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 – S1E7

The Many R’s Podcast – S1E7

0:01 Introduction

0:33 Recap – what is the Many R’s Podcast about?

1:18 Where are we?

1:30 personal update

1:49 Lockdown, Insolvency, Jobkeeper, Jobsaver, Services NSW

2:41 Bunnings Gift Cards

2:59 Hakan Kutup

3:24 Matthew James Taunton / Abel Agency / Wiseberry Real Estate Box Hill NSW.

4:08 Gregory John Walker – The Archibald Gosford, his receiver, 131MVR

4:35 Caernarvon Cherry / Bonny Glen Fruits Pty Ltd (in Liquidation), Bernard & Fiona Hall

4:59 AFSL – Snowgums Hospitality Fund (Orange NSW), Snowgums Heritage Blog

https://www.snowgumsretreat.com/categ…

https://www.dcpartners.solutions/snow…

6:53 Ralph Paligaru update

7:04 Mohan Kumar / Chhota Rajan update

12:55 Dural Alliances Pty Ltd (in liquidation), Ralph Paligaru, Bargo Developments, Australasian Property Group Pte Ltd etc – litigation funding update.

15:05 APG / Ian Jordan / Ralph Paligaru, Dreketi Timber Mill

17:02 Ralph Paligaru – Bankruptcy update

20:14 wrap up – Mohan Kumar / Chhotta Rajan, Dreketi Timber Mill, Ralph Paligaru, Craig Adams – what to expect in S1 Episode 8.

21:20 how to contact us

21:30 credits

Podcast – homepage – click here.

Transcript:

rogues rascals reviewables rorts rip-offs receivers real estate agents and much much more. the many R’s podcasts, it’s about a whole bunch of R’s – season 1 episode 7 i’m your host mark smith from dc partner solutions. come and visit us on our website anytime www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast

otherwise give us a call 1-300-327-123, until late usually, we love talking to people or you can instant message chat with us in our website www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast
bottom right hand corner use the instant message chat tools. thank you and welcome all right so let’s just have a quick recap about what is the many rs podcast is about and it’s certainly about uh all the rat bags and rogues and rip-off artists and sometimes about some receivers some real estate agents some uh some rackets uh and the likes but uh we’re certainly here to have a look at uh some corporate villains uh there hasn’t been so many travel rip-offs lately so uh so that’s good because we can’t travel anywhere um government malfeasance well that nothing’s uh specifically come onto our radar, so there’s nothing there to talk about some iffy lawyers we’re going to get into uh a little bit of that a little bit later on um insurance racketeers uh all sorts of racketeers and awards uh bankers and receivers well uh i don’t think we’ve got anything in this specific episode to talk about racketeers banks and receivers so let’s move on to where are we uh we’re going to have a look at some of the specific things that are on our mind at the moment. so uh as i’ve mentioned in some of the other episodes … i’ve really got a squeaky chair um i love the squeaky chair it gets the oil …. um but it has been a massive year for me personally uh it’s been obviously this covered thing but i’ve just completed my juris doctor to go with my masters of business administration and i’ve now embarked on to practical legal training and uh i’m 1/6 th of the way through that so that’s so that’s quite exciting uh. what isn’t exciting is a lockdown, and one gets the feeling that there’s going to be all sorts of things that will become themes in coming months the lock down this uh undoubtedly there’s reports every night on the news about small business suffering um and uh so i guess what that means is insolvency and that just happens to be a space that um we are really we’ve been very interested for a long time in insolvency and pre-insolvency company structuring, corporations law and so on so um with uh certainly with my MBA – the master of business administration –
i’m sure uh we can offer some valuable insights so if you’ve got a problem uh involving any of these things: the lockdown, insolvency, job keeper, the ato, tax debts – you name it, services NSW, oh my gosh uh getting funds out of them well it’s just obviously it’s it must be a honeypot for all of these things so um and yeah look sure that probably slows the process down for the the honest business people so uh watch for this to be a theme in coming weeks, now um bunnings gift cards.
um it’s probably not the uh uh not the number one rort that comes to mind but uh you know we’ll be doing a very small episode / segment on the bunnings gift card rort (soon) and uh that is uh it is absolutely rubbish it is a rubbish that’s that’s. and we catch with Hakan Kutup, our great mate from season 1 episode 1 um i i had a look uh just to see exactly what jail he’s in and uh no one knows um well you can’t find out off the uh services you know what the correctional services website yeah Hakan’s got privacy anyway um look a bit of an update on our buddy hakan, um there’s been orders for the sale well um for possession of his house so um but uh he’s got the uh covered reprieve so that one’s coming up now we’ve got another budding um um matthew james taunton now whether he’s a budding he can’t cut up or not uh time will tell but um matthew james taunton from abel agency uh was called wiseberry uh at uh box hill uh that box hill is in the northwestern suburbs of uh sydney well this matthew james taunton is one to watch so if you’ve had any dealings with matthew james taunton uh drop us a uh a message on the instant chat tool www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast we’d love to hear your thoughts on matthew james taunton now make sure we put up a matthew james taunton fan club page uh abel agency or wiseberry real estate so he’s our real estate star of the month um our former centerfold if you like gregory john walker nothing to report there actually i think greg’s been a a very good boy uh of late so um uh well the only thing i’ve got to report is that um one of his uh one of his receivers had a huge loss so uh greg walker the archibald uh project up in uh gosford they might actually uh that might actually go ahead so good on you mr walker um Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd uh Bonny Glen Fruits Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and uh bernard and fiona hall well just the very quickest of updates there um uh they had a two-day session in front of the chief judge in equity um in the NSW supreme court uh there so uh look i’ve heard various things and uh you know apparently it was a apparently it was sensational so uh watch this space um AFSL we’re going to touch on that now we’re actually uh i’m living out in Orange, NSW. i think i’ve mentioned that a number of times and loving it out here it’s been very cold um and for those that are interested i do have a heritage blog that you can um that you can uh have a look at so i think you i’ll make sure i throw in a link uh down below um on youtube uh it’s called the snowgum’s heritage blog https://www.snowgumsretreat.com/category/snowgums-blog

or something so uh maybe you just type in mark smith snow gums or something and uh and a podcast so it’s a video podcast series and uh what’s been going on anyway um look we we’re under our ifs we’re actually very seriously uh going to put up a uh a hospitality fund uh it’s uh it’s going to be extremely low risk uh real estate based we’ve got some well it won’t just be uh hospitality i suspect but anyway we’ve um expressed a few interest bits of interest in a couple of uh projects uh here in orange and um look there’s no there’s no tourism just at the moment and uh like none uh obviously because of code but there are i’m convinced absolutely wonderful opportunities uh we ran on airbnb here at um uh snow guns and uh for those that are interested uh send me a message uh instant message chat tool uh bottom right hand corner um uh dc partners dot solutions slash snow gums there you go i’ll make sure that there’s a page up and you can uh you know you can park some dollars now you have to be a sophisticated or wholesale investor um to participate so it’s not open to retail mum and dads but um uh and look honestly the returns are probably going to be fairly low this is very low risk but there may well be some good capital returns and uh some capital uh some capital growth oranges for those that well i’ll make sure that we put up a whole bunch of links but uh unsurprisingly uh regional australia is apparently booming uh so um uh the demand to get out of sydney and melbourne and brisbane uh is is gigantic so i’ll make sure i put in every link i can think of if you want to see a copy of our information memorandum www.dcpartners.solutions/snowgums

and uh we’ll make sure that you can see that so all right and moving along uh we now move on to one of our very favorite rs and that’s ralph ralph paligaru but not to be outdone uh john mahony, mohan kumar um and chhota rajan now chhota rajan is uh ralph’s best buddy um ralph will go to uh ralph will get in the trenches for uh his those he loves and uh boy does he love this mohan kumar bloke so ralph paligaru he holds a power of attorney for mohan kumar but who’s mohan kumar you might ask well mohan kumar was a bloke that entrusted ralph with his fortune known as 632 old northern road at dural and uh mohan kumar’s lawyer was none other than uh the illustrious uh and most experienced uh john mahony from mahony lawyer uh or is it mahony lawyers um and anyway uh mr um mr mohan kumar hopped on a plane at um in october 2015 and uh landed in um denpasar in bali and waiting there was interpol upon arrival and uh he was uh subsequently extradited off to india um and apparently uh apparently according to interpol uh mohan kumar is uh is in fact a guy called chhota rajan well um so that’s a bit of excitement for you uh not every day you uh you you get to talk about fugitives and ralph is besties with a fugitive and um well chhota rajan made all sorts of news uh in a few months ago he um after episode 6 i think it was uh he caught covered which is a real problem because um uh you know if you’re uh if you’re dead um ralph paligaru can’t be your power of attorney and uh who knows whether mohan kumar has a has a will i mean who knows so mohan kumar is um allegedly chhota rajan i don’t know i’ve never met i can i’ve met uh john mahony i have met ralph paligaru i’ve never been to india i don’t know i’ve never talked to mohan kumar i have no idea if mohan kumar is chhota rajan but interpol people think so and um well uh chhota rajan was um diagnosed with covid19 when all the india problems were you know the thick of things so i imagine poor old ralph had a few sleepless nights because uh with the assistance of john mahony uh john francis mahony of uh uh mahony law or mahony law ralph paligaru is in um the supreme court of new south wales running a court case saying that um uh mohan kumar has been cheated out of millions and millions of dollars now i don’t know whether the um john mahony is you know as a super experienced uh lawyer and i’m sure he’s completely on top of the felons civil procedure uh civil proceedings act uh and the civil proceedings act says well you know if you’ve been convicted of a crime oh now chhota rajan now this could all be a terrible uh case of mistaken identity but uh mohan kumar is being held under the name of who’s not chhota rajan but we’ll just call him chhota rajan that’s um ralph c mohan’s power of attorney he’s being held in a uh the biggest prison in um uh in india apparently with all the uh the top fugitives and um uh

that that does not stop john mahony and um ralph paligaru seeking justice justice for mohan kumar and they’ve uh they’ve decided uh to sue the torrens assurance fund ralph paligaru gave away the title deeds to 632 old northern road to our great mate craig adams craig matthew adams of golden arrow and bargo developments not to forget that he borrowed personally i was at about 1.6 million dollars from australasian property group but anyway ralph gave away just handed on a platter uh the title deeds to 632 old northern road to his great mate craig matthew adams now it’s unsurprising that he would do this because uh craig matthew adams yeah well craig matthew adams and uh ralph paligaru have a very secret side deal uh where ralph gets a 20 interest in a private hospital not bad not bad so um uh ralph also um i can’t neglect to to mention real estate agents jon brookes from brookes partners um now uh jon brookes from brookes partners is an old buddy of ralph’s and so ralph uh gives the listing he’s a power of attorney he has the entitlement to uh uh enter a listing agreement but he enters a listing agreement ralph does where ralph gets a kickback uh is it um look i i i’ve gone vague on the um on the details but uh it’s uh it’s a property that’s sold uh for allegedly 5.5 million dollars in um in may of 2016. and uh ralph hands over the title deeds to his great mate um and uh 80 confidential joint venture partner um craig matthew adams uh and in return um uh he expects a kickback from uh brooke’s partners um now he doesn’t get one but he expects one and uh ralph even asked me to go and sue um he gave me the the debt and said go off and sue if you wouldn’t mind go off and sue jon brooks from brookes partners and so anyway it’s a long story um ralph’s not a uh not a real estate agent but uh he’s a businessman uh according to his um affidavits ralph is a businessman and ralph’s the type of businessman that uh can turn six million dollars into well five and a half million dollars into uh 1.5 million dollars he’s that type of businessman uh not to forget the dreketi timber mill in fiji.
uh which is uh defunct now and um anyway um all of this apparently uh entitles i’d have to i’m not a lawyer so um or not yet anyway i’m a graduate with a um a juris doctor and i’m studying uh um practical legal training sorry i’ve gone blank there so i’m not john mahony i don’t have his wisdom and uh i don’t know how uh that’s all the fault of the torrens insurance fund handing craig adams the title deeds and handing him um uh withdrawals of caveat and all the rest but anyway apparently that is the um that is the fault of the torrens assurance fund and so uh a fugitive uh apparently uh called mohan

kumar ought to receive millions and millions and millions of dollars from the torrens assurance fund well not to be outdone ralph and amreeta paligaru have also got their hands out and they’re seeking um uh i don’t know hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars i suppose for themselves so uh that’s what ralph’s been up to um now he’s defunct company uh called dural alliances pty ltd (in liquidation). uh you may remember ralph put up his um family home uh and borrowed money $540,000 uh at 6% interest a month uh it’s really exciting uh to do that it’s thrilling and hair raising and all the rest uh and then just to add to the um uh excitement uh well why wouldn’t you give that $540,000 to craig matthew adams because um australasian property group apg that’s uh maya and ian jordan that’s their company from singapore well they’ve given um craig matthew adams at 1.6 million or maybe it’s 1.5 million as a personal loan, unsecured. i mean wow um so anyway that turns into that turns magically now they didn’t have john mahony as a lawyer they had the wonderful uh excellent multinational law firm called baker mckenzie and now i’m certainly not saying that john mahony is in the same class as baker mckenzie but anyway maybe they’re who knows anyway well bargo uh bargo uh got wound up as did golden arrow so unfortunately um ralph’s $540000 he’s gone but the 6% interest a month bill that’s still there and uh so that’s that’s when we come to the bankruptcy update a little bit further down below but anyway um so uh golden arrow and bargo are in liquidation and uh i’ll make sure we publish uh i’ll give you a look at the uh the the documents uh there was a wonderful creditors meeting i went to uh a couple of weeks ago in um my telephone uh that’s what you do in the Covid19 era and um well uh the liquidator of golden arrow & bargo has a giant fat uh pile of money now to go litigation funding and to get back uh ralph’s $540,000  except uh you know that went to apg and apg uh as i said they didn’t have john mahony as a lawyer they had uh baker mckenzie and they were able to turn a private loan into a secured interest for no consideration in a wonderful piece of land in warriewood and they happened to jump the queue uh in front of poor old ralph and only to the tune of $540,000 uh and uh they also got they jumped the queue and i think they walked out with $700,000 for of bargo’s money for no consideration how how wonderful is that so that’s what you get with baker mckenzie i mean they are geniuses um so uh apg uh is that’s australian property group ian jordan and maya i cannot pronounce her surname but uh wonderful lady i’ve met them both i’ve sat in their board room in singapore and uh they are high flyers in fact merrill lynch or kkr or one of those mobs are their investors and these guys are very bright and haven’t they got wonderful lawyers so uh heading off to drake timbermill now um i don’t know how uh ralph’s i can’t give you any updates because of covid it’s just been terrible but um uh dreketi timber mill uh had the unfortunate um adventure event of a cyclone smashing it to bits and i don’t know whether uh there was any sleepless nights for ian jordan because he and jordan uh from australasian property group the same bloke that uh loaned uh craig matthew adams was at 1.5 or 1.6 million dollars unsecured and then turned that into a security interest in mohan kumar’s uh i mean this is the most incestuous … you know in crazy story but anyway it gets even crazier ralph uh and ian jordan head off to fiji and go and start a company um and uh so ian jordan (an aussie)
from singapore decides to go to fiji because he’s always wanted to uh and started going to business with ralph and i’m sure that it had absolutely no nothing to do with the $700,000 that apg walked out for um of bargo’s money that once upon a time once upon a time was uh part of mohan kumar’s fortune well you know it’s a very sad and tragic story well maybe uh now once the lockdown’s over ralph has um it’s today’s friday the 13th friday the 13th of august will ralph has been repatriated back to australia apparently ?

i’m not in sydney i haven’t been able to catch up with my great mate ralph but maybe ralph and ian jordan can um can talk about their joint venture business in fiji uh how things are going and ralph may be able to commiserate with apg about uh having to face the having to hand back the 1.6 million or 1.5 million of uh preference monies uh allegedly that they’ve got uh from craig matthew adams and bargo and golden arrow so uh it’s all very very exciting. uh bankruptcy update now i can’t say too much uh because this is before the courts but uh maybe i can just say as a matter of fact um ralph uh ralph has signed a uh consent judgment so he uh consented to the to the entry of a judgment uh in the event he didn’t pay back money and uh surprise surprise ralph didn’t pay back money so anyway he he borrowed a whole heap of money from uh reliance leasing who have a wonderful director a man called garry steinberg who um garry has been very near to my heart in um in past years and uh what could i say ralph has known garry longer than me so that is a fact and so look maybe in the next episode we’ll we’ll talk about some of the past tricks oh well just what i can say about the bankruptcy it’s been held up so ralph borrowed a whole bunch of money from reliance leasing and gary steinberg in august well now it goes back to like 2012 or 2011 or sometime then it was … is that a decade ago??? i mean anyway um so come august 2016 gets rolled over correction ralph and the amreeta and they come ah i guess their company uh i think so i think the company is called ralph paligaru proprietary limited or something like that and uh and there’s another r and uh ralph ran a photocopying business and uh so ralph was really good at um

imaging. let’s just put it that way ralph was very good at imaging. and um well we might have to wait until episode 8 to find out some of the details. coming back to the bankruptcy update um as i said uh ralph and garry steinberg have known each other for longer than i have. okay so um i met ralph in march of 2017. i met garry uh i guess in probably 2014 and uh well thereabouts maybe 13 14 15. sometime there so let’s say four days i’d say it was 14. and um well for longer than that um uh ralph paligaru proprietary limited owed reliance leasing money so i imagine this is sort of ticking up interest and all the rest and anyway 2016 uh ralph gets a wonderful deal, miraculously.
around the same time ralph gets a wonderful interest-free loan i know all these details because they’ve been part of particulars that have been read in open court ralph can say interest-free loan in excess of $100,000 from 2016 and uh it’s interest-free for one year provided that you pay the money back okay so uh otherwise it becomes an 18 per annum loan well it’s now the 13th of august 2021. how much do you think ralph has paid back ralph hasn’t made?

there’s been some court ordered payments but ralph hasn’t made a single single monthly installment

and of course uh his wonderful lawyer mr mahony make has this incredible vanishing uh caveat trick so again i’m not a lawyer i haven’t been a lawyer for 40 years like john mahony, but john no doubt can explain that? and anyway let’s let’s catch up on this in episode 8 because it’s it’s a wonderful wonderful story but just to wet the appetite look i might pop up the um the judgment? and you can do some reading ahead if you like if you’re that keen so that’s it for uh episode series 1 season 1 episode 7 of the many r’s podcast.
um i hope you’ve had an excellent time if you’ve got any questions or you’ve got any information uh you’ve been to tihar jail you’ve heard of mohan kumar, you’re a fan of oh they’re making a movie they’re making a movie on chhota rajan apparently? so uh it’s some sort of uh underbelly series of you know fugitives in india so that’s all very exciting. if you know craig matthew adams if you know Dreketi timbermill? maybe maybe you’re one of the uh creditors of the dreketi timber mill maybe you shared some time with ralph in uh in iso in um what’s it called quarantine in hotel quarantine? uh does ralph owe you money? um and uh so ralph’s ralph’s milking the system uh brilliantly and uh and so managing to avoid uh bankruptcy for the time being so let’s let’s watch this space and let’s see uh we’ll learn in episode 8 about some of the tricks uh that maybe he got up to uh maybe you know a copy world at uh in um wherever it was seven hills (a suburb of sydney) i think it was uh maybe uh we’ll learn a little bit about that so thanks for tuning in and we’ll talk to you next time on the many r’s podcast. if you’ve got any questions as i said give us a call 1300 32713 or go to our uh bottom right hand corner instant message uh us or instant chat with us on www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast thank you

Bankruptcy Part X: Personal Insolvency Agreements (s188)

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 188

Debtor may authorise trustee or solicitor to be controlling trustee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       (2AA)  If the person authorised is a registered trustee or a solicitor, then, before the person consents to exercise the powers given by the authority, the person must give the debtor the information prescribed by the regulations.

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

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

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

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

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

          (2C)  If the person authorised is a registered trustee or solicitor, the authority signed by the debtor under this section is not effective for the purposes of this Part unless, before the person authorised consents to exercise the powers given by the authority, the debtor gives to the person authorised:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                     (a)  the authority; and

                     (b)  the debtor‘s statement of affairs;

to the Official Receiver.

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

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

More info on Bankruptcy?

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

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

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

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

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

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

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

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

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

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

bankruptcy

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

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

Acts of bankruptcy

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

… (ha)  if the debtor gives the Official Receiver a debt agreement proposal;

                   (hb)  if a debt agreement proposal given by the debtor to the Official Receiver is accepted by the debtor’s creditors;

                   (hc)  if the debtor breaches a debt agreement;

                   (hd)  if a debt agreement to which the debtor was a party (as a debtor) is terminated under section 185P, 185Q or 185QA;

                      (i)  if he or she signs an authority under section 188;

                      (j)  if a meeting of his or her creditors is called in pursuance of such an authority;

                     (k)  if, without sufficient cause, he or she fails to attend a meeting of his or her creditors called in pursuance of such an authority;

                      (l)  if, having been required by a special resolution of a meeting of his or her creditors so called to execute a personal insolvency agreement or to present a debtor’s petition, he or she fails, without sufficient cause:

                              (i)  to comply with the requirements of this Act as to the execution of the agreement by him or her; or

                             (ii)  to present a debtor’s petition within the time specified in the resolution;

                            as the case may be;

                    (m)  if a personal insolvency agreement executed by him or her under Part X is:

                              (i)  set aside by the Court; or

                             (ii)  terminated;

                     (n)  if a composition or scheme of arrangement accepted by the debtor’s creditors under Division 6 of Part IV is:

                              (i)  set aside by the Court; or

                             (ii)  terminated;

                     (o)  if the debtor becomes insolvent as a result of one or more transfers of property in accordance with:

                              (i)  a financial agreement (within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975); or

                             (ii)  a Part VIIIAB financial agreement (within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1975);

                            to which the debtor is a party.

             (2)  In calculating for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(d)(i) the period for which property has been held by the sheriff, any time between the date on which an interpleader summons in respect of the property is taken out and the date on which the proceedings on the summons are finally disposed of, settled or discontinued shall not be taken into account.

             (3)  For the purposes of paragraph (1)(g):

                     (a)  where leave is given by a court to enforce an award made on a submission to arbitration, being an award under which money is payable by a debtor to another person:

                              (i)  the award shall be deemed to be a final order obtained by that person against the debtor; and

                             (ii)  the arbitration proceedings shall be deemed to be the proceeding in which that final order was obtained;

                     (b)  a judgment or order that is enforceable as, or in the same manner as, a final judgment obtained in an action shall be deemed to be a final judgment so obtained and the proceedings in which, or in consequence of which, the judgment or order was obtained shall be deemed to be the action in which it was obtained;

                     (d)  a person who is for the time being entitled to enforce a final judgment or final order for the payment of money shall be deemed to be a creditor who has obtained a final judgment or final order;

                     (e)  a judgment or order for the payment of money made by the Court in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it by this Act shall be deemed to be a judgment or order the execution of which has not been stayed notwithstanding that it may not be enforceable at law by execution; and

                      (f)  an order made after the commencement of this paragraph under the Family Law Act 1975 for the payment by a person of arrears of maintenance for another person shall be deemed to be a final order against the first‑mentioned person obtained by the other person.

             (4)  The act of bankruptcy specified in paragraph (1)(j) shall be deemed to be committed on the day on which the notices calling the meeting are delivered or sent to the creditors or, if they are not all delivered or sent on the one day, on the day on which the last of the notices is so delivered or sent.

             (5)  The act of bankruptcy specified in paragraph (1)(l) shall be deemed to be committed on the day after the day on which the period within which the agreement is required to be executed by the debtor or the period within which the petition is required to be presented, as the case may be, expires.

             (6)  The act of bankruptcy specified in paragraph (1)(m) shall be deemed to be committed on the day on which the agreement is set aside or terminated, as the case may be.

             (7)  The act of bankruptcy specified in paragraph (1)(n) shall be deemed to be committed on the day on which the composition or scheme of arrangement is set aside or terminated.

          (7A)  For the purposes of paragraph (1)(o):

                     (a)  transfer of property includes a payment of money; and

                     (b)  a person who does something that results in another person becoming the owner of property that did not previously exist is taken to have transferred the property to the other person.

             (8)  This section applies, so far as it is capable of application, in relation to acts and things done or occurring, and omissions and failures to do acts or things occurring, before, or partly before and partly after, the commencement of this Act, as well as to acts and things done or occurring, and omissions and failures to do acts and things occurring, after the commencement of this Act.

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

Need finance?

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

More info on Bankruptcy?

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

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

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

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

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

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

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

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

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

Transcript

welcome back to business asset protection, mark smith is  my name. we’re up to part seven just of section 40 of the bankruptcy act, and there is we’re looking at acts of bankruptcy and there is heaps and heaps of these acts of bankruptcy and to be honest we could go for a week and and still probably not get through them all so today we’re just going to smash through the rest of them from section 40(1)(ha)
all the way through to section 40(8)
and there’s a lot to get through so strap on your seatbelt and here we go. well here we are section 40(1) of the bankruptcy act. a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases …. now we’ve gone through a b c d e a double d a d e f g h and we’re now up to section HA if the debtor gives and look i’m sorry this will take we’ve got ages to go we’ve all got to go all the way down to h and i’m going to just skim through these and i apologize it is a skim if you’ve got any questions at all come to our website bottom right hand corner dcpartners.solutions and chat with us and what does part 2 of section 40 of the bankruptcy act what does section part 8  know mean? so by all means i understand it’s a scheme we’ll just go through these as quickly as we can and we’ll get through and any questions you’ll come come and talk to me offline we’re available anytime chat with us using the chat tools or call us on 1-300-327-123 now let’s have a look at section ha if a debtor gives the official receiver that’s a mob called afsa afsa.gov.ou a debt agreement so there are these are acts of bankruptcy and once you commit them you cannot go back from them, so very very important that you know that it is an act of bankruptcy and then you know that the what the consequences might be so a debt agreement now we’ll look at debt agreements later in our coverage of the bankruptcy act we’re only looking at what are acts of bankruptcy. so if you’ve got any questions about debt agreements or any of the other things that you come across coming through the rest of this particular video message me offline. hb if a debt agreement proposal is given by the debtor to the official receiver so again official receiver is afsa.gov.au this is out and it’s accepted by your creditors well that’s an act of bankruptcy as well so giving and then if you breach that hc if you breach that well another act of bankruptcy if and so these can you can see that these can accumulate so you might commit an act by giving the official receiver hi giving the official receiver debt agreement proposal but then if you breach it there’s another act of bankruptcy and so you can see that all of these ongoing acts a creditor if you don’t keep your end of the bargain hey credit i can use that against you in a creditor’s petition and we are going to have a look at creditors petitions that’s why we need to wrap this up if you hc if the debtor breaches a debt agreement well there you go that is a an act of bankruptcy hd if a debt agreement to which the party the debtor party was a party is terminated. so if you cease your obligations under that agreement another act. I – if he or she signs an authority under section 188 we’ll look at one section 188 now at the bottom of this particular blog or maybe it’s right at the very top of the of www.dcpartners.solutions of the particular blog that you might be looking at on on on this video you’ll see a link to section 188 so a tag a tag and so you can go and there’s a tag for date agreement there’s a tag for acts of bankruptcy so if you want to go back and see all the different extra bankruptcy use those tags aye did we look at that if he or she signs an authority under section 188 so what does that mean we’ll go to the tag above and look at the section 188 comments now at the moment there is no section 188 comments but they’re coming so this is a ongoing process. J if a meeting of his or her creditors is called in pursuance of such an authority. some of these things might make a bit more sense using the tags K if without sufficient cause he or she fails to attend a meeting of his or her creditors in pursuance of such an authority. so are you getting the gist that once you once you’re into this process of a formal process of insolvency, there are a number of potential acts of bankruptcy that can be used and no 99% of the acts of bankruptcy that are relied on in the courts is the failure under under a bankruptcy notice that’s s40(1)(g) – 99% we’ll just go back up to that 99% maybe 98% of the ones where someone does go bankrupt, happen when happened when you’ve issued a bankruptcy notice and a demand here … ralph plays $106,551 and they fail okay so 99 98 are of that kind. the other 2% percent as i said relate to some of these i guess more obscure methods of committing acts of bankruptcy and they are nevertheless acts of bankruptcy which the courts can use to issue what’s called a sequestration order. so that’s a new concept and there’s a tag above not on youtube but on our web page so go to our web page dcpartners.solutions and this particular blog has a tag for what a sequestration so there will be more and more of these posts and blogs and explanations about sequestration and other other things l where did we get to sorry did we get to k? L if having been required by a special resolution of meeting me of a meeting of his or her creditors to execute a personal insolvency agreement and then you fail.
m if a personal insolvency agreement executed by you is set aside by court or if you if it’s terminated or it’s … well it it means that once you’re in you can go to the next there can be a further consequence okay. it’s bankruptcy don’t get me wrong it can provide a lot of protection and a lot of yeah i guess the protection is one way to look at it a relief it can offer relief to a to a debtor who accepts that they have unmanageable debts if you only go part way in and you do one of these part X agreements again up above look at the part X tag and if you want to look at more content if you go part way in it can accelerate you can go to there can be further acts of bankruptcy and that can have consequences. N if a composition or scheme of arrangements. scheme of arrangements we can’t possibly explain all of this one bit at a time but if you’ve got a question again use the tags call us 1300 327123 or instant chat with us using the tool in the bottom corner in if a composition or scheme of arrangement executed under division six of part four is set aside. all these different concepts. again these tags should help you. O if the debtor becomes insolvent as a result of one or more transfers under the family law act so if you’re again if you can’t pay your debts because you’ve gone through a divorce that can be an act of bankruptcy you’ve got to be very very very careful and it may not even be a divorce you you have a these financial binding agreements, so these are prenups these can get you into trouble as well. so an act of bankruptcy is you transfer out your your assets to your spouse. your wife your husband your whatever your companion. and these can have very serious consequences so much so that you could find your entire estate your entire estate is subject to a sequestration order possibly affecting your spouse. like the we we can’t look at all the powers right now but the powers are immense so let’s go on to now on to part two so this is section 40(2) … a person commits an act of bankruptcy oh no now these are not where you commit them but these explain a little bit further about the above acts so in calculating part two in calculating for the purposes of section 40(1)(d)(i) … the period of which that was where the sheriff turns up and attempts to sell your goods your channels and maybe your property these can be an act of bankruptcy so if you find you’re in one of these positions either someone owes you money or you owe someone else any money by all means instant chat with us using the tool or call us 1300-327123 section three well part 3 for the purposes of paragraph one g now that’s the one where someone issues a bankruptcy notice and gives you 21 days now it used to be 6 months during covid and you know there are a lot of ways that you can get around this all of these we we really can’t go through but there are ins and outs that’s what we will say ins and outs and a lot of complexity if you want us to explain it by all means give us a call 1300 327123

section 40(4) the the act of bankruptcy in paragraph 1j will be deemed to be committed now i’ll throw in a link to paragraph s40(1)(j) we’ve gone through that i think today i can’t remember all of these there are so many so look i think in wrapping up there is lots and lots and lots of complexity and again i think we probably best to say if you’re in in any position where the point is that there’s lots of risks in when you become insolvent or when you become under financial pressure there are lots and lots of risks and if you’re exposed to one of those risks and you attend a meeting you get a divorce there are many many risks and so probably the best thing to do if you if you think that you’re facing trouble give us a call 1-300-327-123 or use the chat tool bottom right hand corner www.dcpartners.solutions so we’re actually going to move on next probably here to bankruptcy notices and we’ll have a look at those and if you’ve got any questions by all means chat with us call us 1300 1-300-3273 or use the chat tools www.dcpartners.solutions …. thank you very much.

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

bankruptcy

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

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40(1)(d-h)

  

Acts of bankruptcy

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

                   (d)  if:

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

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

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

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

                     (e)  if, at a meeting of any of his or her creditors:

                              (i)  he or she consents to present a debtor‘s petition under this Act and does not, within 7 days from the date on which he or she so consented, present the petition; or

                             (ii)  he or she consents to sign an authority under section 188 and does not, within 7 days from the date on which he or she so consented, sign such an authority and inform the chair of the meeting, in writing, of the name of the person in whose favour the authority has been signed;

                      (f)  if, at a meeting of any of his or her creditors, he or she admits that he or she is in insolvent circumstances and, having been requested by a resolution of the creditors to bring his or her affairs under the provisions of this Act, he or she does not, within 7 days from the date of the meeting, either:

                              (i)  present a debtor‘s petition; or

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

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

Need finance?

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

More info on Bankruptcy?

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

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

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

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

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

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

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

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

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

Transcript

hi mark smith, here welcome back to business asset protection, today we’re having a further look at some other sections. now there are endless acts of bankruptcy maybe not endless but we’re looking at a number of them so we’re looking at today from about section 40(1)(d)-(h) of the bankruptcy act.

so sit back and enjoy. all right so let’s have a look at the section 40(1) of the bankruptcy act. so a debtor commits

as act of bankruptcy in each of the following so we’ve looked at a b c we’re well

we’re now in d and we’re going to look through to h we’ve already had a look at g and we’ll touch

on that briefly when we get there so you commit an act of bankruptcy on every one of these occasions

all right so let’s quickly go to section d

you commit an act of bankruptcy if that the sheriff turns up and tries to sell your stuff and it’s either sold but it hasn’t paid the debt so that’s that’s a section 40(1)(d). there’s a pardon me so there’s been a writ for possession of your goods and they’re either sold or held by the by the sheriff for more than 21 days so this has come back unsatisfied that’s that is the key they come back unsatisfied poor sheriffs this is fairly self-explanatory DAA. if the debtor’s prison well if you present your own debtors petition you are bankrupt that’s that’s an act of well sorry that’s an act of bankruptcy now even if it’s not accepted it is itself an act of bankruptcy d.a if the if the debtor presents a declaration so there is a way you can present this declaration and we can have a look at that in section 54A if you have a meeting of your creditors and it’s decided that even just having a meeting itself would be a well we’ll have a look so this is section 40 in brackets one in brackets e if at a meeting of his or her creditors he or she commits a commits to presented as a petition so if you come out publicly and say well it’s going to happen within seven days even if you don’t well that’s that’s going to be an act of bankruptcy or he or she can sense to sign an authority under section 188 and we’ll have a look at that a little bit later within seven days and if there’s minutes kept and that sort of thing and there’s a meeting chair and it’s all in writing well and you know there’s a vote of your creditors well so be it, that’s an act of bankruptcy. F now we’re not going to have a look at g but we are going to have a look at f if at a meeting of his or her creditors so this these are sort of sounding like you’re talking formally about being insolvent they are themselves an act of bankruptcy so we’ve had a meeting of his or her creditors he or she admits that he or she is in is in insolvent circumstances and having it doesn’t have to be the entire the entirety of your creditors we can have a look more closely at some of this case law or you’ve got any questions give us a call but if if you’ve been in one of these positions where you’ve had a meeting with your creditors or someone’s been in that position with you where they’ve had a meeting of their creditors and you’ve you know said that you will pass a resolution well these are all factors that point very very heavily as acts of of acts of bankruptcy so g. g now we have had a look at this if a creditor obtains a final judgment so we don’t get a judgment against ralph paligaru for $106,551 we serve him and he doesn’t pay he had six months that’s that is an act of bankruptcy there and then there can be some exceptions for instance where a notice was served in australia within a fixed time and the debtor does not does not comply with the requirements so the bankruptcy number said ralph you’ve got to pay $106,551 within 6 months so that’s actually very generous it’s now as it today today’s the 19th of april 2021. the average creditor gets 21 days and after 21 days you have you have committed an act of bankruptcy. so so where the dead or does not comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the court that he or she has a counter claim so yes well it’s not only that it’s a counter claim set off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt as the case may be THAT that he or she could not could not could not have set up in the action or proceedings in which the judgment was obtained so they had a counter claim and but they could not they couldn’t set up this counter claim so this is a little bit different and look finally finally we’ll have a look at now h. if he or she gives his or her creditors notice that he’s about to suspend payments of his or her debts so we’ve got this situation with mr paligaru and where he’s he’s given not necessarily every one of his creditors but possibly i can think of i can think of a couple who’s given notice and says well i’m not paying because i’m going bankrupt well there you go yeah you’ve committed an act of bankruptcy just then and there there are a few more of these, and we might have a look at that in a separate video this is obviously a technical space so what i do encourage people to do depending on their circumstances we’ve got health checks we’ve got questionnaires you can chat with us on our chat tools in the bottom right corner here of dcpartners.solutions we’d love you to be in contact with us you’ve got someone that owes you money or you owe them money we can help you on either side the debtors side or the creditor side we can give you advice on these pre-insolvency issues so it’s it’s really important what you say what you well you can see for yourself you attend a meeting and you pass resolutions you tell our creditors various things then we can talk through with you what some of your options are  ,

so we’ll have a look at some of the remaining acts of bankruptcy there are more there are even more and there’s plenty of ways there’s only 50 ways to leave your lover but i don’t know if there’s 50 ways that you can go bankrupt but we’re going to keep looking and thank you very much for joining in. got any questions, chat with us bottom corner here www.dcpartners.solutions use the chat tool or give us a ring 1300-327123 or you can email me mark@dcpartners.solutions. thanks very much bye

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

bankruptcy

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

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40(1)(b)

Acts of bankruptcy

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

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

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

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

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

                            (iv)  he or she begins to keep house;

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

Need finance?

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

More info on Bankruptcy?

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

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

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

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

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

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

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

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

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

Transcript

well, welcome back to business asset protection where today we’re having a look at the bankruptcy act. this is part four of our series today we’re looking at section 40 (1) (C) and different ways that a person might try to defeat or delay his or her creditors so come join us okay well here we are in section 40 (1)(C) and we’re looking at a a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following: so they’re all equal okay so if if someone gives you a bankruptcy notice for a hundred billion dollars and you don’t pay it well that that is equal to one act of bankruptcy section 40(1)(C) a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy and each in each of the following cases we’ll see as if with intent to defeat or delay his or her creditors well let’s have a look at this very closely so if , if so that’s the question if if with intent to defeat or delay his or her creditors okay so let’s have a really close look at this that’s section 40(1)(c) if we intend to delay to defeat to defeat which is final or to delay which just means it can only be temporary only has to be slight um his or her creditors in brackets one he or she departs or remains from australia so if you’ve departed um well that may be – that may be an event bankruptcy now it doesn’t it doesn’t automatically follow but there are some instances so you do you depart australia or you remain out of australia and and it comes down to – with intent to delay – or defeat his or her creditors. so again it’s not automatic um two he or she departs from his or her dwelling or usual house OR place of business so we’re gonna maybe actually have a quick look at some of this actual case law and we’ll see what it says. 3 he or she otherwise have since himself or herself so that can be you know from australia it could be from you know bondi if that’s where you um depart and you know you just go missing or number four if he or she begins or begins begins to keep house. again it doesn’t have to be permanent but that in itself just the beginning to keep house can can if with intent to defeat or delay his or her creditors he or she departs or remains out of australia he or she departs from his or her her dwelling house or usual place of business or so he or she departs his or her dwelling OR usual place of business so in other words you do a runner. all right well i’m just going to refer a little bit to this book that i’m reading and i think it’s really it’s quite complex it’s a little bit technical but i think if you’ll allow me to just um refer to this book i think you’ll get a little bit out of it um what is it what does it mean and what happens in these circumstances if one of these four tests is is present? that they departed or remain out of australia? departed from his or her home or usual place of business? as absenting himself or herself? or beginning to keep house that is to remain in one’s house now this is what keeping house means it means to remain in one’s house and refusing entry to others to serve a process so just that in itself could could easily be enough it’s not guaranteed you’ve got the covid virus and you’ve been told to quarantine that that would be a perfect excuse? if you’ve got cold or flu-like symptoms that too might be a reason temporarily so to keep house the onus is on yes so the creditor the person that’s trying to bankrupt um is has the owners to establish that the debtor’s intent is to delay or defeat okay so um it does not necessarily have to be the soul intent if it’s if it’s like a collateral attempt intent that that may well be enough um this can be proved directly through the use of statements so um for instance ralph wants to come back he’s choosing to be way you know these these inferences that you can be that can be drawn um use of statements by the debtor or indirectly or indirectly thanks john. um by inference by pro by proving the existence of circumstances which must necessarily cause delay. and which the detour must be presumed to have foreseen or intended to be to be or intended as a necessary result of what he or she was doing. so we could talk through some examples of this defeating or delaying a creditor need not be the debtor’s sole intent in leaving australia or remaining out of australia. now these these cases were pre-covid. so again there’s probably some argument to say well i’m remaining out of australia because it’s impossible to get back or i’d have to do two weeks quarantine like there may be some this there’s some grey here so um possibly so it need not be the need not be the sole intent as long as it’s an intent it’s not enough to simply show that the letters the debtor’s conduct has caused delay it has to be intent intention of delaying or defeating.
so it’s it’s a bit technical. i if you’re if you’re either one of in one of these two situations you’re the debtor and you’d like you know to talk through some of the options, we’ve got a pre-insolvency um we’ve got a pre-insolvency division / work and we can do this same work for the creditor so we can talk through and give you some advice on pre-insolvency issues um with quite a bit of precision um these things can be can be uh the absence is they can be an ongoing event of uh bankruptcy so uh it need not uh it could have started ten years ago um if if a person’s uh remaining out of australia because they know the moment they step back in the country uh something’s gonna happen well that in itself may be an event so there can be an ongoing or uh there’s a continuation um these are continuing acts of bankruptcy so we’re going to look at some of the other bits um of the act uh gradually throughout the series um there’s a time element um in in many of these so these can be an ongoing act uh and if you want to have a read of something case law i can make contact with me use our chat tools in dc partners dot solutions bottom right hand corner um of your screen uh there’s a chat tool so join us there um yeah so there is some case law uh if you want some you know general advice um now if you’ve got someone that’s in this position where uh you know they’re keeping house uh they are absent from australia uh they’re remaining outside of australia uh all these kinds of issues uh they’ve done a runner from their usual house um they’re not telling you where they are they’re not answering the phone they are answering the phone that they’re not they won’t tell you they want some of these uh actually.
matthew taunton there you go um uh refused to give us uh this is a guy we’re going to um mention and uh he’s he’s uh one of our villains. so you’ll you will find out uh he’s not there yet but uh he’s going onto our blog i promise you i promise you he’s going there so look uh these are some of the cases. um uh the technical as i said uh you want to talk through some of the different details give us a call 1300 327123 um if you’re in one of these positions and uh you need money uh but you know maybe you’ve got a temporary problem well we might still be able to help you 1300-327123 uh we’ve got uh tax debt um type uh facilities um you know if you’ve got a tax problem um and maybe you’re in that position where you’ve got the financial difficulty we we possibly can help you uh on either side of the fence uh the debtor site or the creditor site so give us a call 1-300-327-123 got any questions uh you can chat with us anytime uh www.dcpartners.solutions bottom right hand corner user check tools thanks very much

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

bankruptcy

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

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40(1)(b)

Acts of bankruptcy

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

(b)  if in Australia or elsewhere:

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

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

                            (iii)  he or she makes a payment; or

                            (iv)  he or she incurs an obligation;

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

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

Need finance?

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

More info on Bankruptcy?

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

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

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

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

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

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

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

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

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

Transcript

welcome back mark smith here from business asset protection we’re a division of dc partners solutions uh we’re having a look at s40 of the bankruptcy act. and we’re actually into part 3.

so today we’re looking at s40(1)(b) and we’re looking at transactions that are voidable against your future bankruptcy trustee.

okay so here we are in s40 and we’re going to be nice and familiar.

again if you’re looking at these make sure you’re looking at the most recently in force

version of the bankruptcy act 1966.

because it does change all the time. even if you google it you will probably come to the wrong version. so to get to that latest version, go to this series,
you can just click on view series and view the latest. and we’re going to administration proceedings there you go s40. so we’re looking at section today well we’re looking at s40(1)(b). so this is where a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy. in each of the following. so there’s many many many of these and this particular one we’re looking at today s40(1)(b). IF in australia or elsewhere he or she makes a conveyance. now we have a look at the definition of conveyance and i’ve got the definition up there for you to have another look at it’s it’s a way of disposing of or getting rid of makes a conveyance transfer settlement that may have a particular meaning. so we should we should look up a settlement,
uh or other disposition. so that leaves it very open. it’s another way of disposing of his or her property, or of any part. so you just get rid of the juices part. or a small part. or any part of his or her property. so it must be his or hers to begin with. and it’s disposed of um in australia or elsewhere you can be a timbuktu.

you could be on the moon. it wouldn’t matter where it was. so that’s only that’s only part one,

way number one. he or she creates a charge on his or her property. now here we go we looked at this in up. above we said that that wasn’t necessarily to do with security?
but here it’s where he or she creates a charge on his or her property? and we should again, very technical. but what is what does the word charge mean? we should have a look at this and i’ll try and pop that definition up over my shoulder. here so you can have a look. he or she makes a payment.

BROAD. or he or she incurs an obligation. so you go and borrow 100 million dollars when you know there’s no possible way that you could uh service it. so you get you charge on your property. you make a payment. you give away 5 million bucks. and  in circumstances where you can’t pay your other bills. these would be um, sorry so, if in australia they do all these things, that would IF he or she became bankrupt, IF he or she became bankrupt would be void as against the trustees. so this now brings us into s120, s121 and s122. these voidable transactions. so it’s it’s a absolute pandora’s box and just looking further at this word charge, i’ve done some research off-air. and it would appear to me that there’s a very broad interpretation of the word charge. so it basically is going to be mortgage or indebtedness or liability. you could even think of it in terms of hocking. uh you’re going to hock some piece of property uh. it could be big or small. it could be centrepoint tower. you could be you you’ll hock your car um. you create a charge in circumstances that would IF you became bankrupt, be void against your trustee. so it’s something that can be unraveled at at a later point? very broad. very very very broad. so we’re going to have a look at um we haven’t got into voidable transactions. there is, we’re only at at s40(1)(b). so we’ve had a look at clause g. which is bankruptcy notices. uh we’ve had a look at clause (a). if you make a conveyance um for the benefit of your creditors generally. and also these are the ones that would be void uh as against your trustee. so there’s a lot more to go through. and i hope you’re getting the gist of just how broad these powers are? so if you’re in the position where someone has served a bankruptcy notice on you? you think you’re insolvent? you can’t pay your bills? or you’ve got someone else who, you’re a small business? and you’ve got someone that owes you money? and someone’s making payments, incurring obligations, creating charges on their properties, conveying parts of their property, or all of their property? um it’s, it would be really good to talk to you. um give us a call on 1300-327123. uh chat with us at the website, using the tools down in the bottom right hand corner of website. this one, bottom right hand corner uh on our webpage www.dcpartners.solutions – we’ve got an instant message tool .

there you can upload your documents. um as whether you’re, you know you’ve been served a bankruptcy notice? or you’ve got someone who’s indebted to you? and IF you’re looking for someone that’s very very skilled at this debt recovery stuff. so um come and have a talk to us. the first meeting’s obligation free. won’t cost you anything. and we’ll tell you uh very clearly very quickly whether we can or we might be able to help you. we we may not be able to say yes, we definitely can help you but we can give you a clear indication of whether we think we might be able to help you. so happy easter.

today’s the friday the 2nd of april 2021. this is probably going to air on the 3rd April 2021, um but we’re available uh you know very long hours, money never sleeps so they say uh – 1300-327123. or use the instant message chat uh tool uh in the bottom right corner of our screen on www.dcpartners.solutions

so thanks for tuning in uh

next we’re going to get into section 40(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act.

many many other exciting ways uh that you can um uh give the strong hint that you might have committed an act of bankruptcy

thanks very much. 1300-327123 or chat with us bottom right corner of our screen … www.dcpartners.solutions

John Mahony – profile

john mahony 1

John Francis Thomas Mahony

Date of NSW Admission11/02/1977
Practising Certificate TypePrincipal of a law practice
Principal Place of PracticeMahony Law
ClassLaw Practice
AddressMACARTHUR POINT BUILDING, SUITE 308, 25 SOLENT CIRCUIT
BAULKHAM HILLS NSW 2153
Postal AddressPO BOX 8318
BAULKHAM HILLS BC NSW 2153
Firm Phone02 8818 9792
Firm Emailjohn@mahonylaw.com.au
Firm Fax02 9680 7429
RegionPARRAMATTA DISTRICT
Emailjohn@mahonylaw.com.au

Linked in profile: http://au.linkedin.com/in/john-mahony-544bba93

Clients & status’

Clients of John Mahony and Mahony Law and their status’ include:

Ralph Paligaru – former owners of 88 Perfection Ave, Stanhope Gardens

Amreeta Paligaru – former owners of 88 Perfection Ave, Stanhope Gardens

Mohan Kumar aka Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje aka Chhota Rajan – former owner of 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural (ownership severed by Ralph Paligaru under POA).

Craig Matthew Adams

Bargo Development (in liquidation) – dispossessed of 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural

Golden Arrow International (in liquidation) – dispossessed of $16m of land at Warriewood

Reliance LeasingJohn Mahony and Mahony Law was the agent of this company for the withdrawal of caveat owing a fiduciary obligation. Reliance has subsequently subsequently assigned its former debt related to the caveat to DCP Litigation Holdings. DCP Litigation has sought (and intends to bring once its loss is realised) a cross-claim (or claim) against John Mahony and Lawcover. A copy of the Notice of Motion seeking to cross claim against John Mahony & Lawcover (and explaining in detail the nature of the alleged breach of duty owed and other matters can be viewed by clicking this link – click here.

Disciplinary action

Regrettably, we recently learnt the following finding were made against John Mahony by his peers:

Substance of Conduct Matter:1. Falsely witnessed the signature of his fellow director
2. Attempted to mislead the Law Society of NSW
3. Failed to pay Counsel’s fees
Finding:Professional Misconduct

Decision:
(1)   The respondent is guilty of professional misconduct;
(2)   That the respondent be reprimanded;
(3)   That the respondent must pay a fine of $4,000.00 within two months of the date of these orders; and
(4)   That the respondent pays the costs of the applicant as agreed or assessed

Source: http://www.disciplinaryregister.justice.nsw.gov.au/olsc/nswdr.nsf/LUComplaintsBySurname/1F755980A3E64A25CA2580A30080ED20?OpenDocument

Judgment:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/58660720e4b058596cba3261

Do you know John Mahony or have you had dealings with Mahony Law? Do you want to share your experiences – good or otherwise?

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

What is the best structure for my business? Sole trader, company, partnership, trust or something else?

Watch our latest video on your business structure or alternatively complete our Business Health Check to obtain a detailed report on the Health of your Business together with recommendations.

To take our free Business Health Check click here.

To schedule a free review of your current business structure click the following link: Book a meeting instantly

To view our knowledge base glossary – for the definition of a term click the following link:  Glossary of terms

To view our knowledge base click the following link: Knowledge base

For any other questions chat with us now using the live chat icon in the bottom corner of your screen.

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).

The importance of your business plan

Watch our latest video on your business plan or alternatively complete our Business Health Check to obtain a detailed report on the Health of your Business together with recommendations.

To take our free Business Health Check click here.

To schedule a free review of your current business structure click the following link: Book a meeting instantly

To view our knowledge base glossary – for the definition of a term click the following link:  Glossary of terms

To view our knowledge base click the following link: Knowledge base

For any other questions chat with us now using the live chat icon in the bottom corner of your screen.

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).

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