment but lean on him okay but john as a mate and this is off the record i mean this is going on and on and on and we seem to be going from disaster to disaster now we’ve had a storm over and the mill’s

Oh yeah yeah well Ralph’s over there at the moment he’s been over there the last 2 or 3 months

yeah it seems to be one disaster after the other okay so john mahony about to say he can find the money to buy a timber mill the bank’s giving it away for nothing i’ve seen the documents. so that’s a representation okay that’s a representation. i’ve seen the documents uh they’re going to give it away for nothing next to nothing pardon me but you can’t find two thousand dollars a month to pay mark smith

Well he can’t- he can’t help that

no no i understand that

and it is true there was a cyclone and uh look parts of

i’ll put up the photos of the timber mill there you can google dreketi mill d-r-e-k-e-t-i kitty mill ralph paligaru

and you’ll see the photos of the timber mill uh

it did suffer some damage

ralph didn’t repair the damage by the way it’s one of these obligations in the lease

Mahony:
He is putting- he is putting- yeah it actually might turn out okay he thinks because of the storm, he will be able to purchase um from the bank, the whole mill, for next to nothing.

He’ll be able to purchase the whole mill from the bank for next to nothing?

so ralph’s got money to buy a timber mill but frankly kiss my ass uh you’re not getting your 2 000 a month now i think he goes on to say I’ve seen the documents so let’s

listen

and he is got a programme now where he is going to um … theres been the storm and a flood and the whole road was washed out.

but i have seen the correspondence between Ralph and um the bank in Fiji and they are going to basically give him the mill to get rid of it because it is worth next to nothing.

So he can- that will actually work out well for him …

freehold land makes up about nine percent of the fijian landmass the rest is native title or crown land so land with a timber mill and a highway frontage and it’s crown land and it’s like five or ten acres or something they’re going to give it away for next to nothing it’s worth next to nothing this is the same person that said ralph’s house is worth 1.4 million dollars john mahony himself real estate expert said 1.4 you’ve got to get at least 1.4 for the house 88 perfection avenue stanhope gardens let’s go back and just listen to that last five seconds again the lands i’ve seen the documents from the bank the the mortgages are possession by the way that’s usually not a good thing and ralph’s the tenant

Mahony: um the bank in Fiji and they are going to basically give him the mill to get rid of it because it is worth next to nothing.

So he can- that will actually work out well for him because he will be able to purchase it for next to nothing and he will then start putting in a mill and eventually build the whole thing up …

how’s he going to purchase if you can’t find two thousand dollars a month

how are you going to purchase a timber mill crown not crown land um freehold land for next to nothing

and eventually build the whole thing up … (whisper)

ah that’s my voice – ask for security on that this land he buys for next to nothing it’s got a timber mill on it it’s like five acres with a highway frontage he’s that mahony’s seen the documents, made a representation i’ve seen the documents they’re going to give it to him for next to nothing the bank the mortgagee in possession? the mortgage in possession is going to give to the tenant who never paid his rent they’re going to give it away for next to nothing? really? why are they mortgagee in possession?

why are they why are they doing a mortgagee sale? if they want to give it away why don’t they just give it away for next to nothing if uh if that was their intention

Mahony: If he goes bankrupt in Australia it means next to nothing to him in Fiji

if he goes bankrupt, doesn’t matter it means next to nothing?

you wait until you hear what these representations he makes says ralph’s safe, earning a good income and living the life of riley

yeah he’s living the life of riley, he’s got no repayments it doesn’t have to doesn’t have to yeah maybe well he’s not in fact he’s not paying his payments but   haven’t you listened with your own ears

let’s just go back and we’ll re-listen to that Mahony: If he goes bankrupt in Australia it means next to nothing to him in Fiji

he will just friggen stay in Fiji because

if he goes bankrupt he’ll just friggen stay in fiji that sounds like uh you’re trying to defeat your creditors there? and this is this is a lawyer

speaking to the legal opponent, i’m going to sue you he’s got no choice but to sue you you, he’ll just friggen stay in fiji if he goes bankrupt

so in other words you’ll never you’ll never see him again he’ll never return

Mahony: I don’t know what he and his daughter talked to you about but Smith has basically destroyed the marriage between Ralph and his wife, Amreeta,

smith’s basically destroyed the marriage

yeah. so as i said i i caused him to borrow money at six percent a month Mahony: i wouldn’t be surprised if you never saw ralph again quite frankly

Garry: that’s my concern

Mahony: But, he does want to come back to Australia. I know that.

so he’s staying away. he wants to come back, but he’s choosing to be away.

that is an act of bankruptcy (s40 Bankruptcy Act).
thanks john, really nicely said.

Mahony: But if you bankrupt him, that will give him every incentive to stay there

his marriage is basically finished- his family is doing um in fiji

but he is safe and making money in Fiji and living the life of Riley.

Why would he come back if you guys bankrupt him here?

he’s safe and making money in fiji living the life of riley. why would he come back?

so he’s choosing to have sent himself have a look at uh s40 of the bankruptcy act choosing to absent himself

So it is – this is all Smith doing because he is a bull at a gate and he is using blackmail for terror tactics

blackmail and terror tactics?

so holding someone to their obligations? the banks are they terrorists? do they is they guilty of blackmailing people that don’t pay their bills?
blackmail and terror tactics let’s just go back

blackmail so he served a bankruptcy notice blackmail

independence must exercise the forensic judgment called for during you know during the case independently after considering the client’s instructions

responsible

let’s take care

solicitor must take care to ensure that the solicitor’s advice to invoke the coercive powers of the court is not principally in order to gain to harass or embarrass someone and he’s not principally in order to gain some collateral advantage for his client

blackmail and terror tactics or the solicitor or the instructing solicitor out of court

and then i say this is what i say to the office of legal services commissioner and i copy this to these guys called ypol whoever these people are t price YPOL they’re a group of solicitors oh law cover so that’s uh the professional indemnity insurances for uh Mahony law the outcome of this matter has bearing on mr mahony’s personal interest and a claim previously filed so we previously filed and it’s attached YPOL are the lawyers acting on the record for law cover. those proceedings are to follow resolution of the paligaru matter and realizing of a loss so john mahony said well why would we bankrupt ralph uh we we just want to bring it to an end this has been going on for five years, that’s good enough reason. the court process is under the summons are we say to gain a collateral advantage to the instructions instructing solicitor so this is a responsible this is the conduct rules 21.1.4. a solicitor must not do that that must not use the coercive powers of the court to gain a commercial advantage

a solicitor must take all necessary steps to correct a false statement to an opponent

must not knowingly make a false statement to the opponent

dealing with others must not make statements which grossly exceed the the legitimate assertion of the rights of his client or mislead or intimidate someone, well we’re going to sue you

let’s not threaten disciplinary proceedings against the other person must not use tactics that go beyond legitimate advocacy to embarrass or frustrate another person okay blackmail and terror tactics let’s go back and listen to that so this is this is addressed to me, he knows that uh garry talks to me he didn’t know probably that i was listening in but let’s let’s continue on and keep in mind these uh you know you can’t do things to mislead or intimidate or uh threaten uh criminal or disciplinary proceedings like in other words when you write back to the law society as uh john mahony did

knowing that uh i’m a law student have a

listen

Mahony: his marriage is basically finished- his family is doing um in fiji

but he is safe and making money in Fiji and living the life of Riley.

Why would he come back if you guys bankrupt him here?

So it is – this is all Smith doing because he is a bull at a gate and he is using blackmail for terror tactics and that’s – that’s his modus operandi we understand that- that’s why he will never be a lawyer.

But the fact is he is killing you and

I don’t give a f*ck about Smith but you are my mate.

mark’s killing you. collecting collecting money for a money lender is killing garry

now you’ve just heard garry said well i’ve got i’ve got a lawyer called tim but he’s still he goes on and makes all these representations after he knew two minutes ago that uh he had a lawyer who’s his biggest big [ __ ] as mark smith

Mahony: I want to look after you.

I’ll work with Ralph…

i want to look after you gary. i’ll work with ralph to make sure even though he hasn’t paid he hasn’t made his payments since 2016 i’ll work with him representation i’m making a representation

Mahony: I’ll work with Ralph to make sure he pays but ….

I’ll work with Ralph – to make sure he pays. Let’s go back and listen to that again. You’re my mate.

Mahony: I’ll work with Ralph to make sure he pays as long as he knows he’s not going to go bankrupt so whenever you’re trying to bankrupt him this is another act of bankruptcy by the way section 40 of the bankruptcy act uh if you tell if you if you send your lawyer in to bat for you and say uh ralph’s not paying unless you tell smith to pull his friggen head in

Garry: He won’t go bankrupt, he won’t go bankrupt.
Mahony: No he will- he will on the middle of march certainly mid-march smith will go full steam ahead

that’s why i am spending hours of my time now to stop this thing dead… um-

Garry: Okay I’ll have- I’ll have a talk he won’t go for sure

You’ll have to come back to me really quick because otherwise we are going to have to turn our counsel on you i bet you copy that agreement too.

I’ll get you a copy of that agreement too

Yeah beautiful yeah – i mean i appreciate that it has been assigned

we have probably agreed on- i’m sure that is the case- but you need to speak to Smith and make him pull out of this

you need to speak to smith and make him pull out make him he’s got a judgment of the supreme court but we’re leaning on you gary remember that hundred and six hundred and fifteen thousand from 2016 you need to tell smith Mahony: if he doesn’t do this voluntarily and If i dont hear by the end of the week the barristers will be prepared to claim … because we’re just going to have to file

if you don’t make smith go away the barristers are going to claim against you garry, not smith you okay talk to you soon

Garry: there you go you got it straight from the horse’s mouth so we’re going to end that part there that speaks for itself and i’ll wrap up in a separate video in a moment well what did what did you reckon about that uh have you had any experiences with uh john mahony has he acted for you has he acted against you uh are you another lawyer uh do you have you found mr mahony good to deal with uh have you had a different experience uh i’d really love to hear from you uh on our website uh you’ll see just over my shoulder here um it’s got our it’s got our web page uh

www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast and we’ve got an instant message chat tool which is down in the bottom uh right of the screen and you can chat with us and uh we would really love to hear from you or you could give us a call anytime 1300 327 123 we’d really like to talk to you um if maybe maybe you’re also a client and uh you had some involvement in um 632 old northern road or you’ve owed money by anyone that we’ve mentioned today um it could be i don’t know i don’t know what the circumstances are but we would love to hear some more so we’d love to continue the conversation www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast um my name’s mark smith you can ring us anytime if you’ve got any questions uh you’ve got any comments uh again we’d love to hear thank you very much for tuning in season 1 episode 5 of the many r’s podcast

For more information – chat with us live using our instant chat tools (bottom corners), book an appointment or call now on 1300-327123 (till late).

To contact us with any tip-offs, files or information – please use the instant chat tools or form below:

Amreeta Paligaru – profile

amreeta paligaru

Amreeta Paligaru is the wife of Ralph Paligaru, the former employee of Mohan Kumar aka Chhota Rajan aka Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje.

Amreeta is the 50% shareholder in Dural Alliances Pty Ltd (in liquidation).

Amreeta‘s lawyer is John Mahony of Mahony Law – also the lawyer for Craig Adams, Bargo Developments, Mohan Kumar and possibly others?

Amreeta is the brother of Davendar Deodiscussed elsewhere on this blog.

Amreeta, Ralph and their company Dural Alliances borrowed the sum of $540,000 from Franklin Yeezy Holdings Pty Ltd to loan to Craig Adams. Amreeta entered later entered into a document entitled Deed of Forbearance – click here to view.

Fact Check

… I have nothing to do with Mr. Kumar, Dural etc. I don’t understand why we are on your blogs?

Amreeta Paligaru, 16 February 2021, WhatsApp, 10.06pm.

Amreeta messaged me a number of times this evening (16/2/2021) through Whatsapp, Facebook and on other platforms, amongst other things writing:

… I have nothing to do with Mr. Kumar, Dural etc. I don’t understand why we are on your blogs.

Is this true?

According to clause 5 of the Schedule, Ralph Paligaru warrants that effectively he and Amreeta borrowed $540,000 against their own family home ….

so as to benefit Mohan Kumar as his principal.

Amreeta must have known that she either did or did not enter into the Franklin Yeezy borrowings “to benefit Mohan Kumar”?

Ultimately, Amreeta (and Ralph) received $500,000 of Mr. Kumar’s money in the Kesinda proceedings which they applied toward’s legal expenses from the Kesinda proceedings with a sum in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (of Mr. Kumar’s funds) used to reduce Ralph & Amreeta‘s own mortgage.

The writer finds this puzzling?

Puzzling?

Why does Amreeta (and Ralph) need to borrow $540,000 (at 6% a month) just to benefit Mohan Kumar?

Mohan Kumar was the unpaid vendor of the property at 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural – owed $4m by Craig Adams.

Why if Amreeta (and Ralph) wanted to benefit Mohan Kumar didn’t they just work to get Craig Adams to pay the $4m of unpaid vendor money?

If Amreeta (and Ralph) wanted to benefit Mohan Kumar, why didn’t they just enter a JV in Mohan Kumar‘s own name with Craig Adams for the proposed private hospital?

Did Ralph hold the Heads of Agreement between himself and Craig Adams on trust for the benefit of Mohan Kumar?

Mr. Kumar is and was at the time a foreigner.

According to the warranty above, Ralph says he (and presumably Amreeta) entered the arrangements with Craig Adams to borrow $540,000 from Franklin Yeezy using their own house as security

… “so as to benefit Mohan Kumar ...”?

Does this seem believable to anyone? Let us know below your thoughts?

But again – Amreeta writes:

… I have nothing to do with Mr. Kumar, Dural etc. I don’t understand why we are on your blogs?

What next?

How would you rate your experiences with Amreeta Paligaru?

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:

TC Yasa hits Dreketi Timber Mill

Regrettably, Tropical Cyclone Yasa hit the Dreketi Timber Mill hard. Parts are clearly in ruins. Its ability to trade on is unknown.

Dreketi Timber Mill is owned by Taiwan Timber Fiji in liquidation.

Ralph Paligaru, through Mills Management (Fiji) Pte Ltd over the land and ruins.

If you have other photos please upload them using the form below or using the instant chat tools in the bottom right corner.

take our free Business Health Check and receive bespoke, obligation free advice suited to your needs within minutes.

Otherwise – click here to book a free appointment, call me anytime on 1300-327123 (till late), or click the chat tool – bottom right corner to instant chat now

Thanks, Mark Smith, Director

Westpac v Ollis – Victims

About the Victims: Watch this space

Employer/Department Then: Watch this space

Employer Now: Watch this space

Key Facts: Watch this space

Key Relationships: Watch this space

Key Dates: Watch this space

Key Documents: Watch this space

Any Contradictory Factual Circumstances: Watch this space