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:

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:

Dural Alliances Pty Ltd (in liquidation) – profile

Ralph & Amreeta Paligaru

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

Below are the personal opinions (unless stated otherwise) of Mark Smith.

Public interest

Dural’s director is Ralph Ignatius Paligaru. Ralph purports to have connections to people in extremely high public offices in Fiji – Cabinet Ministers some having, he claims, attended a 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 Fiji, Fiji Hardwood Corporation and a number of Government Departments and elsewhere. It is believed some of the below 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 or other support to Fiji or otherwise. It may also be of interest to Australians & Chinese – Australia contributes a substantial sum of aid to Fiji (China is also reported to provide aid to Fiji), so naturally have an interest in the good governance of the Country of Fiji – one of Australia’s regional neighbours together with an interest in efficient and proper utilisation of the Aid provided by our nation to Fiji. Regrettably, Fiji, it is reported, has corruption problems as do other countries within the region. The below 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 employer (discussed throughout this blog, a man named Mohan Kumar) lobbied and received Visa’s and had other legitimate dealings with officials and public office holders in Australia. The solvency of corporations in Australia, their proper or improper registration of companies or otherwise, to provision of finance guaranteed by “mums and dads”, the rates of interest charged (in this case compounding at 6% PER MONTH IN DEFAULT, e.g. >72% per annum) and other factors are also believed to be of public interest.

About the company and its director

Ralph is the public officer of a company named Mills Management Fiji Pte Ltd – company search available here. The search records the registered address of Mills Management as Dreketi, Labasa, Fiji. The asset – Mill – that Mills Management Fiji Pte Ltd runs – is the Dreketi Mill, Dreketi, Labasa, Fiji.

As mentioned, Ralph is also a former director of Dural Alliances Pty Ltd (in liquidation).

Dural Alliances Pty Ltd was incorporated on 28 July 2017 with Ralph’s as its director and secretary. Craig Adams was, according to Ralph, involved in the registration of this company later obtaining the consent of Ralph. Later Ralph gave sworn evidence to the NSW Supreme Court, in part stating the followings:

This statement raises issues of public policy – people becoming shadow directors amongst other things.

Dural Alliances was placed into liquidation by order of the Federal Court of Australia – click here to view court order. The Plaintiff in the windup was DCP Litigation Holdings Pty Ltd.

Particulars of the debt and proof owed by Dural to DCP Litigation can be found here (the debt was not disputed, the windup was not opposed).

Dural, Ralph and Amreeta caused funds to be borrowed of $540,000 using their family home at 88 Perfection Ave, Stanhope Gardens as security for the loan advanced by Franklin Yeezy Holdings Pty Ltd.

A mortgage (variations sought by John Mahony of Mahony Law) and a deed (the deed preparation appears to have been witnessed by the Paligaru’s solicitor John Mahony of Mahony Law) and the Deed purports to have been entered in August 2017, a couple of days before the Franklin Yeezy advance. The mortgage of Franklin Yeezy was prepared, to the best of my knowledge by David Lalic of Strategic Legal. Ralph gave sworn evidence that Mahony Law was paid for their services as follows:

Pursuant to the deed, Dural, Ralph and Amreeta apparently received a charge over land belonging to Craig Adam’s company Golden Arrow International Pty Ltd as security, being land in Warriewood in return for the sum of $540,000. The deed was entered on or about 4 August 2017 – apparently in front of his solicitor John Mahony of Mahony Law, however a caveat was not registered until about 6 December 2017 – some 4 months laterclick here to view the caveat.

Related facts? Missing facts? Missing motive?

Precisely what would motivate Ralph and Amreeta to mortgage their house (where the default interest rate was compounding at 6% PER MONTH, i.e. >72% pa?)

Prior to entry into the Franklin Yeezy mortgage, Ralph entered Heads of Agreement (discussed in the Profile of Ralph Paligaru – click here to view) – which appears to have been signed around 24 April 2016. Ralph was Power of Attorney for Mohan Kumar and in the following weeks (May 2016) Ralph used his Power of Attorney for Mohan Kumar to execute a contract of sale to sell Kumar’s Dural Land to Craig’s companyBargoASIC search available here. The writer does not suggest the election to sell was not the legitimate wish of Kumar.

It is clear from the ASIC search that neither Ralph nor Mohan Kumar were ever the registered owner of any shares in Bargo although the vendor terms / mortgage between Mohan Kumar and Bargo entitled the vendor to accept shares in Bargo under certain circumstances (e.g. if Bargo was in default) – see mortgage.

Moreover, Craig Adams provided to Ralph (POA for Kumar) all the shares in Bargo as security for a vendor loan (if Bargo was in default under the $4m vendor loan?).

To the best information of the writer, neither Mohan Kumar nor Ralph elected to transfer or accept shares (or transfer the Bargo shares despite holding a signed transfer available to transfer the shares to whoever they’d like under the vendor mortgage / terms.

It is unknown what happened to the Heads of Agreement – it is unknown or unclear from the Heads of Agreement if Craig (or Ralph) held any shares ‘on trust’ for another person or persons – e.g. Mohan Kumar?

Ralph made written and then oral admissions to me in mid 2017 that the Heads of Agreement was “my deal” – click here to view the email containing this admission.

But this still does not explain why Ralph and Amreeta mortgaged their house and provided $540,000 to Craig or for the benefit of Craig? The precise benefit (if any) that Ralph and Amreeta thought they would receive is unknown? The writer supposes that the email from Ralph to myself dated 8 June 2017 may provide clues where it states the following:

Dural Alliance’s demise

Ralph Paligaru, the sole director of the company, had notice of the winding up of Dural Alliances but did not attend court nor contest or defend the alleged debt owed to my company in any way. Accordingly, the court, by issuing the windup order was, I believe, satisfied that Dural Alliances owed the sum alleged to the Plaintiff – DCP Litigation Holdings Pty Ltd (or at the very least owed in excess of the statutory minimum sum required to order the windup of a corporation AND that there was no dispute at all that the sum, or at least the minimum required sum, was owed to the applicant company, DCP Litigation Holdings Pty Ltd).

What is known is Bargo is now in liquidation, Craig is bankrupt. Dural Alliances was placed in liquidation in February 2020 in the Federal Court of Australia by my company, DCP Litigation Holdings Pty Ltdsee the attached court order – click here. 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.

A copy of the report to creditors of Dural Alliances can be viewed by clicking here.

A copy of the originating process for the windup include:

Creditors statutory demand

Affidavit of service

Originating process to Federal Court

Court listing particulars

Affidavit of debt

Windup order

Other matters / co-incidences?

In around April 2020, Ralph sold 88 Perfection Ave, Stanhope Gardens to satisfy some of the mortgages or charges however a 3rd charge to my company was not discharged and the caveat protecting that charge was withdrawn.

Coincidentally, the first mortgagee that was paid (as is usual) from the sale of 88 Perfection Ave, Stanhope Gardens was also linked to the mortgagor of the Dural land through lender Pacific8 – whose director is a man named Adam Tilley – a person infamously (so it is reported) being victim of a firebombing involving convicted murderer Ron Medich and his victim, Michael McGuirk. The writer is not suggesting Mr. Tilley is other than Mr. Paligaru (and Craig Adam’s) lender.

In or about February 2020, Pacific8 (the holder of an AFSL) loaned money under a 1st mortgage to Ralph and Amreeta. Pacific8 (is the holder of an AFSL). Pacific8 also loaned money to Craig’s company Bargo through a series of controlled companies, e.g. N&M and Kesinda. These loans to both Craig and Ralph are most likely just a coincidence, the writer does not suggest any wrongdoing by Adam Tilley’s Pacific8 (the holder of an AFSL)?

A further coincidence is that Adam Tilley’s Pacific8 (the holder of an AFSL) and Franklin Yeezy share the same lawyer – Summer Lawyers a firm who does specialise and act for a large number of Sydney based private lenders (such as Pacific 8).

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

The writer also notes that Mr. Tilley is not associated with Franklin Yeezy Holdings Pty Ltd.

A copy of the report to creditors of Dural Alliances can be viewed by clicking here.

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 about any person mentioned on this page – please use the instant chat tools – bottom right corner or the contact/tipoff form below:

5R podcast – S01E01

Podcast Mark Smith

5R Podcast – S01E01 – Rogues, Rascals, Rorts, Rip-offs & Reviewables

5R Podcast – Mark Smith, DC Partners (Solutions) Pty Ltd

for more information and in-depth villain profiles – visit our webpage https://www.dcpartners.solutions/products-services/blog/podcast/ or use the tags below to preview a particular person

To share this video: In this series: https://youtu.be/QT-0USvUcy0

To view other podcasts in this series – go to our podcast page – click here

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:

Season 1, Episode 1 (Chapter 1) discusses the following:

If you have any tipoffs on any of the above – please use the instant chat tool below

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).