Many R’s Podcast – S1E5

Podcast Mark Smith

Many R’s Podcast – S01E05 for more information and indepth villain profiles – visit our webpage

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

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

In this series Mark Smith of DC Partners (Solutions) Pty Ltd sets the scene and discusses those villains or possible villains that we’ll be discussing throughout the remainder of Season 1 and subsequent seasons.

Public interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

john mahony 1
John Mahony – circa 2010

Season 1, Episode 5 will focus on:

The John Mahony catchup episode:

0:00​ Start – intro music

0:30​ introduction

5:40​ background – dealings with John Mahony

25:10​ conversation and commentary

1:05:36​ wrap up

1:06:47​ credits

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

In this series Mark Smith of DC Partners (Solutions) Pty Ltd sets the scene and discusses those villains or possible villains that we’ll be discussing throughout the remainder of the Season and subsequent seasons.

Season 1 will focus on:

Real estate – including agents and developers. Miscellaneous other bad players in society Corporate Villains Travel rip-offs Government / malfeasance Iffy lawyers / shyster Insurance racketeer / Banks Receivers, Liquidators and Administrators

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

Ralph’s timber mill – Dreketi

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

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

  • dreketi mill

Transcript:

S01E05 podcast – transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is this sounding convoluted to you um?

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

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

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

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

um trading in timber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garry: yeah well i wanted to stay solvent too

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

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

Smith is now claiming it as his own.

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

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

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

this had been granted in august 16.

uh so that i’ll make that about three years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The logic …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if you are not prepared to make Smith go away

so you have to make smith go away

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garry: Let me see what i can do …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or making threats

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

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

I am just giving you the heads up.

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

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

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

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

Well he can’t- he can’t help that

no no i understand that

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

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

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

it did suffer some damage

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

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

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

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

listen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and eventually build the whole thing up … (whisper)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

he will just friggen stay in Fiji because

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

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

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

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

smith’s basically destroyed the marriage

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

Garry: that’s my concern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

blackmail and terror tactics?

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

blackmail so he served a bankruptcy notice blackmail

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

responsible

let’s take care

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

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

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

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

must not knowingly make a false statement to the opponent

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

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

knowing that uh i’m a law student have a

listen

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

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

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

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

But the fact is he is killing you and

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

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

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

Mahony: I want to look after you.

I’ll work with Ralph…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll get you a copy of that agreement too

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig Adams / Ralph Paligaru – negotiations

Craig Adams and Ralph Paligaru together borrowed money against Ralph & Amreeta’s house at 88 Perfection Ave, Stanhope Gardens. The application states that Ralph Paligaru & Bargo Developments are the borrowers (jointly) and Craig Adams is the guarantor. The mind boggles why Craig would guarantee borrowings by Ralph (and vice versa) unless it was for a common purpose … (???).

The loan purpose states:

“6 months – Development loan”.

At the time, Ralph informed me that the funds were to be used to prepare a development applications for the Dural private hospital, discussed below, in which Ralph was contracted to receive a confidential 20% interest – through confidential heads of agreement. Ralph entered contracts with Bargo Developments over the dural land at 632 Old Northern Rd on behalf of Mohan Kumar (alias Chhota Rajan, aka Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje) whom at the time, Ralph held a power of attorney. Bargo owned Mohan Kumar (alias Chhota Rajan, aka Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje) $4m guaranteed by Bargo and Craig Adams.

Craig Adams and Ralph Paligaru entered confidential heads of agreement – a copy of document available here – just prior to Ralph and Craig exchanging contracts for the sale of 632 Old Northern Rd with a $4m vendor loan Ralph agreed to for Mohan Kumar (alias Chhota Rajan, aka Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje).

88 Perfection Ave, Stanhope Gardens is NOT a development site.

Bargo’s land at 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural IS and was a development site.

Ralph admitted in writing (under the confidential heads of agreement) he had a “vested interest” and Craig has given him shares.

Shortly after, as part of the common refinancing effort by Ralph and Craig, Craig attempts to obtain the discharge a mortgage (over Ralph house – 88 Perfection Ave, Stanhope Gardens) through an implied threat seeking more favourable terms than they were entitled to from the relevant mortgagee (the ex-vendor being Mohan Kumar (alias Chhota Rajan, aka Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje)). Craig wrote:

Craig Adams SMS IMG_8748
Craig Adams threatens, impliedly, his mortgagee (SMS obtained by the writer).
The ex-vendor is a reference to Mohan Kumar, aka Chhota Rajan, aka Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje.

Ultimately, Craig & Ralph were unsuccessful in attempts to ‘negotiate’ an unwarranted reduction in the sum owed and secured to Ralph’s property. It is unknown whether the above unwarranted demand upon the mortgagee was in breach of any aspects of the Crimes Act?

Crimes Act NSW, s249K. It is not clear if the SMS from Craig to the mortgagee breaches any sections of this Act?

John Mahony appears to have acted on aspects of this refinancing but invoiced Bargo (Craig’s company) for the work. Copy of the invoice – click here. It is not clear how John Mahony was able to maintain his independence or manage potential conflicts – John Mahony acted at that time for the following persons in the following capacities:

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

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

Many R’s Podcast – S1E3

Podcast Mark Smith

Many R’s Podcast – S01E03 for more information and indepth villain profiles – visit our webpage

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

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

In this series Mark Smith of DC Partners (Solutions) Pty Ltd sets the scene and discusses those villains or possible villains that we’ll be discussing throughout the remainder of Season 1 and subsequent seasons.

Season 1, Episode 3 will focus on:

0:00 Many R’s Podcast S1E3 (Opening)

0:27 Introduction / Review of 2020 / What’s included in S1E3

11:12 Why am I being careful with my language?

13:30 Westpac v Ollis ; Smith v Westpac & NSW Crime Commission, the State of NSW.

1:00:00 DCP Litigation v Saunders & Staniforth – discussions re the Australian Property Institute (API) Professional Sanctions re: Andrew Saunders.

1:11:00 DCP Litigation v Saunders & Staniforth – discussions re the professional indemnity insurance racketeers for Saunders & Staniforth and their lawyers, Colin Biggers & Paisley re: contempt of court, submissions given to Her Honour Strathdee J.

1:23:00 DCP Litigation v Ralph Paligaru – together with discussions regarding the lawyers acting for Ralph Paligaru being John Francis Mahony and Lawcover, his professional indemnity providers.

1:53:50 Ralph Paligaru and his relationship with Mohan Kumar aka Chhota Rajan aka Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje

1:56:40 Looking after to 2021 – what to expect from the Many R’s Podcast.

2:01:50 What to expect in S1E4 – the episode from Orange … let’s visit from of the villains of Orange – Caernarvon Cherry Pty Ltd, Biteriot Operations Pty Ltd, Biteriot employees, Westpac Orange, Centrelink Orange, NSW Police, discussing the benefits of Direct Foreign Investment into the rural sector of Australia – purchasing our land and water to supply food and fibre to foreign nations (including China), Saunders & Staniforth, Raine & Horne Orange / Roger Eddy, Rural Water Supply easements and more.

To share this video: https://youtu.be/4jeaLUQUrIQ

In this series Mark Smith of DC Partners (Solutions) Pty Ltd sets the scene and discusses those villains or possible villains that we’ll be discussing throughout the remainder of the Season and subsequent seasons.

Season 1 will focus on:

Real estate – including agents and developers. Miscellaneous other bad players in society Corporate Villains Travel rip-offs Government / malfeasance Iffy lawyers / shyster Insurance racketeer / Banks Receivers, Liquidators and Administrators

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

Transcript:

S1E3 podcast – transcript

rogues rascals reviewables rorts rip-offs receivers real estate agents and much much more. the many rs podcast, season one, episode three, my name is mark smith call us anytime 1300 327123 or alternatively go and visit us at our website dcpartners.solutions/podcast …use the instant message chats in the bottom right hand corner to message us in real time thanks

welcome to season 1, episode 3. firstly our apologies it’s been a bit of a delay between episode 2 and episode 3 but here we are and we’re at the end of a huge huge year and we’ve now, after 3 episodes, we’ve changed our name from the 5 r’s podcast to the many r’s podcast. we’re going to deal with all sorts of r’s – the rogues the rascals the reviewables the rip-offs the rorts, the receivers real estates um real estate real estate racketeers, racketeers in general and all sorts of agents, developers and anyone that’s iffy, shysters – you name it uh we’re into it so that’s the many r’s podcast can have uh can start with R or not, start with r, whatever you like we’ll just deal with anyone hey – we’re obviously going to touch on corporate villains our miscellaneous shysters travel rip-offs they’re becoming less and less so but let’s see what happens in the in the coming year government malfeasance now we have a massive massive story and i’m gonna predict it’s gonna take all of season 2 or call it 2021 it’s going to consume all of 2021 and this involves westpac bank and the state of new south wales, the new south wales crime commission and to a much much lesser extent virtually hardly at all but there is a little bit of an element of NSW police now NSW police and i’ve got to say they come out in my view with the flying colours but westpac and the NSW crime commission um you’re going to get it for all of uh for all of 2021 we’ve got so much stuff and a few of the lawyers some of the westpac lawyers, and some of the internal westpac lawyers, i i’ve been sitting here for more than 10 years assembling the story i’ve got well over five six thousand pages i’ve got 40 volumes of documents over my shoulder and we are absolutely going to unload on westpac bank and look heads will roll um heads ought to roll and uh so there’s that

uh insurance brackets um i think uh i think we’re going to see more insurance rackets and i look forward to spending the entire 2021 talking about um racketeering lawyers where um and look i’m gonna say sorry racketeering lawyers pardon me racketeering insurance companies and uh look i think these guys are under massive massive pressure uh they lost 5-0 a case on business interruption insurance in the new south wales court of appeal i saw a story just last night on the ABC 730 report. hey we’ve been talking about this for months and uh even episode 1 i told you this was going to be a massive massive thing and uh the mainstream media is now caught on ABC’s 730 reports uh talking about it uh there’s been this test case and so that’s a bit of a recap uh for this year now.

well that’s a little bit of a recap anyway about the many r’s podcast um in this particular episode, episode 3 we as i said we’re going to review the year and some of the uh highlights and lowlights um i will say uh i apologize again for the gap between episode 2 and episode 3 um personally it’s been 2020 has obviously been a hell of a year for a lot of people and uh i’m putting uh the finishing touches on my what’s called Juris Doctor – it’s a it’s a law degree that i’ve been doing and i started it in 2014 uh i finished the 23rd subject uh a couple of weeks ago and um i’ve got 1 subject to do and boy have i got some reading – i’ll just i’ll just show you but this is how much reading i’ve got to do in the in the coming months so i’ve got one subject so my apologies for the delay between episodes um let’s talk about what we’re going to talk about in episode 3 in particular and this is a case uh well we’re talking about the westpac case uh westpac and victor warren ollis now i’ll talk about it in more detail but it’s not really about victor warren ollis – this is about westpac bank and what thieving bastards that they they are and i’m going to give you a list of everyone that they hurt like there’s

it is stunning how many people that they’ve hurt they’ve certainly hurt me and um but i’m going to give you a list of all the people that they hurt i’m going i’ve got a truckload, not quite a truckload, but i’ve certainly got five or six thousand pages of documents i’ve got 40 volumes just over my shoulder and i’ve we’ve already started building the web page um on dcpartners.solutions/podcast and actually there you go dcpartners.solutions/westpac – it’s not up there live yet but it’s coming so dcpartners.solutions/westpac and uh this is uh this is really a story about westpac and how they used the new south wales crime commission and how the new south wales crime commission allowed themselves to be used and their powers and used and abused.

so um in this episode not quite as big as story as the westpac thing but saunders & staniforth – we’ve been writing about them on our website and in in our blogs at dcpartners.solutions and uh this is uh quite outrageous

this particular company’s uh caused losses for a much smaller group and but we’ll talk about that in quite a bit more detail

we’re going to have a quick recap on um what i think are huge stories but um our business interruption we’re going to talk about that in a little bit more detail in a very short segment

um i think our i want to reflect a little bit on australia’s relationship with china and we’re also going to talk about uh what that means for the future especially our trading relationship it’s um it’s been it’s a real issue and um i did touch on this in episode 1 we talked about foreign money launderers

now i wasn’t talking about any particular one country but um we’ll we’ll touch on that later in this episode

uh some of my favorite r’s – ralph there you go ralph ralph paligaru – ralph it starts with R um

ralph’s lawyer well i’ll come to him in a second

so uh we’ve got a segment on ralph uh mohan kumar now rajan there you go chhota rajan uh i hope i pronounced that correctly another uh chhota rajan who is not his real name um but we’ll put up his real name … Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje …. uh he had a uh and lived here in australia uh just a few suburbs away actually and on the whole like remarkably this mr mohan kumar was extremely well behaved well whilst he was here in australia

now what he did overseas and uh by remote control, i never met the guy i don’t know him um i know it’s reported and so we’ll talk about that this is a gigantic story uh i’m probably going to get sued i’ve been receiving very threatening letters and i’m going to publish a lot of them these letters were written by ralph paligaru’s lawyer a man called john francis mahony ah

now Read

i’m going to publish a affidavit which has been Read

there’s an R for you um

this there is a cross claim sorry there was a cross claim and we had an um an affidavit my i swore absolutely true uh there’s another affidavit i think at the time this was in about about 12 months ago they were sworn about november 2019 and read in court uh very very much about 12 about 20 53 weeks ago maybe 54 weeks ago just a little bit over one year ago and uh we sought to um bring a claim against john francis mahony and lawcover and so uh mr mahony if you’re reading this sorry if you’re listening or reading whatever i don’t care um we’re going to publish everything that you’ve sent us um provided it’s on the record uh it’s for the record so we’ve got a lot to do there

um a hugely satisfying thing for me in 2020 was uh seeing mr hakan kutup go to jail uh i reported him and i’ll provide a copy of um the statement that i gave to police and uh within one or two weeks he was locked up um well and he got bail

so fair enough but uh he’s now uh yeah i think he did plead guilty i certainly found guilty and uh he’s locked up and not sure where he is so uh

we’re also going to touch on our AFSL … not our AFSL but uh the busifund capital trust uh which i happen to own an interest in and uh it is a corporate authorized representative for a company that does have an AFSL and so we’re creating financial products and we’re going to talk a little bit about that and what’s to come in next year

okay before i get into

okay before i get into the um the real meat of uh today’s podcast um

you’ll see me uh throughout today’s podcast uh maybe stopping and pausing and uh thinking or reflecting before i open my mouth on occasion uh we’re now called the many R’s podcast because um uh for a number of reasons including we’ve had a quite a few upset reactions from um uh some of the uh parties um the subject of this uh this podcast so … we’re now not just into rorts and ripoffs and rascals and rogues uh but anything you like beginning with R or not beginning with R or whatever you like so um it’s the uh it’s you call it the many R’s but whatever um

we’ve upset some people and uh and uh your host is uh obviously uh um treading on some toes here and uh there may well be um a few defamation suits coming? so uh the truth is an absolute defense um to uh to defamation

so for instance, one of the people today that we’re going to be talking about uh his friends his boss well his boss is someone that’s allegedly killed 20 people um or more um we don’t know uh but uh his boss is uh sitting a jail cell in delhi, chhota rajan (real name is Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje) somewhere and so if we simply say well x is uh friends with y and y is a criminal and um well in this case x is actually x holds a power of attorney over y so um uh it is in fact the truth uh and uh you know if if there’s a public interest element and all the rest well that’s that’s the case so my apologies if i’m a little bit slow and if i stop to reflect at times because um we’re gonna

okay so now we’re talking about westpac this is a uh a painful episode uh personally uh it cost me an absolute fortune and i didn’t even bank with westpac so it was something that i found absolutely astonishing and to be honest um

westpac they just blatantly hid um various things and submissions were given to the court now i don’t blame the lawyers uh i blame the people that instructed the lawyers and um so there is just so much here but um look the gist of it is that uh mr ollis had a westpac bank account ahh he had a series of bank accounts and we’ll um we’ve got his bank statements uh i have um 40 volumes of stuff on these shelves so uh we’ll go through them well i’ve got probably thousands of pages of bank statements uh for all of mr ollis’ bank accounts with westpac and um ollis had one a couple of particular accounts and um he would write a cheque and money would just magically appear in his account and um

one of the documents that you’re going to see uh quotes mr ollis is saying uh he wouldn’t uh uh

was the effect of not looking a gift horse in the mouth so um anyway uh i’m sure it wasn’t free money but um it’s the the gist is that ollis had this account and he uh would write a check and westpac money it was a westpac account and westpac money would would appear

sometime very shortly thereafter has cleared funds and um that’s probably not so unusual except um westpac put on uh evidence at the bank that no per… no the exact words were that no individual in the bank knew well i took uh the commissioner of new south wales commissioner of police and they’re very good i’ve got to give praise to everything i’ve seen about new south wales police is uh

legit completely absolutely completely legit everything everything everything that i saw and i talked to uh for years i talked to um many many people and i’ve got nothing negatives to say about new south wales police so much so i took um the commissioner to to i made what’s called what’s commonly referred to as freedom of information but it’s actually called government information public access and i took the commissioner of police to uh to call it to um you know to get access to documents and ultimately i did get access to um something like 3 000 pages of of documents and it was right on christmas eve um so happy christmas thank you very much uh new south wales police so um so just a tiny little bit further explaining why this is all a problem and why it’s important that westpac’s

been fully frank with the court

it’s a cardinal cardinal rule of equity and the rules of equity and the courts of equity if you come to equity you have to have clean hands so

if you come to equity you need to have fessed up to anything now even if you’ve got dirty hands your hands can be made clean but only if you fess up westpac went to the new south wales supreme court this is not something westpac a banker has dreamed up this is something that some lawyer i’m certainly not accusing i’m certainly not accusing Philip Crawford i’m certainly not accusing James Stephenson they might westpac has floors of lawyers so some lawyer somewhere has dreamed up this

very complex

cause of action saying uh we’re actually the victim we’re the victim of uh mr ollis’ over drawings and because we’re the victim that we paid this money under a mistake so they’re saying uh this guy plundered them and no one individual in the bank knew so we’re going to pull that apart exactly is that true that’s what the case is about because if they don’t come to equity with claim if they come to equity with unclean hands then the orders that they got can maybe be uh set aside um you ha you must come to equity with clean hands and westpac um it was certainly their case that quote unquote precisely and i’ll put up the judgment his honor justice einstein einstein einstein one of the key facts that he found he was satisfied and he talks about he he goes back and reviews the evidence of a particular person now that

he satisfied that that person

had no knowledge and that may be completely true but westpac’s that of that particular witness that einstein was satisfied that that person

uh and his team

had no knowledge that ollis was writing out cheques but the submission that’s the the submission signed or authored by james stephenson and he doesn’t dream this up he must have been instructed and he must have been provided the evidence now whether he’s provided all the evidence and then this is what i’m saying i don’t blame james stephenson at all i’m saying james stephenson um senior council uh i’ve never met him but uh i know he’s not going to get up on his feet and or he’s not going to put pen to paper and then uh mark smith can come along ten years later and say fraud james stephenson i’m i’m saying his instructions were that no individual in the bank knew and i’m saying i’m not saying the name of the person the the the lawyer but a lawyer has dreamed this up that oh yes we’ve got unclean hands yeah we knew yeah absolutely we knew we knew in june uh or maybe july 2005 but i’m going from the top of my head here but they certainly knew in either june or july 2005 that there was a bug and at that point uh ollis wrote cheques totalling 11 million dollars but at that point i think from memory he’d only written cheques to the tune of about 50 000 and why it’s a problem is if you come to equity and you say your honour, this guy we paid out under a mistake this guy plundered us and we did not know now the the whole um thrust of this mistake thing is uh they were mistaken and in other words NOT grossly grossly negligent now that’s what i’m saying west bank was they were actually um grossly grossly negligent and um someone figured out that and i’m not accusing anyone and i’m certainly not accusing james stephenson of figuring out and saying well we need to concoct that’s it we need to concoct or just …  um i’m not accusing anyone of concocting especially not james stephenson uh of concocting this story but some lawyer somewhere on some floor probably in martin place at westpac’s offices there were at 60 martin place or someone close by

possibly someone at henry davis york there’s many smart people in there um someone has concocted this story um we are grossly negligent in other words westpac westpac was grossly negligent uh people like um garry wade trevor mcmahon and uh mark murphy must look if mark smith can find it the police never charged them police never ever ever ever charged with uh victor ollis with any crime no fraud no uh fraudulent misappropriation no misappropriation no larceny no no anything ollis was never and ollis committed no crime yet westpac

westpac’s cause of action was we

were the victim of a mistake uh under a mistake we paid out money and your honor no individual that’s that was what the uh submissions state no individual in the bank knew that this was occurring and i’m saying i’m saying james stephenson did not know he wasn’t told the full story and certainly justice einstein we was not told the full story if james stephenson i’ve never met him as i said but i know that he would not put those he would not commit those words to his submissions if he knew it to be untrue if he knew that there was a single individual in the bank

who was aware

of the drawings and i’m saying categorically i can give you the staff number there’s multiple people i’ve got the dates i’ve got the time down to the second where um i’ve got westpac’s internal logs and all of them every single thing is going up onto my website every key document and if it takes us all of season 1, 2, 3, 4 i don’t care it’s all going up uh unless we sell our manuscript in the meantime and then um it’s up to whoever buys the manuscript what they want to do with it but this is an absolute scandal the scandal is westpac gave false evidence westpac are liars westpac, westpac not ollis, westpac are the crooks!!!

i won’t go through uh i won’t go through every person that we’re going to talk about but like i’m just looking at my screen here this probably in westpac probably sorry westpac the new south wales crime commission and we will talk about westpac’s lawyers um now again i blame those people that were giving the instructions not so much the lawyers but um there are some police documents that i will uh i’ll just publish and you can figure out them out for yourself uh there’s one that particularly comes to mind that um

they’re minutes from a meeting uh from memory it was about august or september 2006 and um the police minutes uh record those that were in attendance now it’s a little frustrating but sometimes uh well

whilst i did get access to new south wales police documents and i’m very grateful and i’m very happy to share them um there are some redactions and you can’t see precisely everything but i think you’ll get the gist of of what was going on but in one particular place and this is while i’m not blaming lawyers uh one of the handwritten notes which wasn’t redacted says either lawyer or legal so i’m not specifically blaming well i’m not specifically calling out the lawyer

i can’t even name their names and i’m certainly not making an allegation against the lawyers who i who i will mention uh in you know in the next minute or two uh as people that will feature in this blog i’m not making an allegation against those particular lawyers but um

they work for the bank and someone uh the submission that no individual in the bank knew well i’m going to say that’s bullcrap and i’ll give you some staff numbers of those people that did know and look at the end of this process i’m actually going to be asking police and probably the attorney general of new south wales to go and see whether any uh witnesses

uh whether they were

whether there is any crimes committed in the in the witness box and whether um anyone’s guilty of perjury i’m going to say victor ollis didn’t perjure himself he didn’t even take the stance so um the only person that could have given that evidence that no individual in the bank knew was someone for or on behalf of westpac and um whether that person was telling the truth i’m going to say it wasn’t the truth now that person may have believed it was the truth but look someone needs to i’m talking about the attorney general of new south wales and that’s um i’m going to say i’m going to make a bold prediction someone’s going to look at this and look very closely at what was said in the witness box and if a crime’s been committed look i’ll be delighted if that person goes to jail so here are some of the names that are going to feature in documents and i’m not saying these people are guilty of anything i’m just saying that they’re going their details going to feature now adrian holmes he was my lawyer and a wonderful guy and helped me a great deal so andrew purchas these are just purely in alphabetical order so this is not any hit list or or whatever this is uh just purely alphabetical andrew purchas he wrote a letter um you’re going to see a copy of that letter anne hunter she was an accountant now she didn’t work for westpac but we’ll explain who she is chris dibb he’s a barrister um good bloke i met him uh claudine salemah now she worked for the dark side

uh a lawyer that act that appeared for westpac uh whether she knew whether she didn’t know don’t know col dyson now he’s retired policeman um total respect for col dyson uh he saw through the [ __ ] and um he ended the police investigation

col dyson you’re legit

daryl barlow he’s a lawyer that appeared for uh ollis um there’s some affidavits that i’m saying if he swore he believes it’s true um never met him though edward downer now i did meet this guy uh was a lawyer for one of uh one of westpac’s lawyers uh you might know the name downer alexander this guy is a dead ringer for alexander that’s his father so i’m not saying he did anything wrong just saying he did appear frank mazzone uh also from adelaide from memory um gail kelly all i’m saying about gail is i wrote to her and uh whether or not i published that letter i’m not sure but a bloke called gwyn morgan uh replied so i definitely wrote to gail kelly and

terribly frustrating gary pilgrim now probably one of the victims uh of westpac garry wade now this guy

no longer at westpac

now retired um former police officer uh he did contact new south wales police and new south wales police i know told garry wade don’t think there’s a crime um or we can’t there was a request that garry wade wrote and so i’m going to give you about garry wade was an author of a series of documents i’ve got this document like uh sliced they say you look at an arrow and the trajectory of an arrow well i’ve got this still framed for photographs of this particular arrow this letter is the arrow and you can see this um the trajectory of this letter over a period of about six days and even like within in one day you know over several hours i’ve got so many different copies of this particular letter and garry wade is one of the authors um gwyn morgan we talked on uh helen patrice nelson um she she swore evidence uh at a particular point uh she works for westpac uh she’s had two stints there um hussein karimjee a lawyer for an in-house lawyer for um mr victor ollis um pretty pretty nice guy actually hussein karimjee, ian temby now jhe’s a he’s a barrister uh might be senior counsel i think he is and um he’s had uh a fairly distinguished career um and i actually feel some sympathy for ian temby i probably met him and um

i’ve got to say i reckon by the end he must ian temby must have been wondering what precisely is the new south wales crime commission doing here um i don’t i’m not yeah he’s a smart guy and

we’ll see james stephenson again he uh barrister he appeared he was retained by henry davis york and he must be senior counsel i don’t know but we will have a look at

some closing submissions that james stephenson wrote and now james i’m not accusing you of anything

other than writing and handing out those submissions those submissions may well be precisely the instructions of his client and let’s say i believe they were the instructions of his client well those instructions oh sorry the submissions say no individual in the bank knew again i i’m gonna say i feel sorry for uh james stephenson because

what i will show you is that clearly a number of people in the bank had knowledge that cheques were being written large checks like mr ollis was writing our cheques for four hundred thousand dollars unlike they’re they’re being and they’re not bouncing they’re being honored and uh well jennifer thommeny now lovely lovely police officer retired uh she was an inspector and um

i’m gonna say her role was in the asset confiscation unit she’s a wonderful lady really really top lady

she’s been to my home like she is a good lady and honest

she received some of these letters yeah i she certainly had a phone conversation with garry wade and i’m not saying there was anything improper but from jennifer’s side but so we’ll see John Giorgiutti interesting spelling

was on holidays at many of the most relevant times John Giorgiutti was a very senior lawyer at the new south wales prime commission john henry williams uh he’s an expert um forensic accountant maybe forensic accountant certainly accountant i worked for ppb and um we’ll look at that um that guy not suggesting he’s he’s bullshitted not at all um jonathan lee spark now we’re gonna have a look at some affidavits that were sworn by jonathan lee spark he was a an officer at the new south wales crime commission and he’s going to come under our microscope julie hanna uh karen booth kate finnegan lou novakovic um if you google uh lou novakovic uh and police integrity commission uh lou worked for the new south wales crime commission and the police integrity commission you can read the transcripts lou um was in a um senior role at the new south wales crime commission and um well we’ll talk we’ll make sure that there’s a very good profile on lou novakovic and i upload the transcripts and you can read them and these are these are people inside government

you’d be you’d be absolutely nuts if you believe that every single person that worked for the new south wales government was legit

we’ll talk some more about lou uh mark murphy now this is uh this is a guy that has sat in my lounge room uh he came to deliver

a court order and um mark murphy former police officer now we are going to look at mark murphy under the microscope we’re going to look at the arrow the trajectory of it the words that were changed and uh we’re going to pull them we’re going to pull those letters apart and mark murphy mark murphy now works for AMP uh but he has um

he has had some uh roles a former police officer um so i’m going to say he ought to know

as a former police officer and he ought to know quite a lot about investigations well he was the he was certainly a very senior manager in group investigations at westpac and so we’re going to spend a lot of time talking about mark uh and some of the other people uh in his team will look at as well so maryann aspland i don’t know if i’ve pronounced that marianne works in the corrections department or did at westpac at concord west in new south wales and uh i think where marianne may be one of the people that knew certainly she did know uh come january 2006 she had a conversation with garry wade and uh she knew now how much before that and what her staff number is well i don’t know so we’ll get into that michael sullivan a lawyer at westpac milan sankovic a lovely guy sat in my lounge room and accompanied mark murphy probably um

not the author uh well certainly not on paper anyway that that i know of neil sevieri another guy in westpac group investigations nick Kabilafkas um i’ll put up some transcripts of what nick Kabilafkas what his submissions to courts were and uh we’ll see uh noel mccoy another lawyer at henry davis york uh peter flynn dr peter flynn from chatswood victim a victim of westpac bank rob whitfield now there’s several affidavits and i’m just going to say

don’t really want to be sued but rob whitfield uh went and worked in a incr… he was someone that was in line apparently to take over from maybe it was david morgan uh who was the ceo at the time and before gail kelly and then after gail kelly i think he was in the running as well uh i i don’t know who who came after her but um one of the top one two three four however top handful of executives at westpac bank extremely high powered he left the bank and went and worked for uh mike baird you might know that name mike baird was the premier of new south wales at the time not suggesting that mike’s done anything wrong at all i’m just saying rob whitfield probably has friends in incredibly high places and uh that’s nice but

rob whitfield is quoted in affidavits that of saying various things so let’s we’ll have a look at that bob reynolds um pretty sure i met bob uh around a huge table in the new south wales crime commission at uh sort of informal mediation um he appears as a witness in the westpac uh proceedings the civil ones and um he had an incredibly senior role um managing the ollis bank accounts rob colwell i kind of get a couple of these names confused i think we’ll we’ll put up his profile uh robert james withtheridge now pretty sure uh i get these two confused robert colwell and robert james witheridge one or both of those people worked at concord west in uh corrections and when i say corrections uh i don’t mean jail i’m talking about journal entries uh mistakes like cashing a cheques for 400 000 kind of mistakes um not calling them incompetent uh the but calling them witnesses and they those last two i pretty sure gave evidence and we’ll put up their affidavits this is just so many that i’m sorry i forget some of these now one that i don’t think well sorry not that i don’t forget i i confused some of their roles but i tell you what ron sczanner i don’t forget him i had a phone call and kept notes one of my habits you know if you look at my bookshelf on either side i love books i love paper i love documents and i remember [ __ ] ron sczanner

over there for

probably more than 20 years i kept journals and ron sczanner

figures in a journal and ron sczanner was very candid uh with me and i had a conversation with him i believe it was on about the 6th of february 2006 and he candidly told me that he worked for the new south wales crime commission i had cordial dealings with him he said that um westpac would be getting their money back which is kind of a strange thing for a government official to say uh when that government official and that government agency the new south wales crime commission their job is to confiscate money and not give it back to the criminals it’s the law says that we’re going to give the money to the treasurer of new south wales and at the time um uh well at one stage the treasure of new south wales was certainly mike baird now in 2006 when this was all happening it wasn’t mike bit definitely was not uh

ron sczanner and new south wales crime commission had powers and used them in a way with an intention NOT to give the money to the victims of crime like the treasurer so uh sarah rodgers uh she was a clerk at westpac at gosford no longer works there i’ve talked to her certainly rung her um i’ve emailed her i can probably even uh provide copies of the emails no longer works for westpac … a witness she certainly appears in some of those police minutes and

she had dealings with mr ollis and she opened accounts and again we can pull apart some of these documents um trevor holmes sorry sorry stephen holmes uh that name is vague to me so i’m

but apparently we’re writing about him so we’ve we’ve got a profile on him trevor mcmahon now this guy i do know trevor it was um if not the boss of mark murphy and garry wade uh and probably neil sevieri um in some way senior to them um uh very cunning senior investigator uh well

he certainly features in some of the affidavits um …. so if you get the impression we’ve got rather a lot of people to go through uh you’d you’d be spot on so

i’m just out um listing some of the characters that uh that we’re going to be reviewing over the balance of uh season 1 2 3 however long it takes i don’t care um there will be a uh a book published and uh my manuscript my manuscript is actually for sale so anyone that’s interested in in buying that manuscript uh give us a call 1300 two three and um you can buy the manuscript if you like but um uh at least all of those people are going to be mentioned there at some point obviously uh victor ollis um and his mrs a lady called gail shields um some of the uh gail’s children uh surname LYE l-y-e so some of the lies um funny name uh ironic uh are probably going to get a mention um a chris lye i mean i don’t think terrible things about any of these people but uh chris lye uh was followed uh he gave evidence that he was followed by mark murphy and chris lye he was being followed and stopped and said hang on you’re following me what’s your name and the guy said mark murphy and handed over his business card and mark murphy later turns up

on police raids now

um i’m not being critical of police but maybe i am slightly or maybe

maybe that’s unusual maybe it’s not but i would have thought police raids were for police and gathering evidence was a fairly important thing that ought to be done

by police

and normally if i go to police and want to allege you know where the victim um the victim’s role is not necessarily i wouldn’t have thought if the victim’s role is to

assemble the evidence i kind of think that’s for police to do

mark murphy attended some of the raids according to chris lye he gave evidence that the person that followed him subsequently turned up with a search warrant uh with police who had a search warrant and

i don’t know i’ll tell you what about mark murphy he’s not going to be able to say he didn’t know and so mark murphy knew quite a lot i mean he was there according to chris lye he was there when uh houses were raided certainly came and sat in my lounge room maybe it was dining room i can’t remember which one i met him

so there are a series of pages at our website www.dcpartners.solutions/westpac

and we’ve there is so many facts like all four thousand pages they are not up and maybe that’s an incentive for uh someone that’s interested in this particular book and manuscript well get in now because uh like there’ll be lots and lots of scoops still to come there’s only four five six i don’t know how many thousand pages thousands thousands of pages and that probably doesn’t include all the emails and you name it so but we’ve got a complex story to tell and so we’ve broken this up into who what where how why when and those sorts of things so uh those are those types of topics and you’ll be able to you know go to our site and we’ll just type in westpac who where’s back when let’s pack y let’s back how and um there you go so probably i’m forgetting someone please don’t feel forgotten uh i’m sure if your name appears in any of those thousands of pages there’s 40 volumes you’ll get a mention at some point so

i hope that gives you a sense of just how huge this particular case is i um by my reckoning uh i certainly gave evidence in the supreme court of new south wales that um one of my companies probably lost because of westpac because well westpac certainly gained millions let’s put it that way so uh i believe that may well be a crime even if

one of the crimes is to gain a financial advantage

like i said a few minutes ago you’d have to be nuts to believe that there are no criminals working in the new south wales state government well the royal commission has shown us that you would be nuts to believe that there are not dodgy people working at westpac and i’m not saying any of those people that i’ve just listed are dodgy i think we’ve forgotten someone philip crawford he was he is right now at the chairman of the new south wales independent liquor gaming commission whatever something like that uh philip crawford and his commission is deciding whether james packer and crown sydney ever get to do to take a bet.   well philip crawford

all i’m accusing philip crawford of is being the lawyer for westpac

and now’s the time i’ve got to be very careful with my words i’m accusing him of being the westpac lawyer

i’m accusing him of being a senior partner he might have been managing partner even at certainly one stage i think he was at henry davis york

whether whether his name is the redacted name that attended police meetings he probably didn’t

some lawyers did according to the police minutes a lawyer or westpac legal whatever something like that some lawyers either in westpac or in henry davis york or someone else somewhere else uh did attend now their names are redacted

philip crawford let’s say he’s the partner i know for sure he was a partner of westpac but sorry he was a partner at henry davis york he may have been managing partner

uh i guess

i guess that carries responsibilities

who precisely instructed james stephenson i don’t know all i know is that james stephenson received instructions i certainly don’t believe

james stephenson made up his instructions

whether whether philip crawford played any role in instructing james stephenson i don’t know but i can guarantee you one thing

uh i’ll be asking the office of legal services commissioner to investigate the firm

probably every lawyer that had any role and i’m not accusing them of being crooks i’m probably not accusing any of them have been crooks but somehow instructions found their way into court and those instructions were that no individual in the bank knew

that westpac was cashing mr ollis’ cheques for four hundred thousand dollars at a time

and apparently no one knew like just this money’s just magically appearing well i’m saying that is horseshit i’ll give you the staff numbers i got the police records some people didn’t know

i’m not saying philip crawford‘s one of them but i’m saying some people knew yeah those some people may have all lied to philip crawford

we’ll

see of issues here

that is westpac and ollis

we’re going to be talking about this nonstop thank you.  

all right this second story is about saunders and staniforth and a firm of valuers and town planners at orange and particularly it’s a it’s a reasonably short block uh it’s about this uh valuer and town planning firm uh in orange uh the director is a guy called andrew saunders who i met in person in maybe 2007 or 2008 in that vicinity i can’t tell you off the top of my head but i certainly met him in in one of those years and i also met a bloke called bob patfield and um well there’ll be a lot more detail about uh saunders and staniforth in the next little while um what i can say is uh insurance rip-offs by the way uh racketeers insurance racketeers uh andrew saunders uh is a member of something called the australian property institute and uh when you are a member of the australian property institute sort of members of the public can uh write to uh the property institute and uh nothing but praise for the complaints uh panel uh and the chair of this particular panel was a guy called chris shaw i’ve never met him never even talked to him. i’ve googled him and you can have a look at his profile and there’s a link on our page there as well to chris shaw i’m sure he’s extremely honest he’s a lawyer uh i’m sure he’s a very good lawyer and he ran the uh panel and a complaint was made about andrew saunders that uh had a number of complaints a couple a number of heads of complaint if you like and uh andrew saunders was ultimately um there was

two phases to the um complaint handling process and that was sort of addressing the complaint and looking at the substance of it well it was certainly found by chris shaw who’s who’s far from an idiot it was found that there was a prima facie case

on more than three aspects of the complaint ultimately there was the complaint if you like was upheld and um so in other words found to be valid uh and some of the one of the breaches of the australian property institute’s codes was very much a fundamental rule and that was rule 1.1 now i’ll include uh links to help a particular blog but you can go to this podcast page at dcpartners.solutions/podcast and um andrew saunders breached like the first commandment uh rule 1.1 so i’m saying this is a big one the first commandment in certainly rule 1.1 he includes words like uh dishonest uh like thou shalt not be dishonest uh thou shalt not be biased uh you know you must do your work with integrity honesty blah blah blah well

you can read the

sanction report there’s a link it’s up on our website now

dcpartners.solutions/podcast you can go straight to the sanction report um there’s a google search box within if you just google dc partners sanctions saunders uh i’m sure it’ll come up very prominently and you can read

you can read what the very intelligent chris shaw uh determined uh i’m sure he had a panel of people that helped him come to this view that andrew saunders breached rule 1.1 now that wasn’t the only one he breached uh there was prima facie cases for several of them it was certainly three three of the um codes that valuers sign up to uh andrew breached

subsequent to that andrew did not appeal

so

you may view that as andrew accepting

i i don’t know if he pleaded not guilty uh i’d

not a million percent sure of those but certainly it was found to have breached um there’s going to be a lot more content on this particular person and company saunders and stanford andrew saunders now insurances when you’re a valuer and when you’re um when you’re valuing properties you know um worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars it’s kind of important that you be honest and um if you go out to a property and you think it’s worth

well mistakes and mistakes can be made and so these insurance sorry these valuers carry insurance for what’s called professional indemnity in the event that they made a huge blunder then

a um a valuer carries these insurances so quite normal um so andrew has notified we know by reading the sanction report andrew saunders has notified his insurance so he has insurance he notified them his insurance company is represented by a firm called colin biggers and paisley lawyers and um the partner that um my company’s suing andrew saunders or in fact really he they’re suing his professional indemnity provider um so in other words an insurance racketeer and the insurance racketeer is using colin biggers and paisley lawyers and when i say insurance racketeers well we know that uh andrew andrew saunders has been sanctioned andrew saunders has not

appealed

andrew saunders

andrew saunders’s firm

we say andrew saunders’s firm um bob patfield well andrew saunders

says that his business merged with the business of bob patfield in 2005 bob patfield in 2006 2007 2008 and 2009 conducted valuations uh there were several properties so a number of them were of um some of the relevant bits uh andrew saunders saunders and stanford definitely did a valuation in 2010 so even if bob patfield didn’t merge as saunders website said they did in April 2005 – but let’s say they were lying uh well we know for sure that um saunders the standard for it’s uncontested they did value the property that one of the properties that the problematic property in 2010. about april 2010 and um on andrew saunders’s own evidence

the property went down in value between 2010 and 2014 yeah and it went down in value quite a lot um according to andrew saunders so you could say that that’s an admission of loss you know there’s evidence there that um the valuer you know if they’re not being dishonest and not being biased and all the rest then um that’s rule 1.1 uh then andrew saunders admits

the property is worth less in 2014 than what they said in 2010 and really if bob patfield is part of uh saunders and staniforth and andrew saunders has sworn that he’s not although andrew saunders also put up on their website said that they their company saunders and stanford did merge with bob patfield in April 2005 well so there’s all sorts of um suggestions that there was a loss andrew saunders has notified his insurer we know that because he said so in the sanctions report and colin biggers and paisley lawyers have turned up now we’re trying to subpoena some of this information from uh the lawyers for saunders and staniforth which is colin biggers and paisley lawyers or shall we say the insurance racketeers lawyer is colin biggers and paisley lawyers the partner that’s handling it is a man called jonathan newby and the special counsel is a lady called jane o’neill and some of the other solicitors there are jack golding and

nathanael his name will come to me poor nathanael i mean he he looked like a deer in the headlights a 4th of december he was really thrown under the bus

first of december 9 28 i think the time was we are electronically served documents upon colin biggers and paisley lawyers we know that they got them because our emails are tracked and we know that they opened the email at 9 41 on the 1st of december and look i’m saying someone at colin biggers and paisley lawyers is either doesn’t know how to open emails

or a person misled the judge because on the 4th of december a barrister by the name of Brett Le Plastrier i’ll spell that as what he’s um there uh got to his feet and said at one point uh words the effect um we were never served uh we haven’t seen that particular evidence that value i’m sorry that uh affidavit and um not accusing Brett Le Plastrier of lying

however

Brett Le Plastrier

did admit on his feet he’s a barrister like got a very good cv this guy so i’m gonna say he knows what he’s doing not an idiot well Brett Le Plastrier

had in his possession

there was an an exhibit to the affidavit and parts of the the exhibit sitting there in the court and we get up and tell her honor um your honor they haven’t received our document well how come i can see it

from here we can see there we can see the exhibit poor brett had to then get to his feet and say oh well your honor we received the 370 page attachment but not the um not the affidavit so

this is uh sort of head scratching stuff um colin biggers and paisley lawyers

if you’re a client of colin biggers and paisley lawyers you need to be uh incredibly concerned that they don’t know how to open an email

if you believe Brett Le Plastrier now you’d like to think a barrister is telling the truth when he gets to his feet and when he’s addressing a judge in the district court of new south wales you’d like to think that he’s not …

the standard is expected that he’s telling the truth well we know we know i’m going to publish this

and we’ve ordered the transcript we know that the evidence the submission that mr Brett Le Plastrier gave was this is the first time to the effect this is the first time i’m seeing this this affidavit that mr smith’s talking about this is the first time i’m seeing it now

i would like to believe mr Brett Le Plastrier but colin biggers and paisley lawyers

the emails tracked and between

between the 1st of december and the 4th that’s 3 days

that that email is open in excess of 50 times right from memory i think the number is 54.

54 times and they did not see …  the subject line talks about service the first line says you know maybe it’s the second line we provide by electronic service the motion and affidavit in support now Brett Le Plastrier he has a

impressive he has an impressive cv so he’s not an idiot

he informs her honor that this is the first he’s see if (the affidavit)

so are we to believe that colin biggers and paisley lawyers

send lawyers to the court sorry barristers on behalf of colin biggers and paisley lawyers

but they don’t brief them well they don’t tell them oh this might come up because it’s a motion it’s been filed and it’s been served it might come up this is quite unbelievable so on one hand you’ve got up and then there’s the issue of contempt so on one hand you’ve got andrew saunders there is a sanction report you can go to our website right now and you can read it it goes for about 10 pages it talks in plain language and says this happened and we find you guilty

we subpoena give us a copy of the merger between andrew saunders and bob patfield we subpoena these documents so that’s a that’s an order of the district court of new south wales the district court of new south wales hereby orders saunders and staniforth and over these documents that’s the 9th of july.  the 4th of december haven’t …. they’ve just completely ignored it

colin biggers and paisley lawyers that pay well completely ignored so and the notion that they’ve been served electronically and we know that they’ve received it because like Brett Le Plastrier is carrying the documents the that were attached 377 pages of them he’s carrying those but he gets to his feet and says well your honor this is the first time seeing it (the affidavit)

this is strange that’s what i’m i’m accusing Brett Le Plastrier jonathan newby , jane o’neill, colin biggers and paisley lawyers jack golding nathanael fisher

i can’t think of you know very forgettable guy nice young guy uh didn’t want to talk after court just wanted to get the hell out of there poor guy poor nathanael i’m accusing them

of struggling with the basics of email there you go either that or

the lawyers have instructed the barrister to lie now i don’t think he’s disreputable so maybe they just neglected colin biggers and paisley lawyers maybe they just neglected to … jane o’neill was on holidays so it could be that um

the work experience girl was handed the file and the work experience girl is uh has never opened an email in her life and um somehow did see that there was a 377 page attachment there but somehow didn’t see that there was a notice of motion with an affidavit and support so

the work experience girl is handling things apparently at uh colin biggers and paisley lawyers maybe they’ve employed magoo as uh as their newest the partner at colin biggers and paisley lawyers and poor mr magoo yeah can’t see he can see the 377 page document but couldn’t see the the the originating process

so and on top of that well they’re in contempt 9th of um 9th of july maybe the 10th ninth is if the subpoena has been granted issued uh and on the 10th they’ve been served uh we know that they got it because they wrote to us you know about the 20th maybe 21st 22nd and said oh you better withdraw this because you know nasty nasty threats well we didn’t withdraw it

and they still haven’t applied to set it aside so they’re certainly liable to be found in contempt so saunders and staniforth are found well not found but they’re liable to be found in in contempt andrew saunders breaches rule 1.1 he breaches rules 6.3 b and 6.3 or 4d or something like that so if you’re thinking of engaging a valuer or a town planner uh it’s all there for you to have a read of uh if you know anything about andrew saunders if you know anything about bob patfield the merger maybe you used to work there maybe you’re a client uh maybe you’ve had some experiences with colin biggers and paisley lawyers maybe you’ve come across some racketeer lawyer um maybe you’re the work experienced girl maybe your name is magoo and you work at colin biggers and paisley lawyers if you want to clear the air um on our website dcpartners.solutions/podcast bottom right hand corner we’ve got a chat tool there and we’d love to talk to you

okay we’re now going to turn to one of our favorite r’s ralph. ralph paligaru ralph ignatius paligaru uh formerly of uh 88 perfection avenue stanhope gardens um i can give you he the name where he currently lives is on the bankruptcy notice so if you want to get in touch with ralph he’s a wonderful guy i’ve even published his phone number his email address you can contact him or you like and add him as a friend become a friend ralph’s going to need a few friends so um ralph well i met ralph in march of 2017 and um he’d taken out he’d taken out some loans um these are on the record because these are subject to things that were uh published and read in the new south wales supreme court in on december of 2019 um we put on an affidavit i did anyway uh and um the evidence there i’ll make sure i put up the my exhibit um which contains copy of the uh uh the uh loan documents uh uh i think the loan statement is there as well so ralph took out a loan now this was not an oppressive loan ralph asked for it um he took out a loan for 114 000 in about august 2016 on a one-year term one year um so this is just after the sale of uh 632 old northern road dural (which settled in May 2016) and uh ralph took out a loan from a company called reliance leasing now that loan hasn’t been paid back and it got assigned to my company dcp litigation holdings so any dollar that was owed under that loan to reliance leasing is now owed to dcp litigation holdings and the uh assignment happened in about september 2019

uh ralph took out a one-year loan (from August 2016) interest free 114 000 so you can’t say that that’s unfair that that is uh incredibly fair he asked for it he wanted it uh he got it so an interest-free loan for 114 000 uh is not an unfair loan now uh in august 2017 so that’s one year after he took it out it’s due to be repaid and he then goes and borrows not from us we won’t give him any more money but he goes and borrows from franklin yeezy pty limited uh 540 000 uh and the terms are that in default uh i think the uh not in default the terms are about 3% per month so a lot of money uh about from the top of my head $15,000 a uh a month something like that maybe 16k um

but if he’s in default and from memory it was a three-month loan so um

three months and one day if you haven’t paid it back well you need to roll it over or come to some arrangement

and if you don’t then the default terms are 6%  per month so in the first month it becomes um about $32,000 in the first month interest now if you haven’t paid that like that’s a year’s wages for someone and look i’ve got a copy of ralph’s uh tax returns he gave them to me uh he’s waived all privilege and um they may well have been uh filed in court as well uh ralph’s tax returns well ralph doesn’t okay ralph declared an income not not a whole lot more than 32 000 per month so um you could say that this is a very high risk borrowing now our stuff was 0% interest um not 3 percent and certainly not 6 percent per month um so we had an extremely uh good arrangement in his favor and he was required to pay our loan back in them in one year and and didn’t um and um our case and i’ll put up a copy of our case our case was that um

when he went to refinances these monies ralph requested uh a withdrawal of our caveat which reliance provided and then withdrew and we’ve got it in writing um that uh the authority that the the withdrawal of caveat was to be held in escrow um wasn’t to be handed over and it was handed over and the lawyer acting for ralph paligaru was john francis mahony uh is holding this the case is that uh john francis mahony was holding this uh withdrawal of caveat in escrow and uh as he’s our fiduciary he’s um i actually do some work for reliance leasing so uh the case is and the um

we sought uh the leave of the supreme court of new south wales to uh claim against john francis mahony that and lawcover uh that uh john francis mahony was our fiduciary and he owed duties to reliance leasing and this is about the 8th of august 2017 on the 8th of august 2017 he gets messages in writing and we’ve got copies of those uh and this attempts to phone and um the instructions are he must and in representations not necessarily from mahony but from ralph we were provided that there must be additional security because there’s only so much equity left in ralph’s house and the messages to mahony was that and or possibly to ralph uh but the the messages were well we’re up to 90% gearing so we’re it may have even been 92% gearing so in other words virtually no no equity and we’ve done ralph a favor we’ve given him an interest-free loan uh so we said okay give us some extra security give us a charge over ralph’s interest in 632 old northern road now

i i have to be slightly careful here um around that time around i met ralph in march of 2017 and i believe in june of 2017 i became aware uh because ralph disclosed to me that he had a confidential heads of agreement which gave him

he entered into it before he entered in the confidential heads of agreement he entered into that (in April 2016) before he entered into the contract to sell the land (may 2016) so we entered into this confidential heads of agreement that says what it says and it says that uh in effect ralph will end up with a 20 interest in a ralph personally it names ralph personally as the beneficiary um uh in a private hospital so ralph will end up with a 20 interest in a private hospital for nothing

yeah, who wouldn’t want one of those? um so ralph had appointed an estate agent to sell the property

it came out that

came out that ralph had sent that state agent a bill for a referral fee uh for $60,000 

um so these are all these little benefits that ralph is getting um well thinking he’s getting or ralph is seeking to obtain ralph at the same time is employed by this man called mohan kumar and mohan kumar is paying ralph a monthly retainer um i’ve got documents from mahony where mahony describes ralph as mohan kumar’s australian manager

for that effect um so think of it like this i employ ralph do i expect some fidelity from ralph? uh do i want him to be looking after my interest because i’m paying him a wage or you know retainer every month?

anyone that i employ in my company look i expect them to have my interests at heart if you run a corner shop and you employ freddie as a as a assistant well you don’t want freddy to be pinching if that’s the term um you know pinching the cookies well mohan kumar is at a huge disadvantage at this point he’s sitting in a jail in india so you could say he was disabled and ralph is out there

ralph was his power of attorney and ralph was instructed to sell the property so ralph did that part now when you sell it when you appoint an agent well there’s usually going to be a commission um and you know mohan kumar i’m sure probably wanted to pay the cheapest commission um did he (Mohan Kumar) intend for ralph to get another year’s salary paid out of um paid by the state agent as a sort of finders fee? um or did mohan kumar um

or did mohan kumar who’s paying ralph’s wages or paying him a retainer did mohan kumar expect ralph to do things looking after mohan kumar i probably think most employers would expect their employee to do the right thing and look after the employer’s interest first so anyway um after the property sold well the the we’re going to put up the the precise i’ve already done it i put up the chronology of how 632 old northern road was sold an estate agent brooke’s partners was was appointed um

at some point craig adams comes along uh says he’s you know looking for some maybe an option at some stage and you know vendor finance this property is worth five and a half million dollars um the title deeds are handed over to um craig adams for one and a half million a $5.5m dollar property is transferred to craig adams for $1.5m plus a uh $4m loan um and so uh we’re saying uh as reliance well we want a share of we want our security there’s no no equity left at um um 88 perfection avenue stanhope gardens we want our security sec we just want to charge

the loan to the loan to ralph for 114 000 says that we get a charge over ralph’s property

at that time ralph and at the time august 2016 he had already entered into

he’d already entered into the heads of agreement the confidential heads of agreement (dated april 2016) with craig adams saying he’ll get a 20 interest in this private hospital so um it’s charged

after august 2016 after uh our caveat held in escrow by john francis mahony um gets handed over and we don’t we don’t get a charge on dural john mahony writes to me and says no ralph’s got no interest in

ralph has NO interest in 632 old northern road

no interest and john mahony even wrote to me and said if ralph said he owns the sydney harbour bridge or maybe it was the sydney opera house i can’t remember it was one of those if ralph said he owns the sydney opera house does that mean he’s got an interest

now clearly ralph has no interest in the sydney opera house did he have an interest in um

632 old northern road? ralph later put a caveat on 632 old northern road saying yes he did have an interest, yet mahony and i wonder whether mahony swore that

what i can tell you is ralph probably and amreeta but definitely ralph uh put a caveat on 632 old northern road saying he absolutely did have an interest in old but mahony has handed over our caveat

on 88 perfection avenue hour being reliances which assigned to me and as then in september maybe october november uh said that um

said no ralph uh we’re not giving you any extra security over 632 old northern road because ralph actually doesn’t have any interest so these are all very important because

john mahony is not only ralph’s lawyer but he is the lawyer for the real owner of 632 old northern road or at least the former owner uh mohan kumar so mohan kumar is owed 4 million bucks and at the same time in august 2017 uh mahony is issuing invoices to uh the purchaser so he’s acting for three parties with an interest with three different interests in the same land

and he is our fiduciary so it’s

it’s a rather unusual set of circumstances and we sought to have leave from the supreme court of new south wales to uh run a cross, run a cross claim against um john mahony for handing over our withdrawal of caviar when instructed not to

so it is a fact he handed it over

so look at this point uh ralph it’s now december 2020

. ralph under the august 2016 loan paid back not one single cent ever 114 000 interest-free never paid back one single cent uh the proper and even worse than that he put us to tens of thousands of dollars of legal expense to protect our interest

so

even denied through mahony uh and possibly uh in his defense he he denied that he owed any money um whatsoever to reliance leasing putting aside he signed it he gave us the caveat we had it there they lifted the caveat then they put another caveat back on uh he claims that uh

he had nothing so what am i saying about ralph well ralph um

ralph looks after ralph’s interest

um ralph makes, from my experience talking personally here ralph will make you promises uh he’ll even sign things uh he’ll even he’ll promise you the world but um sometimes ralph’s promises are not kept so um ralph let’s talk about mohan kumar now mohan kumar left australia on the uh and i mentioned he’s in jail um he left australia in october 2015 a couple of weeks before he left he hands a ralph a a power of attorney now i’m saying the power of attorney is is properly documented and is registered so um it’s legit the power of attorney is legit um there’s no um clauses in there that say say that ralph is entitled to confer on himself benefits in other words he can’t just get the 5 million piece of land and go and give himself a 20% interest in a private hospital now mahony later says well no that was really held for mohan kumar so um

maybe ralph is concealing assets for uh mohan kumar i don’t know if that’s illegal uh i do know that moan kumar is not a resident of australia and uh i believe uh people that are not residents of australia uh must get approval for their investments so um they you know if someone wanted to buy the property next door from china or india or wherever … uh well they have to make an application in certain circumstances there are exceptions but in certain circumstances they have to make an application to the foreign interest review board so the owner of a private hospital um probably i’m not an expert here but probably needs to make an application to um the foreign investment review board to be approved to um so they don’t let people that are money launderers for instance or gangsters probably uh people that are out there killing 20 people and involved in extortion and um you know crown casino has got problems because you know occasionally a gambler comes through there with dirty money so this is a real this is a real issue and um and i’ve said i’ve talked elsewhere in the podcast that we want to talk about um we want to talk about you know foreigners and money laundering uh and i’m not just talking about chinese or indian or californians doesn’t matter any any money launderers coming to australia with their money uh it’s legit to discuss it so um the paligaru

uh the paligaru thing is you know real um no sorry i was talking about mohan kumar so mohan kumar

his lawyer is uh mahony his power of attorney is ralph paligaru and ralph has helped, attempted to help himself to a sixty thousand dollar kickback from brookes partners uh real estate now brookes partners didn’t deny that there was uh a um debt if you like or arrangement so we say would you say arrangement they didn’t deny that there was an arrangement they just said that they it was not enforceable because ralph’s not a real estate agent that’s quite true ralph is not a real estate agent and therefore under the you know the various uh real stock and station acts stock station agents acts they can’t pay a commission to someone who’s an unlicensed agent absolutely correct uh ralph was an unlicensed agent now they never said we never made that arrangement with ralph they just said they can’t pay it it would be an offense so um for many reasons brookes partners is correct um now brookes partners also possibly have another problem in that after the property was sold they kept on sending the rent money to ralph so

at least some of the rent money some of the rent money every month went to ralph now what did brookes partners know when they introduced craig adams and they acted oh they acted for the vendor so that means they owe a duty to the vendor mo and kumar well brookes partners um were a party to this deal they did the introduction and uh they became the managing agent they collected the rent uh and part of the rent which then belonged to craig adams’s company uh they knew and they paid that to ralph so

ralph goes from working for mohan kumar

up until the day the property settles 632 old northern road to now receiving money from the purchaser but still owing a duty to uh he’s the power of attorney to mohan kumar and his own four million bucks so it’s it’s a it’s a very messy dirty messy just we’ll just say messy messy arrangement and um ralph um oh now ralph uh mohan kumar’s owed four million bucks ralph decides to assign that uh debt to me to my company for collection so ralph assigns that uh in about july um 2018. he assigns that and then says that um come the 8th of maybe the 9th of january 2019 says oh no didn’t do it that’s in writing it’s witnessed, he said, his lawyer john mahony our friend mr mahony said ralph held ralph only entered that under duress well duress means i held a gun to his head so in a office building in a public space you know surrounded by 20 or 30 50 people on the floor uh ralph he didn’t even sign it once he signed it twice he signed it in july of uh 2018 allegedly with a gun to his hit then he says that in november of 2018 he amends that deed and his wife witnesses it and he amends a second deed and apparently all along there’s a gun to being held to his head so john mahony um writes to me in july oh sorry january 2019 said oh yeah ralph signed those but it was under duress so what am i what am i accusing john mahony off well i’m accusing him of the things that are stated in the cross claim that’s what i’m accusing him of and i’m accusing him of not knowing the meaning of the word duress because um john manny’s been a lawyer for let’s say 40 years uh pretty sure he got his law degree at unsw in about 1975 when i was about six so he’s been a lawyer for a very long time and he should know the meaning of the word duress uh and but he put that meaning he put that word in writing said that he’s ralph signed it under duress or something to that effect um when uh

it’s just it’s fanciful absolutely fanciful so um

i have complained to the office of legal services commissioner about john mahony and um a company a law firm called YPOL, YPOL is i don’t know what it stands for but they act for uh lawcover there is a claim uh there has been a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars we ralph signed a deed uh john mahony witnessed the deed uh john mahony was involved in preparing the deed john mahony signed the consent order on behalf of his client saying that if ralph does not uh honor the deed if he’s in default we can register my lawyers could register uh a consent judgment so as i said we spent tens of thousands of dollars on um getting enforcing our rights and um

john mahony now i’m going to publish the letter i’ll have to have a look make sure it’s not um without prejudice i believe it’s on the record john mahony writes that my lawyers fraudulently obtained uh the consent judgment

uh john mahony also um has …

a lawyer cannot contact the clients of another lawyer

reliance and myself my company were represented by lawyers the same lawyer and um john mahony had some legitimate discussions with mr steinberg of reliance leasing but

john mahony then proceeded i’ve got copies of all the text messages um john mahony proceeded to then discuss court cases uh john mahony been a lawyer for uh 40 years whatever long time say three decades at least three decades he must know the rules of uh you know lawyer’s rules he does know and um he has conversations with other people’s clients he was warned in writing by our lawyers over and over not to discuss the case uh with reliance leasing and in its director is a guy called garry steinberg well he did have some legitimate conversations with garry steinberg but inevitably the conversation somehow turned somehow somehow turned to um ralph paligaru and um at all times mahony knew

that he that steinberg had a lawyer and

mahony continued to talk to that other person’s lawyer behind the back of the other lawyer so when written to repeatedly do not contact our client now he could contact him on a friendly basis but not to talk about the specifics of the case so um it’s one interesting

mess there’s a lot more to come on ralph paligaru he’s now over there in fiji uh trying to operate a timber mill um obviously uh if he if he was successful in doing that he would be um selling all sorts of timber export so um he oh yeah mohan kumar the guy who he’s uh um power of attorney he’s an underworld figure like apparently killed apparently like reports um chhota rajan is he is his moniker his real name is something other than well (it is reportedly Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje) apparently uh is something other than mohan kumar but mohan kumar in is now in india on a life sentence he has been found guilty of killing uh ordering a hit on a journalist for writing that you know um uh saying he was gangster or something um the journalist is dead and uh kumar was well not kumar but the person the real person whoever mohan kumar is (Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje) um ralph’s employer uh the person that ralph is a duty to uh the client of john mahony uh at the same time when he’s the you’ve got clients called bargo craig adams and ralph paligaru are all all having different interests um john mahony the best lawyer in the world i mean he he’s able to juggle all these conflicts it’s just it’s just uh phenomenal what what what he can do so um it’s a real uh interesting matter and we will no doubt uh will pop up onto our website you know many of the documents a lot of the emails a lot of the circumstances there’s a chronology there there’s many many uh documents um there that ralph’s provided all sorts of admissions his way of privilege he’s done all sorts of things and um ralph is now saying uh not that he’s a crook or not that he works for a murderer or did um he probably doesn’t well he still holds the power of attorney so um

but he’s now ralph through mr mahony who’s saying no no no mark smith you’re the crook you’re the crook here you fraudulently obtained the the consent judgment oh we issued a bankruptcy notice to ralph as i mentioned earlier on so he’s saying well we’re we’re the dirty ones we’re the dirty ones we we transferred 114 000 uh interest-free um we had a caveat they say never had it had never had any interest in the land um never owed any money withdrawals being given when they’re held in escrow it’s it’s one hell of a mess

to be continued….

it’s so 2021 what’s that going to be all about um well we’re going to

be as i said building financial products and there’ll be a few links to a couple of those and uh we’re talking we’ll talk a little bit more about that in in um well a lot probably in every episode in 2021 we’ll be talking about our AFSL and particularly the busifund legal services capital trust and this is a fund that we’ve set up to you know give give investors something to something a bit different so 2021 we’ll certainly be talking endlessly about westpac and uh it will be absolutely shameful some of the um things that come out about westpac bank we will be talking no doubt about saunders and staniforth unless they happen to settle um i will definitely be talking about ralph he’s another R. um we won’t be probably talking about hakan but i think uh business interruption insurance is going to be and insurance in general it’s it’s an absolute it’s probably a necessity but many people view it as an absolute rip-off and um i

will talk we’ll talk some more uh managed investment schemes now that’s something uh preparing and uh setting up managed investment schemes is something that you can do with an afsl and that’s something busifund um can do um without afsl so uh there’ll be many many real estate rules that we talk about definitely in 2021 we’re going to touch on uh some lovely people from the orange region bernard and fiona hall they’re

their company biteriot operations pty limited uh caernarvon cherry and uh we’ll certainly talk about bonny glenn fruits and i wouldn’t be surprised if there’s going to be some public examinations in this into this company in 2021 so we’ll see about that and we’ll talk about some of these um foreign money launderers and particularly um i i spend well certainly next year i’m i intend to spend a lot more time in orange and uh our property out there has uh let’s set in a rural area there you go rural there’s another R. um rural we’re going to talk about rural issues and and um uh i have nothing against china i i had a trip there about 12 months ago i thought it was incredible uh different different and i mean i didn’t say beautiful

but i did say incredible and i did say it’s it’s it’s quite a staggering staggering country and and what’s going on there the development and um and the scope but there’s also a lot of people and um i mean i i didn’t quite appreciate um with china the uh financing issues i actually had to get money into china and um well no one wants to get money into if you’re if you’re a trader i i went to to china to buy a container load of a product and uh no one in china wants to receive their own currency no one like no trading business at all wants to receive their own currency they want to receive it in hong kong and they want to receive it in us dollars and and it would seem it certainly occurs to me that some of the quote unquote investments that are made in australia in the rural

in the rural space

i think we want to as a nation consider

whether some of the

i think it’s it’s time to look and think about whether some of the investments that are coming to australia by a foreigners are really bona fide investments um so i’m not going to touch on that right now but in 2021 i i think it’s something that we should talk about and so that is the end of the beginning well thank you again it’s been an interesting 2020 um we haven’t probably uh put on as many episodes as we’d like um but uh here we are uh we’ve we’re up to episode 3 we’ve we’ve started and uh the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step so uh we’re on the journey um for our next episode i’m not sure if we’ll have another one just before or around christmas and i suspect though there will be an orange episode in either episode 4 or episode 5 um we’re going to be at the wonderful snowgums retreat at orange and we’ll be taking you to meet some of our villains uh maybe not in person but uh we’ll be going to see some of our villains um and uh we’ll go and see you know saunders and staniforth we’ll we may go to a place called cabonne council we haven’t talked very much about them but yes we’ll see where we go with with cabonne we will probably

go and visit uh what i how i described one of the biggest employers uh in uh in the district there which is called caernarvon cherry now they managed as i’ve said in episode 1 season 1 episode 1 uh that uh this is a company that employs uh something like has employed something like 900 employees out of a tin shed. so uh a much bigger employer you’ve heard of Cadia MIne out there employing uh you know the current owners are spending six or seven hundred uh million million yeah i a lot of money maybe a billion dollars uh doing upgrades well i don’t even think they’ve got 900 employees so uh yet uh our friends at caernarvon cherry uh

have 900 employees and um look we might even go and visit some of their employees i mean some of their employees this uh like 50 to 100 of them that uh just don’t have an have an address or their address is uh um same address as the caernarvon cherry office they don’t have a date of birth they don’t have a tax file number they don’t have a superannuation fund yet um you know they’re earning four thousand dollars working 180 hours in the week so um four thousand eight hundred maybe uh in the case of one fellow who doesn’t have a date at birth who’s under 18. like no tax file number he’s under 18 uh he’s claiming the tax-free threshold uh doesn’t have a date of birth gets paid in cheque um look we’re definitely going to visit the westpac branch in orange that is where the caernarvon cherry cheque account is domiciled and

uh we have written to the uh at the time he was the ceo and we certainly wrote to the chairman uh of westpac now poor of course poor darlings they’re no longer uh employed there are they the victim of that money laundering

fustercluck um they’re called uh where uh where the bank got fined was it 1.3 billion dollars well anyway we wrote to the chairman and ceo and told them we gave him a list of cheques and said uh hold these hold these uh look we’ll go and visit orange police um we’ll we’ll take a video out on the street there and uh

we’ll explain the relevance of orange police uh while we’re there um got nothing bad to say about orange police just probably maybe not a lot of good but um uh we might even go and visit the centrelink office of at orange many of the uh caernarvon uh workers there uh allegedly um

well we’ll talk about it we might go and see some of the benefits of foreign investment um in the orange district uh and we’ll see what uh you know chinese money it doesn’t have to be chinese but uh can be chinese uh foreign money let’s just call it foreign money uh you know we’ll look at some of the great examples and some of the great value adds that some of our foreign investors have have brought to that part of the world we’ll certainly go and visit raine and horne at um orange that’s downstairs and upstairs is the illustrious um saunders and staniforth and uh funnily enough uh both raine and horne and saunders and staniforth are probably liable uh to be held in contempt they’re both been served

subpoenas and here we are um neither of them have complied one’s downstairs and one’s upstairs now unrelated companies uh but uh roger eddy is the director of the raine and horne orange and we’ve got mitch uh staniforth and andrew saunders upstairs um i’m not suggesting these companies uh are co-owned or heaven forbid they’ve done a merger but i will tell you that uh the same office um for um saunders and staniforth had merged according to saunders and there is a link for you go and have a look at their website or there’s a link to their website on the saunders page so just google dc partners uh saunders and staniforth and uh you’ll you’ll be able to see a copy an extract of uh their webpage where it talks about the merger so um anyway as i started to say happy christmas uh we’ll probably be coming to you just the other side of christmas from orange uh there is so many wonderful sights to see in orange uh such as the ones that i’ve talked about the centrelinks the police the westpac branch uh the caernarvon cherry uh heaven forbid uh no longer we can’t call it caernarvon cherry we we must be called biteriot operations uh look we’ll go and have a look at um we’ll go and have a look at uh

um

let me put it this way we’ll go and have a look at my easement um uh i’ve had one or two run-ins with some people that want to pretend that there’s no easement that’s been there since the 1970s so um well anyway so that brings us to the end of season 1 episode 3 so thank you very much for your attention happy christmas stay safe drive safe and we’ll see you a in episode 4 possibly from orange but maybe from sydney thank you

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

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

Ralph Paligaru – profile

ralph paligaru

revised in part on 15 and 16 December 2020 by Mark Smith

I met Ralph in late March 2017. Below are the personal opinions (unless stated otherwise) of Mark Smith.

Public interest

Ralph purports to have connections to people in high public offices in Fiji – Cabinet Ministers having, he claims, attended Marist College as a Schoolboy in Fiji where he has said that he formed childhood and longterm relationships with persons later coming to occupy, as I mentioned, high public offices in Fiji. It is believed that some of these connections include to persons within the Reserve Bank of Fiji, Fiji Hardwood Corporation and a number of Government Departments. It is believed therefore that some of the below profile may be of public interest to those trading with persons and dealing with government officials, in some instances, in Fiji as well as interest to foreign persons providing aid, trade or other support to Fiji. This profile may also be of interest to Australians – Australia contributes a substantial sum of aid to Fiji and naturally as a sovereign nation we have an interest in the good governance of the Country of Fiji – one of our closest neighbours together with an interest in efficient and proper utilisation of Australia’s Aid provided to Fiji. Regrettably, Fiji, it is reported, has a problem with corruption along with other countries within the region. We do not suggest Ralph is involved in public wrongdoing, just the developing nature of administration and governance in some parts of the still developing world. The below article may also be in the public interest of persons from or interested in India. The public interest of Australia may also be involved – Ralph and his former employer (discussed below, man named Mohan Kumar) lobbied and received Visa’s and other benefits, as a result of lobbying and other likely legitimate dealings, from officials and public office holders in Australia.

Ralph Ignatius Paligaru (“Paligaru“) is the director of Dural Alliances Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and Mills Management (Fiji) Pte Ltd which has a lease or operating agreement over the Dreketi Timber Mill from the defunct Taiwan Timber Co, Fiji

It is unclear whether any secured or unsecured creditors of Taiwan Timber Co, Fiji benefit from the lease arrangement – but we say that analysis of the tenant is in the interests of creditors, stakeholders including suppliers to Dreketi Timber Mill and generally in the public interest particularly in Fiji.

Ralph has charged his shares in these 2 companies to my company DCP Litigation Holdings Pty Ltd (secured by 2 duly perfected PPSR’s).

Below is a chronology of key dates and events which the writer, Mark Smith believes to be true:

Background – Ralph & Mohan Kumar aka Chhota Rajan

Some time before 2015, probably well before 2015, Ralph was employed by a man known as Mohan Kumar. A detailed profile on this person is discussed by following the links to pages tagged Mohan Kumar aka Chhota Rajan.

Ralph Paligaru’s boss

On or about 6 October 2015, Mohan Kumar granted to Ralph a power of attorney with powers as to the management of Kumar’s affairs and property interests. A true copy of the Power of attorney is accessible here: click link.

The power of attorney granted does not expressly authorise Ralph Paligaru to confer personal benefit/s upon himself. In addition to the POA duties and obligations, Ralph continued to be on the payroll of Mohan Kumar (as his Manager until late May 2016) and thus owed obligations in contract to Mohan Kumar, Ralph’s then employer. The relevant Act provides:

A copy of the power of attorney – not expressly authorising Ralph to grant himself (for Mohan Kumar) personal benefits can be viewed here – click here.

On or about 25 October 2015, Mohan Kumar (apparently bearing a fake passport in the name of Mohan Kumar) boarded a plane at Sydney and travelled to Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. It is believed that Ralph Paligaru, on the same day, travelled from Sydney to Denpasar – but on a separate flight – Ralph has provided oral admissions to me to that effect that he did not travel with Mohan Kumar but he did travel to Bali on the same day as did Mohan KumarRalph’s then employer.

Upon arrival in Denpasar, the person claiming to be Mohan Kumar was arrested according to reports. The true identity of the traveller is not known to me however photographs of the person and his fake passport have been reported widely in global news sites including in India. The fake passport carried by the traveller known as Mohan Kumar was issued, it is reported, in Zimbabwe by India and later re-issued in Sydney – a matter of public interest to residents of Australia. A reported copy of the fake passport of Mohan Kumar is shown below:

This signature seems to be similar to the signature on the Power of Attorney given to Ralph – see link: https://bit.ly/3o631OV

I understand that corruption related cases have been been conducted re the issue of the fake passport in India alleging that the person carrying that fake passport is in fact Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje – also known as Mumbai gangster Chhota Rajan. To the best of my knowledge the traveller has not admitted to being Chhota Rajan. Links to an article by SBS containing these allegations is here: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/indian-mobster-hid-in-australia-for-7yrs

It is believed that Ralph was employed at all material times by Mohan Kumar at or concerning 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural. It is believed Ralph’s title of employment was, officially Manager of Kumar’s Australian interests.

To the best of my knowledge, Ralph stayed in Bali for approximately 1 night before returning to Sydney, accordingly I do not believe that Ralph’s visit to Bali was for or turned out to be for a vacation?

Mohan Kumar was arrested in Bali on about 25 October 2015, upon his arrival there and subsequently extradited to India.

The writer has located the following video believed to be an accurate report from a well known global news sources (AP):

SBS reports that Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje is wanted in India over the deaths of at least 20 women: see article – https://www.sbs.com.au/news/indian-mobster-hid-in-australia-for-7yrs

The writer has no knowledge of the truth of these allegations but says he was informed upon meeting Ralph Paligaru in March 2017 that Ralph was aware of such allegations. The writer is aware of Ralph’s concerns, in writing to Dennis English, a former lawyer of Ralph’s of being “lynched“.

The writer understands that Mohan Kumar appeared to be of good character during his residence in Australia over the period of about 12 years from about 2003 (on and off) till October 2015 approximately.

The writer has seen correspondence held by Ralph Paligaru written to the local member of Mohan Kumar being Phillip Ruddock (a highly reputable MP) which states that Mohan Kumar is in effect a reputable business person making investments which are, or seem to be, legitimate in Australia in the MP’s electorate and elsewhere. A copy of the letter can be seen by clicking this link: Letter to Phillip Ruddock MP. I was provided with a copy of this letter by Ralph.

Sale of 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural

During late 2015 or early 2016, Ralph Paligaru appointed Jon Brookes of Brookes Partners as agent to sell 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural.

On or about 5 July 2018, Ralph Paligaru informed me he believed that the appointment provided to him a personal benefit (discussed below).

Ralph had issued personally to Jon Brookes an invoice for a referral fee (personal benefit) on the commission which Brookes Partners was to and did receive upon the sale of the land to Bargo – a copy of Ralph personal invoice to Brookes Partners can be viewed here – click here.

Ralph assigned the debt to my company seeking that my company would recover for Ralph’s benefit a referral fee.

In the interests of Mohan Kumar, it is unclear why Ralph didn’t simply negotiate a lower fee than that which was agreed on the sale of 632 Old Northern Rd from the selling agent, Brookes Partners?

Between April and May 2016, as Kumar’s POA, Paligaru was involved in negotiations for the sale of 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural being folio 1/228521 (“the land”) with Adams, director of the purchasing vehicle company, Bargo.  A number of transactions were considered including a call option or vendor finance.

Around late April 2016, Ralph retained Dennis English of DCE Lawyers (“DCE”) in his capacity as POA for Kumar. The writer does not suggest that DCE provided anything other than sound legal advice to Ralph. Ralph provided me all the below emails (waiving privilege).

Around late April 2016, Craig and Bargo retain Guy Vinden (“GV”) as solicitor.

In April 2016 Ralph negotiated to receive an interest in Craig’s Dural project via a Heads of Agreement (Joint Venture or JV) between Ralph, Craig and another person named Andrew Murray, entered into confidentially at around the time when Ralph was both an employee of the former vendor of the Dural Land, Mohan Kumar and acted as Mohan Kumar’s Power of Attorney.

In later correspondence received from John Mahony of Mahony Law (Ralph’s lawyer but also a person who acted for, and was paid at various times by, Mohan Kumar as well as Craig Adams / Bargo Developments – a company owing Mohan Kumar more than $4m), John Mahony wrote the following:

It is noted that whilst John Mahony was Ralph’s lawyer, Bargo’s lawyer and Mohan Kumar’s lawyer, John Mahony had not (at the time) provided a written fee disclosure to Mohan Kumar – see attached letter from John Mahony – click here to view.

The writer is aware that Mahony claims to have orally disclosed costs (but not in writing) at some relevant times.

During a period when John Mahony had no written fee disclosure to Mohan Kumar (and he was acting for Ralph Paligaru (who had sought various personal benefits) and for Bargo Developments (who owed Mohan Kumar $4m+), John Mahony issued tax invoices to Mohan Kumar for $99,310.54copy of email and bills available – click here.

It is unknown whether Mohan Kumar knew of the shareholding Ralph was to receive via the Heads of Agreement (Joint Venture) or approved, although the writer notes the Heads of Agreement purports to be confidential and Ralph wrote concerning what he said was a “vested interest”. One such email can be viewed here by clicking this link.

It is unknown why, if the JV was for the benefit of Mohan Kumar, the shareholding and other benefits provided for in the JV were not simply made in the name of Mohan Kumar (the POA did not expressly permit Ralph to confer benefits upon himself)?

On or about 2 May 2016, Kumar’s solicitor, DCE advised Paligaru strongly against vendor finance for any transaction with Bargo.  Paligaru as POA for Kumar did not follow the advice. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

Between 9 and 10 May 2016, DCE and GV exchange correspondence. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

On 20 May 2016 at 1.51pm, DCE continued to advise Ralph, as Kumar’s solicitor, against vendor finance. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

Between 2.51pm and 3.04pm on 20 May 2016, DCE ceased to act for Kumar (at Ralph’s discretion). Copy of correspondence – click here.

On or about 20 May 2016, Paligaru appointed himself to act on the conveyance for Kumar to the ownership of Bargo. Copy of correspondence – click here for front page of contract.

On 21 May 2016, Paligaru writes to DCE seeking legal advice in order to avoid being “lynched”. Copy of correspondence – click here.

On 23 May 2016 at 8.58am, Paligaru receives from DCE legal advice. Copy of correspondence – click here.

On 23 May 2016 at 9.01am, Paligaru forwards the DCE legal advice to his Bargo JV partners, Adams & Murray. Copy of correspondence – click here.

On 23 May 2016 at 9.08am, Murray replies to Paligaru. Copy of correspondence – click here.

On 25 May 2016 at 4.25pm, Paligaru receives a signed copy of the Bargo JV. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

At or about 23 to 25 May 2016, Paligaru received employment (or a contract of some kind) to commence upon settlement, on terms of approx. $5,000 per month directly from Brookes Partners, managing agents for Bargo (Bargo, replacing Mohan Kumar as outgoing vendor and lessor). Copy of correspondence coming soon. Ralph received a monthly payment from Brookes Partners from the rent that Bargo was entitled to from the tenant of 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural after completion.

Until 31 May 2016, Kumar was the vendor of 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural being folio 1/228521 (“the land”), subsequently Bargo became its registered proprietor.

On or about 31 May 2016, through Paligaru under the POA, Kumar entered a contract for sale of the land in the sum of $5.5m. Kumar received the sum of $1,500,000 at settlement and taking a vendor’s lien for the sum of $4,000,000 secured by an unregistered mortgage (but didn’t register a caveat initially), an executed blank share transfer for 100% of the shares in Bargo Developments Pty Ltd (“the purchaser”) as detailed in the contract (“Kumar’s interest”). The vendor’s lien was between the vendor and purchaser however the sum was guaranteed by the director of the purchaser (“guarantor”). Copy of extracts of these documents – click here to view.

On 6 June 2016, Ralph Paligaru ABN 27860074875 issued tax invoice 1002 in the sum of $60,500 to Jon Brookes of Brookes Partners Real Estate for a personal referral fee – for referring the listing of Mohan Kumar’s land (Ralph was POA to Mohan Kumar) at 632 Old Northern Rd, to be listed and sold to Craig at Bargo for $5.5m (of which only $1.5m was paid and the balance of $4m remained unpaid pursuant to the vendor’s lien). It is unclear whether Ralph intended to disclose this “commission” to Mohan Kumar, the original owner of the Dural land nor why Ralph didn’t simply seek a $60k reduction in commission for his employer? A copy of the invoice from Ralph to Brookes Partners Real Estate – click here to view.

Between May 2016 and March 2017, the terms of the $4,000,000 vendor’s lien were defaulted upon.

On or about 15 March 2017, Lisa Natoli (the Chief Financial Officer of the mortgage manager for Pacific8 including Kesinda and its predecessor, N&M, see below, corresponded with Andrew Kingston (“Kingston”), Managing Director of Winchester O’Rourke, a closely related party of the mortgage manager for Pacific8.

On 15 March 2017, Kingston wrote to Justin Hatfield (“Hatfield”), mortgage broker for the purchaser. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

During the day and the evening of 22 March 2017, Paligaru made a series of calls to me seeking increasingly urgent someone to discuss the Bargo defaults and directions (that evening, except he had to attend his son’s school function), in securing unpaid monies pursuant to the unpaid vendor lien.

On 23 March 2017 at or about 7.30am, I met with Paligaru at his residence at 88 Perfection Ave, Stanhope Gardens.

Paligaru informed me the POA he held for Mr. Kumar who resided in an Indian prison (and would do so, Ralph said, on a life sentence).

During the meeting I enquired of Paligaru a series of questions concerning the vendor’s lien, and his exercise of the POA as follows (words to the effect) …

Me:  “Okay, you’ve entered into the sale of this land for $5.5m under this contract, how much money did you, Kumar, actually receive?”

Paligaru:  “About $1.5m on settlement”.

Me:  “Who signed the contract, you under the POA or Kumar?”.

Paligaru:  “Me, under the POA”.

Me:  “So where is the title deed?”.

Paligaru:  “Um, we, I gave it to Craig Adams”.

Me:  “So you held the title, but gave it to Adams?”.

Paligaru:  “Yes”.

Me:  “So you are saying you just gave Craig Adams the title deeds to a piece of land worth $5.5m and he went off and did whatever he liked with the property?”

Paligaru:  “It wasn’t like that, he promised in the contract to pay it back with interest.”

Me:  “But so far, has he kept his promises.”

Paligaru:  “No, not exactly.”

Me:  “Whose idea was the vendor finance?”.

Paligaru:  “Craig Adams and I came up with it, more or less, together”.

Me:  “But ultimately, who approved it, you or Kumar?”.

Paligaru:  “Me, I have full authority under the POA to manage his affairs however I see fit”.

At 7.47am on Friday 23 March 2017, I searched the register of the land for records of any persons claiming an interest in the land. I discovered registered interests in the land by Bargo, N & M Investments/Properties Pty Limited (“N&M”) and POE. Copy of search document coming soon.

On or about Friday 23 March 2017, (at my instigation) a caveat was recorded upon the title to the land to protect his interest. The caveat was sworn by Paligaru under the POA for Kumar (the Smith Caveat). A copy of the caveat as registered can be viewed here – click link – coming soon.

At 9.36am on Monday 27 March 2017, once aware of the interest of N&M, I searched N&M’s particulars, to know where to correspondence with N&M. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

On Monday 27 March 2017 (at 12.23pm), at my instigation, I conducted a grantor search on Bargo / Adams to see whom he’d given PPSR’s to. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

At 1.24pm on Monday 27 March 2017, I contacted the second mortgagee, POE, to discuss breaches of the vendor lien terms. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

On or about Monday 27 March 2017 (the next business day), at my instigation, I wrote and delivered a “no-tacking letters” to the first mortgagee at that time only owed circa $2.675m and the second mortgagee whom I knew professionally. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

On or about 2pm on Tuesday 28 March 2017, I served the no-tacking letter upon N&M’s registered office via its company secretary, Anthony John Catalano. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

On Wednesday 29 March 2017 at 11.41pm, I wrote by email to Mr. Catalano (copied to Paligaru) the first mortgagee (and solicitors for the second mortgagee) about the default of Bargo pursuant to the $4m vendor’s lien. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

Between 11.41pm on Wednesday 29 March 2017 and 6.05am on 30 March 2017, unbeknownst to the writer, Catalano wrote to Kingston supplying my email to Catalano. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

Between 28 and 30 March 2017, N&M the prior mortgagee to Kesinda and its manager received actual notice of the prior interest of Kumar. We can provide upon request a true copy of the relevant title searches, emails and notices given to the prior mortgagee to Kesinda (“N&M”) and Kesinda’s manager, Pacific 8 and/or Winchester O’Rourke, in particular its Managing Director Andrew Kingston (“the mortgagee’s manager”). Through Paligaru and Mahony, Kumar conducted mediation with Pacific 8, Kesinda, Kingston and the writer. Copy of correspondence coming soon.

In late July 2017 Dural Alliances Pty Ltd as a company was set-up with and by Ralph and his former partner Craig (see below) in the land and development proposed project at 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural (“the Dural land“).

In furtherance of unknown purposes, Ralph in August 2017 borrowed $540,000 from Franklin Yeezy Holdings Pty Ltd, which he supplied for the benefit of Craig Adams – to refinance loans secured to multiple of Craig’s properties.  Ralph was and still is (to our knowledge) the registered power of attorney of the former vendor, Mohan Kumar.

Some clues as to the purpose that Ralph borrowed the Franklin Yeezy funds might be found in this email – click here or alternatively in reading Ralph’s affidavit in those proceedings?

A mortgage (variations of which Mahony negotiated) and a deed (the deed preparation is thought to have involved John Mahony of Mahony Law) purport to have been entered in August 2017, a couple of days before the Franklin Yeezy advance. The Deed appears to have been witnessed by John Mahony of Mahony Law. The mortgage of Franklin Yeezy was prepared, to the best of my knowledge by David Lalic of Strategic Legal.

Ralph’s borrowings from Franklin Yeezy

Under the deed, the Paligaru’s were also to receive the sum of $20,000 – clause 1.

The Deed entitled Dural, Ralph and Amreeta to things including a charge with the right to caveat that interest in Warriewood properties owned by another of Craig’s companies – Golden Arrow International Pty Ltd (in liquidation) however this caveat was registered (we do not know why there was a delay) not on 4 August 2017 but, we understand about 6 December 2017.

Ralph gave sworn evidence that Mahony Law was paid for their services as follows:

The scope of legal services is not known, or confused by the below invoice 67519 seeming to cover some of the same content?

Confusingly, the writer is also aware, contradicting paragraph 24 of Ralph’s affidavit above, John Mahony of Mahony Law in fact issued invoice 67519 to Bargo Developments (e.g. Craig Adam’s company and not to Ralph Paligaru or Dural Alliances?) for preparation of the Deed and other items?

A copy of invoice 67519 itemised confirming that Bargo paid for Mahony’s services is attached here – click here.

A copy of the accompanying email from John Mahony to Ralph – click here.

The writer is unaware whether John Mahony of Mahony Law had any conflicts between his clients – Bargo Developments whom he issued invoice 67519 to – and Ralph & Amreeta Paligaru who mortgaged their family home – 88 Perfection Ave, Stanhope Gardens (default rate of 6%/month, e.g. >72% pa)?

The writer notes Mahony’s invoice to Bargo whereby Mahony’s email refers to the following which is confusing:

” …we enclose our tax invoice for acting on your behalf (Bargo) since the commencement of this matter.

Why is the invoice issued by Mahony to Craig’s company, Bargo Developments when Mahony’s email states “we enclose our tax invoice for acting on your behalf ….“??? – a copy of the invoice available – click here.

It is unclear why the invoice wasn’t issued to Ralph if Mahony was acting on behalf of Ralph (and not Bargo)?

A search of records show that caveat AM936966 was registered for the Paligaru’s – Ralph & Amreeta on the Golden Arrow Land in Warriewood pursuant to the 4 August 2017 Deed – caveat can be inspected by clicking here.

The writer is unsure of the reason for the delay of four (4) months between the entry of the Deed witnessed by John Mahony of Mahony Law and registration of the caveat (apparently lodged by John Mahony of Mahony Law?

The writer observes that the Deed is dated 4 August 2017 but the caveat is only attested (it seems) by Ralph (and not Amreeta) on 27 November 2017?

As a general rule it is understood that the law is that:

“where equities are equal, the first in time prevails”.

The writer notes that four (4) months, from August 2017 to 6 December 2017 (if correct) was a sufficiently long time by which time the Paligaru’s interest in that land at Warriewood was, it seems, postponed.

Postponement means, in simple terms, instead of a person receiving secured money before X person, that person is postponed behind X person (another person receives payment first or in priority).

It is believed that the decision not to (for reasons unknown) lodge caveats in August 2017 (until 6 December 2017) and the subsequent postponement that follows meant that Australasian Property Group Pte Ltd – controlled by Ian Jordan and Maya was paid (I believe circa $540,000) in priority to the charge of the Paligarus.

It is unknown who was responsible for the lodgment or non-lodgment of caveats or the circumstances for delay but observe the caveat appears to have been ultimately lodged with the reference “Mahony 398989” and the caveat states that it was attested before John Mahony (on 27 November 2017).

As mentioned elsewhere, Australasian Property Group Pte Ltd – operated by Ian Jordan – provided Craig a personal loan later secured to the Warriewood land (in priority to the Paligaru’s) – a copy of the relevant personal loan documents can be viewed here and here.

The APG person loan document appears to be witnessed by Ian Jordan who purports to be a director of APG? It is believed that, as Ralph has connections with Fiji, so to does Australasian Property Group Pte Ltd? The writer understands that Ralph and Ian Jordan travelled together in or to Fiji on business and considered a number of potential transactions? It is believed that some money (legitimately) changed hands between Ralph and APG in regards to transactions?

Ultimately, Ralph & Amreeta – it is believed – did not receive repayment of the sum of $540,000 from Craig Adam’s company Golden Arrow International Pty Ltd, postponed behind Australasian Property Group Pte Ltd. Accordingly interest became payable, secured to their house at 88 Perfection Ave, Stanhope Gardens to Franklin Yeezy. The Franklin Yeezy loan became subject to an interest rate of 6% per month (in default) as a result of that non-payment. John Mahony of Mahony Law provided advice to the Paligaru’s on the mortgage (and facilitated variations) and deed and was paid for his services (see above) in the sum of $3,236.71.

By my reckoning, interest on $540,000 at 6% per months amounts to around $32,400 in the first month in default.

In month 2 the interest (calculated on principal plus default interest) compounds, if not paid, to around $34,000 PER MONTH.

It is difficult to fathom why a person (such as Ralph and Amreeta) might provide such generous, high risk support to another person they did not know well, e.g. Craig? That is – it is difficult to comprehend why the Paligaru’s would be prepared to borrow on high risk terms for this particular 3rd person?

The precise benefit (if any) available to the Paligaru’s for their guarantee and provision of security is not known?

The writer is aware of an extract of a sworn affidavit of Ralph which can be viewed here – click link where Ralph provides some explanation in his own words for the provision of this financial support. I understand this affidavit was read in open court in December 2019.

Elsewhere Ralph swore the following:

Paligaru admissions
Paligaru admissions – are you any clearer?

The writer is aware that Ralph and Craig, at around the time the Dural land was being sold to Craig‘s companies named Bargo Developments Pty Ltd (also in liquidation), did sign a document – referring to itself as a Heads of Agreement – which appears to grant to Ralph an interest in a future Special Purpose Vehicle (sometimes people refer to similar vehicles as joint ventures).

On its face, the Heads of Agreement concerns the Dural land whereby Ralph would end up with a significant interest in a private hospital at a future point? Or at least the document suggests this intention – you be the judge: click here.

The Heads of Agreement, now well known in certain circles contains the words “confidential information” however confidentiality was waived by Ralph in 2017. Particularly, Ralph intended to require (he told me, in effect) specific performance of this Heads of Agreement writing the following email to me – click here to view.

The writer is not saying what the meaning of this particular email is but according to Ralph, Ralph wrote that he believed he had what he said he believed in July 2017 (shortly before taking out the Franklin Yeezy borrowings) was a “vested interest” claiming “this is my deal“. The writer is not aware that Ralph ever himself resiled from having the interest the Heads of Agreement purports to grant him, or that he refers to as a “vested interest”.

A copy of the email written by Ralph containing these words is available for review by clicking here. You be the judge what the document means – if anything?

The writer is unaware of the legal effect of the Heads of Agreement document – viewable here.

It is noted on its face, the Heads of Agreement appears to involved Craig Adams (“Craig“), Ralph and another person named Andrew Murray? Nothing is known of Andrew Murray other than what is contained in the Heads of Agreement and Ralph’s email.

Chronology continued – sale of the Kumar security

On or about early January 2018, Kesinda took its interest in the land (on notice, through N&M and the mortgagees manager of Kumar’s prior interest, assigned to DCP Litigation Holdings Pty Ltd).

Between February and March 2018, Kesinda procured from Reliance a postponement of its interest in the land.

On or about July 2018, Paligaru introduced the ultimate buyer of 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural under Pacific 8’s mortgage sale – the Galea Family.  That purchaser (or their agent) signed further agreements with Paligaru (conferring upon Ralph various benefits).  The Galea / Paligaru agreement (or attempted agreement) was facilitated in part by Kumar’s former lawyer John Mahony.

In July 2018, Kesinda, successor to N&M sold the land at Dural by public auction. Copy of documents coming soon.

To 25 August 2018, as assignee I calculated and believe that DCPLH is owed $5,339,928.99 from the above assignments from Kumar plus interest and costs. Bargo failed to dispute the amount or fact of the debt.

To 25 August 2018, as assignee I calculated and believe that DCPLH is owed $540,000 from the assignments from the Paligaru & Dural Alliance plus interest and costs since   Bargo failed to dispute the amount or fact of the debt.

On 26 October 2018, I gave Paligaru and each of Kesinda and the parties in the Kesinda proceedings notice of the application for windup of Bargo pursuant to the assigned debts.

Each of Kumar, Paligaru, Dural Alliances and Amreeta stood by, not disputing the assignment (Kumar to DCP, Paligaru/Dural Alliances to DCP), whilst the Applicant as their assignee proved its debt and caused the winding up of Bargo pursuant to the Bargo debts.

In the early morning of 14 November 2018 I swore an affidavit of debt.

On 14 November 2018, the Supreme Court of Victoria order upon the Applicant’s windup application concerning Bargo.

In July 2019, Mahony appeared for Mohan Kumar in a mediation with Adam Tilley and Pacific8‘s related party Kesinda, as well as Australasian Property Group and others. Ralph attended the mediation as the personal legal representative of Mohan Kumar. The mediation resulted in Mohan Kumar being paid a substantial sum which I understand was applied to pay legal expenses and to, at least in part, pay to reduce the indebtedness of Ralph and Amreeta Paligaru to Franklin Yeezy.

Also (possibly a coincidence), around the time of the mediation (on 31 July 2019) Ralph through a company he incorporated in Fiji named Mills Management (Fiji) Pte Ltd entered into a triparte lease with HFC Bank and Taiwan Timber Company (Fiji) Limited (in administration)?

It is believed that at the time the Taiwan Timber Company (Fiji) Limited owed HFC Bank under a mortgage together with an unknown number of creditors several million Fiji Dollars. The HFC Bank mortgage, we understand, is stamped to FJD$7,696,535.00 – surely a great sum for the shareholders of the HFC Bank if they are still carrying a debt of amount (it is believed that Taiwan Timber Company (Fiji) Limited is insolvent and in administration)?

We understand the director of Taiwan Timber Company (Fiji) Limited is a personal named: Mr Shin Ho Yu. The writer understands that under the triparte lease, Ralph’s company pays HFC Bank around FJD$85,000 per month? The writer is unaware if the timber mill has operated during the Covid period in mid to late 2020, the current status of the lease or the status of Ralph and his company’s relations with HFC Bank?

In February 2020 Dural Alliances was wound up in the Federal Court of Australia by my company, DCP Litigation Holdings Pty Ltdsee the attached court order – click here.

Later DCP Litigation Holdings proved a debt owed to it by Dural Alliances in the amount of $179,999.82the same source of debt alleged in order to windup that company – court order obtained here.

Ralph Paligaru had notice of the winding up of Dural Alliances and did not attend court nor did he contest the debt. A copy of the creditors statutory demand served upon Dural Alliances and an affidavit of service is attached here – click link.

The debt owed which the court held to be owed by Dural Alliances to DCP Litigation Holdings arises, I say and the court held, under a Deed also entered into by Ralph personal together with his wife Amreeta.

Alternatively, Ralph as director of the company Dural Alliances did not dispute the debt alleged to be owed to DCP Litigation Holdings. Under the same deed, if binding, Ralph may also have a liability to my company personally (noting he as director did not dispute that Dural Alliances owed the same alleged sum that led to the Dural Alliances company being wound up).

Unfortunately, subsequent to signing the Deed, Ralph has cooperated less and less toward achieving the objectives and purposes of the Assignment Deeds (Kumar to DCPLH, Paligaru/Dural Alliances to DCPLH) such that on 8 January 2019, Mark Smith for DCP Litigation Holdings accepted the repudiation by Ralph of the Deed.

As at 26/11/2020, John Mahony continues to act for Ralph Paligaru.

John Mahony has previously acted for Mohan Kumar (who Ralph holds a POA over) and has previously worked with Craig Adams.

In or about February 2020, Adam Tilley’s Pacific8 (the holder of an AFSL) loaned money under a 1st mortgage to Ralph and his wife. Adam Tilley’s Pacific8 (the holder of an AFSL) also, purely by coincidence, loaned money to Craig’s company Bargo (who bought Dural from Kumar) in 2016, 2017 and 2018 under a series of differently named lenders before appointing agents and selling 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural under its mortgage/power of sale.

These loans may be a coincidence, the writer does not suggest any wrongdoing by Pacific8 (the holder of an AFSL)? A further coincidence is that Adam Tilley’s Pacific8 (the holder of an AFSL) and Franklin Yeezy shared the same lawyer – Summer Lawyers a firm who do specialise and act for a large number of Sydney based private lenders.

The writer is only opining that “its a small world” and does not suggest any wrongdoing.

The writer also notes that Mr. Tilley is not an owner of Franklin Yeezy Holdings Pty Ltd.

On or about 20 July 2020, DCP Litigation Holdings filed a cross-claim and consent judgment (signed by Ralph’s lawyer John Mahony) against Ralph Paligaru in the sum of $106,551.

On 11 September 2020, the Supreme Court of NSW issued orders under the consent judgment in favour of DCP Litigation Holdings against Ralph Paligaru – a copy of that consent judgment may be view here – click link. DCP Litigation Holdings is taking steps to enforce that judgment. Ralph has indicated directly and through his lawyers that he does not wish or intend to become bankrupt. To date, the judgment sum has not been satisfied (not paid) – partially or fully.

If the writer believes there is further detail adding to the profile of Ralph Paligaru which come to light in the public interest to people, tax payers, business community, bankers, governments or others in Australia, Fiji, India and elsewhere, he reserves the right to publish appropriate materials.

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

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