Lou Novakovic – Profile

About Lou Novakovic:

Linkedin profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lou-novakovic-b4050198?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_profile_view_base_contact_details%3B1igN5rLTQXaeSyaJDSIc8A%3D%3D

Employer/Department Then: watch this space

Employer Now: watch this space

Key Facts: watch this space

Key Relationships: watch this space

Key Dates: watch this space

Key Documents: watch this space

Any Contradictory Factual Circumstances: watch this space

There is a lot more information that we are working on in this matter – so watch this space.

Do you know any of the people discussed in this blog? Do you want to share your experiences? See the below tip-off form / contact form, or use the instant chat tools in the bottom corner.

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).

Westpac v Ollis: Facts

There is a lot more information that we are working on in this matter – so watch this space.

Do you know any of the people discussed in this blog? Do you want to share your experiences? See the below tip-off form / contact form, or use the instant chat tools in the bottom corner.

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).

Mark Murphy – Profile

Mark Murphy

About Mark Murphy:

Linkedin profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-murphy-51b64913/?originalSubdomain=au

Employer/Department Then: Westpac/Senior Manager Internal Investigations

Employer Now: AMP/Investigations & Compliance, Advice Compliance

Key Facts: Watch this space

Key Relationships: Watch this space

Key Dates: Watch this space

Key Documents: Watch this space

Any Contradictory Factual Circumstances: Watch this space

There is a lot more information that we are working on in this matter – so watch this space.

Do you know any of the people discussed in this blog? Do you want to share your experiences? See the below tip-off form / contact form, or use the instant chat tools in the bottom corner.

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).

Westpac v Ollis: When?

Philip Crawford - lawyer for Westpac
DateEvent
2 October 2000Terms & Conditions of Westpac Business account published, pages 17-18 dealing with overdrawing by cheques, will be treated as application for credit. Terms & Conditions of Westpac Personal accounts published.   Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014 & late 2016 respectively.  
13 October 2000Ollis opens his personal deeming account with Westpac Ballina branch, account 732591-541135[1] (“the personal deeming account”) with Westpac Ballina officer Karen Booth.  
1 February 2002Terms & Conditions of Westpac Business account published.[2]   Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014/2016.  
18 March 2002Ollis opens account 032523-180123 with Westpac Gosford branch receiving and agreeing to T&Cs received (“the business cheque account”).    Sarah Rodgers advises NSWP on 11 Sep 06 that Ollis received the T&C’s.  
18 July 2002Terms & Conditions of Westpac Business account published.[3] Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014/2016.
1 March 2003Terms & Conditions of Westpac Business account published. [4] Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014/2016.
1 May 2003Terms & Conditions of Westpac Business account published[5]. Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014/2016.
19 August 2003Ollis executes Westpac ATR form at Gosford Branch, including sections 4 and 5. Form states that it is required to be sent the Ballina Branch at which the replenishing personal account is domiciled.  Accordingly, Ballina Branch is on notice from 19 Aug 03 that any shortfall in the balance in the (Gosford) business account would be attempted to be drawn against the personal account at the end of each relevant banking day. The Claimant was without notice of this document and its terms until late 2014, believing as advised that Ollis was not authorized to overdraw his account.
20 August 2003Westpac Concord West Data Processing Centre, BSB 032890 (staff member unknown but not staff member F139439) attempts to contact Sarah Rodgers of Westpac Gosford Branch.  Records on page 2 of ATR form “Sarah not in 20/8”
21 August 2003No evidence of the ATR document being received at Ballina nor any material differences in the documents as later amended by BSB 032890.
21 August 2003 (At 2.32 p.m)Westpac Concord West Data Processing Centre, BSB 032890 (likely staff member F139439) tamper with the Authority to make replenishment or automatic transfer.  Staff member amends sections 4 and 5 of the form with the letter X and a large circle.  A staff member (likely F139439) unilaterally completes section 6 of the form establishing the ATR. Staff member F139439 then processes Batch Data Entry number 28900636. Westpac’s Helen Patrice Nelson swears affidavit on 19 July 2013 that:  I note that each line item on pages 6 and 7relates to an accurate data entry made from the application form. Smith was without notice to this matter until 2017.
1 October 2003Terms & Conditions of Westpac Business account published. Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2016.
1 October 2003Banking Services Guide published by Westpac to govern the operation of the ATR. Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2016.
1 October 2003Banking Services Guide states that transactions will not be posted to the replenishment account held in a different branch until the next day, inferring that double-entry accounting is not intended to extend to ATR accounts, indicative of a design error? Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
3 November 2003Ollis’ personal deeming account is overdrawn by ($12.08) due to the operation of the ATR.  The ATR operation, whether designed to or not, permitted the transfer from the personal deeming account to the business cheque account of, it would appear, the debit value (overdrawn balance) of the business cheque account.  Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
1 November 2003Terms & Conditions of Westpac Business account published. Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2016.
11 November 2003Ollis’ personal deeming account is overdrawn by ($1137.49) due to the operation of the ATR.  Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
9 February 2004Terms & Conditions of Westpac Business account published. Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2016.
17 February 2004Ollis presents demand/cheque from Business Account 180123 to Westpac as drawee bank who honour it from his personal deeming account despite it lacking funds, causing personal deeming account 541135 to overdraw by $36,536.29 following the operation of the ATR facility. Inference – the ATR Facility is faulty and has no limit on the quantum of funds that will replenish the Business Cheque Account, i.e. not limited to the credit balance of the Personal Deeming Account.  Moreover, Westpac failed to follow prudent or normal banking practices.    Westpac treats cheque as an application for credit, applying variable interest charges.  
03 March 2004 (11.13 am)Westpac Collection enter note acknowledging transfer of funds from Personal Deeming account to Business Cheque account “…on 19/2 o/drew acc”.
11 March 2004Westpac sent Ollis a letter L1750 re account 541135 saying:   “…future withdrawals that create an unapproved overdraft may not be honoured.” Bank told the court that withdrawals “forbidden”.   Smith was without notice to this letter until late 2014.  
16 March 2004Mark Smith received Ernst & Young taxation and structuring advice.
16 March 2004 (2.10 pm)Westpac agrees to provide Ollis with a schedule for repayments at $1,000 per week.  
20 March 2004 (10.50 am)Westpac collections staff member (ID F018624) changed the status of personal deeming account from (normal) “NOR” to (post-credits only) “PCO”. A tracing report seems to show no before or after the status change to the no further debits “NFD”.  This status warrants further investigation. Westpac admitted: “proper practice at that point would have been to cancel or suspend the ATR Accordingly, the human failure to follow the procedure to cancel the ATR facility caused the system errors which permitted Ollis’ account to be replenished from the Ballina Branch unposted items (UPI) suspense account. The further failure of Westpac corrections to investigate lead to the continued replenishments. Mazzone comments re: the automatic nature and timing of double entries contradict Witheridge’s and the Banking Services Guide. Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2016.
25 March 2004Westpac send Ollis letter L2250 re account 541135 repeating that:   “…future withdrawals that create an unapproved overdraft may not be honoured.” Bank told court that withdrawals “forbidden”. Smith was without notice to this letter until late 2014.  
21 May 2004Smith executes Ernst & Young valuation letter of engagement.
18 June 2004Smith receives Ernst & Young Independent Valuation Report valuing project lands at $82,885,636 discounted to June 2006 at circa $52,000,000
29 November 2004Terms & Conditions of Westpac Business account published. Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2016.
December 2004Westpac document ref. GD5377 entitled “What is an ATR?” (For retail and business customers) is published.
6 May 2005 – 23 December 2005Between 6 May 2005 to 23 December 2005, Ollis presents a series of unconditional orders in writing to his drawee bank (Westpac), duly signed and demanding that Westpac pay to several drawer institutions including its own Westpac accounts, Commonwealth Bank and Bendigo Bank a series certain sums from his business cheque account 180123. As a result, the drawee bank (Westpac) in each instance honoured the demand and caused to flow a total of approximately $11m to several payees. It has recently been discovered that the drawee bank admitted to failing to follow all correct banking procedures (to the effect) that a prudent banker would follow.  As such the drawee bank transferred to Ollis’ account 180123, upon on each instance Ollis’ account would have been overdrawn, including when Ollis issued written demands what would have been the overdrawn balance of his account from its Ballina branches unposted items suspense account (as an unapproved overdraft) on each instance.  
1. Westpac receives consideration of $1.50 per replenishment/per day plus additional fees monthly for the holding of the business account with the bank.
2. Westpac initially failed to acknowledge or apply the consideration of interest at the ULR rate (unarranged loan rate) it was entitled to under its contract with Ollis. 
3. Westpac subsequently applied interest according to its ULR rate as it was entitled to do under its contract with Ollis.
10 May 2005Westpac Corrections’ role was to:
“… investigate the transactions and determine the account to which the suspense account transaction needs to be sent.”
It typically entered a standard text input manually to Ollis’ business cheque statement when it investigated and reversed entries, being:
“Reversal of credit  transaction on 541135 732591 541135”
6 May 2005 -23 December 2005Ollis writes further 45 cheques and hundreds of direct debits from 180123, all honoured by the bank through replenishments in form of an unarranged loan (transferred to him from the bank’s Ballina branch unposted items suspense Account). 
It is the role of Westpac’s Corrections Area to:
“… investigate the transactions and determine the account to which the suspense account transaction needs to be sent.
Witheridge admitted Westpac suffered a “total breakdown of double-entry accounting” in the due course of conducting Ollis’ accounts.  Bank receives consideration of $1.50 per replenishment and unarranged loan rate interest.  
Notification Number:Date Presented:Drawee Cheque no.:Amount ($):Drawer Bank/Payee:
1.06 May 20050405057,402.75Unknown
2.18 May 200540012720,000.00Bendigo
3.17 June 200540012840,000.00Bendigo
4.13 July 200540012915,000.00Bendigo
5.19 July 200540013050,000.00Bendigo
6.19 Aug 200540013140,000.00Westpac
7.25 Aug 2005 40013280,000.00Westpac
8.31 Aug 200540013322,500.00CBA
9.31 Aug 2005400134250,000.00Westpac
10.08 Sep 200540013530,000.00CBA
11.09 Sep 200540013630,000.00CBA
12.20 Sep 200540013725,000.00CBA
13.21 Sep 200540013825,000.00 CBA
14.27 Sep 2005400139200,000.00Westpac
15.30 Sep 2005400142200,000.00Westpac
16.07 Oct 2005400143250,000.00Bendigo
17.10 Oct 2005400144300,000.00Bendigo
18.11 Oct 2005400145250,000.00Westpac
19.14 Oct 2005400146300,000.00Bendigo
20.18 Oct 2005400147320,000.00Bendigo
21.20 Oct 2005400148330,000.00Westpac
22.21 Oct 2005400149350,000.00Bendigo
23.25 Oct 2005400150350,000.00Bendigo
24.26 Oct 2005400151350,000.00Bendigo
25. 27 Oct 2005400152350,000.00Bendigo
26.28 Oct 2005400153380,000.00Bendigo
27. 31 Oct 2005 400154130,880.00CBA
28. 31 Oct 2005400155250,000.00Westpac
29.1 Nov 2005400157380,000.00Bendigo
30.2 Nov 2005400158400,000.00Bendigo
31. 4 Nov 2005400159400,000.00Bendigo
32. 7 Nov 2005400160380,000.00CBA
33.9 Nov 2005400161400,000.00Westpac
34.10 Nov 2005400162250,000.00Westpac
35. 14 Nov 2005400163400,000.00Westpac
36.18 Nov 2005400164400,000.00Westpac
37. 23 Nov 2005400165157,000.00Westpac
38.23 Nov 2005400166200,000.00Westpac
39. 01 Dec 2005400167400,000.00Westpac
40.02 Dec 2005400168400,000.00Westpac
41. 07 Dec 2005400169400,000.00Westpac
42.09 Dec 2005400170400,000.00Westpac
43.14 Dec 2005400171440,000.00Westpac
44.23 Dec 2005400172430,000.00Westpac
DateEvent
10 May 2005Contrary to its standard entry description Corrections (when reversing the debit entry against Ballina UPI Suspense account and to Ollis’ Business Cheque Account), following investigations, officers of Corrections departed from the standard entry as follows:

9 May 2005
Transfer/replenishment
From account 541135

10 May 2005
Transfer/replenishment
From account 541135

11 May 2005
Reversal of credit
Transaction on 541135
732591 541135

12 May 2005
Reversal of credit
Transaction on 541135
732591 541135

19 May 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 180505 732591 541135”

Inference: “A” person within the bank’s corrections department in Concord NSW obtains first-hand knowledge Ollis has drawn to his business account from Ballina UPI suspense account (bounced from the personal deeming account) but does NOT stop the drawing. Circularity. Contradicts Colwell evidence and finding in judgment.

9 June 2005
Transfer/replenishment
from account 541135 $1124.55

14 June 2005
“Withdrawal / Cheque 541135”

17 June 2005
“Transfer/replenishment by authority 541135 732591 541135 invalid”

27 June 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 240605 732591/541135”

1 July 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 290605 732591 541135”

7 July 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 541135”

18 July 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 541135 post no drs”

5 August 2005
“Transfer/replenishment by authority 180123”

8 August 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 541135”

9 August 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 541135”

15 August 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 120805 ”

22 September 2005
“Transfer/replenishment by authority 180123 732591 541135 invalid for debit”, drawing of $459,230.98 reversed.

10 October 2005
“Transfer / replenishment by authority 544135 732591 541135 pco $659,678.63”

21 October 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 191005 732591 541135 $1,144,030.95”

4 November 2005
“Withdrawal 0180123 732591 541135 $2,927,634.70”

21 November 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 171105 732591 541135 $3,801,726.33”

22 November 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 541135 732591 541135 PCO status $4,379,822.35”

02 December 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 541135 732591 541135 pco status $4,383,139.01”

16 December 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 141205 732591 541135 $5,224,379.34”

22 December 2005
“Withdrawal 0180123 732591 541135 $5,224,390.24”

30 December 2005
“Withdrawal 0180123 732591 541135 $5,227,280.06”

On 9 January 2005 Westpac allegedly investigated and discovered cancelled the ATR facility.

Smith was not on notice of the Westpac Bank statements until late 2014.
6 May 2005 – 23 December 2005On each of these 44 notification, a person within Westpac knew:

1. Ollis had a cheque book issued it to him by Westpac.

2. Ollis was entitled (or was never advised to cease) writing cheques .

3. If Ollis drew a “cheque” and there were insufficient funds in Ollis’ account, the bank was at liberty to refuse to honour the cheque . Moreover, multiple persons within the bank handled the cheque/s.

4. Ollis wanted to draw credit from his account 180123 by each cheque .

5. Ollis in presenting a cheque seeks authority to draw credit from his account 180123 if there were insufficient funds to cover the cheque81.

6. Westpac, by law, had three (3) business days in which to refuse his demand by cheque . At the expiration of three (3) business days, if Westpac did not refuse the cheque, a drawing against the bank and, consequently, Ollis’ account 180123 would occur .

7. Had the bank followed bank cheque procedure and/or investigated diligently the demands (styled cheque) by Ollis and dishonoured each cheque, the cycle of “replenishing” would not have continued.
6 May 2005 – 8 November 2005Between these dates, Ollis presented Westpac cheques triggering at least 23 notifications by Commonwealth & Bendigo Banks (as collecting institutions) in accordance with ss61-67 Cheques Act 1986 (Cth) requiring Westpac (as drawee institution) to positively decide whether to honour Ollis’ various cheques .

The process is as follows:
“Cheques are still a paper-based payment instrument,” says Westpac. So even though banks can electronically submit some information about a cheque, it still needs to be delivered physically to the drawer’s institution for security and fraud prevention.”

“Cheques must be physically presented to the institution on which they are drawn to make a demand for payment,” says the Commonwealth Bank. “The drawee institution then must make a paid or dishonour decision on the cheque, after looking at things such as the authorised signatory on the account. If dishonoured, this must be communicated to, and value returned to, the deposit institution.”

1. At all material times, Westpac were in possession of either the actual cheque or a facsimile of the actual cheque as requested to be drawn by Ollis.

2. On each of the 23 notifications, Westpac received a formal demand in accordance with s62 of the Cheques Act giving the Bank notice that Ollis was on each occasion drawing the cheque/s he did on third party collecting institutions (CBA & Bendigo Banks).

3. Moreover, Westpac could obtain a colour or grayscale image including UV image of the cheque, front and rear.

4. Westpac had a statutory obligation to determine if to pay the cheque or not.
6 May 2005 – 23 December 2005Between these dates, persons at Westpac had on each occasion knowledge of date the cheque was written.

1. The date the cheque was presented.

2. The date by which Westpac could refuse to honour the cheque.

3. The party to whom the cheque was written.

4. The amount of the cheque

5. The security for the cheque.

6. The signatory on the cheque.

7. Where the cheque was presented.

8. The balance of Ollis’ business cheque account.

9. The balance of Ollis’ personal deeming account.
6 May 2005 – 23 December 2005Between these dates, on each of the 44 notification occasions and on more than 166 business days between the above dates, persons at Westpac had knowledge and in response made entries in response to Ollis’ drawings such that the cheques were not dishonoured.

Specifically, Westpac’s Ballina branch and its Operations Centre in Concord West failed to accurately reconcile its internal Unposted Items Account on more than 166 occasions .

In doing so, Ballina branch, the Operations Centre in Concord West and the Corrections Department, having direct knowledge that Ollis was drawing cheques performed the following entries on more than 166 occasions:

(a) at the end of each day, the ATR facility credited the Business Account with an amount (the Transfer/ Replenishment Payment) to reduce its balance to zero;

(b) the ATR facility could not debit the Personal Account because it was frozen (PCO), so instead, automatically debited a suspense account (i.e. Unposted Items Account).

(c) on the second business day after cheque presenting the Transfer/Replenishment Payment was reversed by crediting the suspense account and debiting the Business Account;

I infer these 166 x “reversing transactions” demonstrates, in addition to receiving the physical cheque as a demand on 45 occasions, Westpac had actual knowledge of the time and quantity of each drawing Ollis was making against his Business Account.

Moreover, the cheque clearing process at Westpac involves persons within the bank having knowledge of each Ollis cheque in the following stages:

1. Sorting

2. Visual inspection of the cheque and micro-inking recording the dollar amount of the cheque and bank sorting codes to enable the banks sorting machines to “read” the cheque for the material details of each cheque transaction Ollis sought to draw.

3. This process checks the work of the bank branch (or collecting institution) to reconcile if branch entries fail to balance with visual cheque inspection.

4. During detailed sorting, the bank further processed Ollis’ cheques, obtaining images of each of 45 cheque (front and bank), and subsequently imprinted on each a unique sequence code to assist tracing.

5. Irreconcilable cheques, if any, are further processed to ensure the bank always knows the status of each cheque it is processing.

6. Transit cheques the bank processes, where the cheques of another drawee bank was deposited into a Westpac account, are accounted for and sent to (or received from) third party drawee banks daily.

7. After the bank has “processed” its cheques in this way through its own system, each transaction is “authorized” to update the bank’s core Hogan system.


8. After upload to Hogan, any exceptions are further forwarded to Westpac’s OTP department, examining any unposted or exception items & making decisions.
6 May – 21 November 2005Westpac Corrections Department, Westpac Ballina branch (Leanne) and Westpac’s Concord West operations center ignored and/or failed to make the necessary inquiries as to why it was necessary daily to reverse transactions amounting to $3,802,097.51 on a consecutive daily basis?
22 November 2005Westpac Corrections Department are aware debit transactions meant to be applied to account 541135, being applied in error, causing Corrections Dept. to perform repeated reversals .

Ballina Branch was aware account 541135 was overdrawn and in collections as at all material times.

Smith was without notice to this Westpac record until late 2014.
22 November 2005Leanne from Westpac Ballina (staff member 2591 F020613) notes in the record of Gosford Business Cheque account and Ballina Personal Deeming that:

“Adv rec call from staff member in corrections req pco to be lifted. Advsd: unable to lift pco as debt o/sourced to collection house 20/8/04”

Smith was without notice to this Westpac record until late 2014.
2 December 2005Westpac NSW CSC BSB 032890 , staff member M741977 aware of constantly rejecting debits and notes in the record of Gosford Business Cheque account and Ballina Personal Deeming that:

“Call reason: to see if has to keep sending back ddrs as not honoring Adv if brw has not cancelled ddr will need to keep rejecting them and brw needs to call Collections House”

Smith was without notice to this Westpac record until late 2014.
9 January 2006Westpac Collections Department realisation:

“Cust has another account 032523 180123 in which an auto replenishment has been set up to tsfr funds back and forth. Have spoke to INT & FEES who adv need to speak to ACCOUNT PAYMENTS to have this facility cancelled. Have faxed a request through to them to request this – fax 1300 304657. Will await for confirmation but in meantime keep an eye on account for any further drawings as may be potential fraud.”

NB: Westpac advised NSW Supreme Court that it had not discovered the above series of cheques 12 January 2006 .

Smith was without notice to this Westpac record until late 2014.
9 January 2006Westpac cancels ATR facility
9 January 2006Bank cites 9 Jan 06 in Summons of 7 Apr 06 as the date of realization – not 12 Jan 06, tells NSWSC date discovered 12 Jan 06 not 9 Jan 06 .

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
11 January 2006Further analysis of account conduct, noted.

Smith was without notice to this Westpac record until late 2014.
12 January 2006Westpac’s Maryanne Aspland contacts Garry Wade .
12 January 2006 Garry Wade changes status of Ollis’ Business Cheque account to PCO (post credits only).
12 January 2006Further detailed analysis of accounts and internal debate, some of which is documented in notes in the record of Gosford Business Cheque account and Ballina Personal Deeming.

Smith was without notice to this Westpac record until late 2014.
13 January 2006Interference drawn:

Westpac, being in the advanced stages of preparations amending terms & conditions of Ollis’ business account (PDS published 23 Jan 06) had full knowledge it was bound to the then current terms, the withdrawals could therefore never be a ‘crime’, i.e. fraud (especially given it knew or should have known its own staff member on 21 August 2003 tampered with the ATR authority):

“Overdrawn accounts
…If your account becomes overdrawn without arrangements, that overdrawing of the account will be treated by the Bank as an application for credit by you.”

Smith had no notice.
13 January 2006Garry Wade contacts Insp. Jennifer Thommeny RA (requesting assistance) , seeks freezing of Ollis accounts. Thommeny/NSWP refuses – advises Westpac “no crime”.

Smith was without notice to this matter until 2014.
13 January 2006Westpac false statement letter version #1.

Upon being refused its requested assistance (freezing orders) by Thommeny / NSWP, Wade/Westpac External Investigations then write RA false letter Version #1 to NSWCC (requesting assistance – impliedly seeking freezing orders, expressly seeking “assistance in investigating”), disclosing the bank knew:

accused Ollis of deliberately exploiting a loop hole (omitted from later versions of the letter).
branch UPI account (unposted items account) had not balanced each day between 6 May 2005 and 6 Jan 06, and was therefore required to be reconciled and balanced daily by the bank’s Operations Centre at Concord West with the incorrectly posted debit rejected back to Ollis’ business account 180123 (omitted from later versions of the letter).
Acknowledged the repeated posting error and daily replenishments was a “loophole”.
Acknowledges tracing funds into property purchases by 3rd parties (funds otherwise beyond banks reach).
Acknowledged “… we are now aware that Ollis has previous criminal convictions…” (later amended to ‘belief’).
Is signed by Garry Wade (External Investigations), later transferred to Murphy of “Internal Investigation” .

I say the letters were written with intent for Spark/NSWCC to concur in making / publishing to a judge of the NSWSC, knowing the contents to be false.

Smith was without notice to this matter until 2014.
14 January 2006Saturday
15 January 2006Sunday
16 January 2006Fax from Kate Finnigan, Westpac to Spark of NSWCC re ATR setup forms and authorities and back of house system entries to permit the overdrawing and replenishments of account 180123 from personal account 541135.

From this time onwards, Spark knew (or should have known) Ollis expressly had authority to overdraw the business account 180123 as per the agreed authority of 19/8/03 for which consideration (the replenishment fee and unarranged loan rate interest) was subject to be paid by Ollis to Westpac on each occasion.

Moreover, Westpac knew or should have known upon inspection of the faxed materials that Ollis’ authority to replenish had been tampered with by its own staff member.

Smith was without notice to this matter until 27 May 2013.
16 January 2006Call from Westpac to Ollis requesting an urgent meeting the next day, 17 Jan 06 at 60 Martin Plc, Sydney re: “overdrawings on your business cheque account 180123”.

Smith had no notice.
17 January 2006Westpac, with knowledge that its staff member had amended the ATR authority form, treat cheques overdrawing account 180123 as application for credit, prepare and serve Ollis with letter of demand $11m citing “unauthorised withdrawals” (i.e. unarranged loan ) requiring payment of the balance in full or provision of security in an amount or form acceptable to the bank by 25 Jan 2006.

Inference – the “unauthorized withdrawals” arise from the Westpac staff member tampering with the ATR on 21/8/2003.

Ollis acknowledges:
discovering glitch in Westpac computer system
allegedly makes statement (words to the effect) that he “didn’t look gift horse in the mouth” , i.e. Ollis made bank aware $11m like a gift from the bank which he gratefully accepted. Bank instead falsely construed overdrawings as criminal act/s.

Demand made in accordance with T&C’s of account (page 17, see October 2000) requiring arrangements to be in place within 7 days from demand. The T&C’s specifically acknowledged a term applicable called the “ULR” – unarranged loan rate.

Smith was without notice to these documents until late 2014.

Admissions made by Trevor McMahon during the meeting no criminal charges were possible.
17 January 2006 – 18 January 2006Inference – Westpac realise it will not lawfully be able to refuse to unfreeze Ollis’ bank accounts after freezing for more than 48 hours.

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014
17 – 18 January 2006Inference – Westpac realise or advised by Jonathan Spark of NSWCC that honest admissions of how Ollis had lawfully exploited “loop-hole”, aided by their own staff members tampering with the ATR form, will not sufficiently evidence to the satisfaction of a court that Spark has “reasonable grounds” to suspect Ollis has engaged in “serious crime related activity”.

Smith had no notice.
17 – 18 January 2006Westpac Mark Murphy writes an email to NSWP’ Mr. Colin Dyson, Commander of the Fraud Squad outlining that the purpose of correspondence with the NSWCC was to freeze assets rather than to have the alleged proceeds of crime confiscated .
18 January 2006Letter version #2 (Westpac fail to treat cheques as application for credit) written with notice that Westpac staff member had tampered with the ATR form.

Westpac investigation report to NSWCC version #2 – faxed to NSWCC at 1424

RA Version # 2 to NSWCC documenting:
Letter provided to NSWCC but no longer addressed to the Commission, NSWCC (i.e. inference – addressed no longer to NSWCC but to a judge of the NSWSC, Westpac knowing Spark will concur to make or publish the Westpac false statement – against good faith).
now simply requesting assistance, no longer requesting “your” assistance. (Inference – the assistance sought is the assistance of a judge of the NSWSC, Westpac already has the assistance of Spark/NSWCC).
omits 2x references to awareness of “loopholes”.
alters wording from: “Ollis somehow discovered that despite this status …” TO “Ollis obviously discovered that despite
this status …”
omits all references to posting errors to UPI account
omits all references to failures of Bank’s operations center for some 120+ days enquire into 120+ continuous days of repeat error message/non-balancing UPI suspense account at Ballina Branch, despite Ballina branch bringing this to the banks attention on 22 November 2005.
omits references to Gail Shields being Ollis’ partner.
omits invitation for Commissioner to contact Wade or Murphy.
omits Wades name as author of letter, replaces with Murphy.
omits External Investigations department from letter, replace with Internal Investigations department. Inference made, from 17-18 Jan 06, Westpac (by replacing Wade) no longer regarded matter as external fraud but investigation arising from internal failure/s.

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014-2015.
18 January 2006Westpac investigation report to NSWCC version #3 – faxed at 1548 (Westpac fail to treat cheques as application for credit) written with notice that Westpac staff member had tampered with the ATR form.

RA Version #3 to NSWCC documents:

– omits request for assistance in investigating the activities of Ollis.
– omits allegation that Ollis caused a loss of $11m, replace with allegation Ollis knowingly and deliberately defrauded the bank.
– purports to only have knowledge of “believe Ollis has previous criminal convictions for fraud …” instead of previous version #2 (1hour 20 mins early) “we are now aware Ollis has previous criminal convictions for fraud ….”
– adds particulars of tracing activities on two (2) cheques withdrawals of 17 Jun 05 & 19 Jul 05 (total $90,000); makes comparison with deposits made into the account from 17 Jun 05 to 19 Aug 05 being just $4,420.
– omissions made in version #2, remain omissions in version #3.

Smith was without notice to this letter in part until after 2011.
18 January 2006Westpac fail to treat cheques as application for credit, provide Schedules A-E of cheque tracing, knowing the application of 33 cheques involving $10,480,000.

Smith was without notice to this record until after 2011.
19 January 2006 Westpac fail to treat cheques as application for credit, false statement styled “investigation report” faxed to NSWCC version #4 at 1206.

RA Version #4 to NSWCC documents:
current date at time of writing, i.e. 19 Jan 06.
– corrects slip error on page 2 (meeting date between bank and Ollis on 17 Jan 06, not 17 Feb 05).

Smith was without notice to letter #4 until after 2011.
19 January 2006Spark affidavit
Westpac procure Jonathan Lee Spark at NSWCC to concur with making or publishing Westpac investigation reports contrary to s 178BB of Crimes Act particular in light of its notice that Westpac staff member had tampered with the ATR form.

Inference: Westpac knew (as evidenced by 13 Jan 06 NSWP/ Thommeny freezing refusal advice; 13 Jan 06 Wade “loophole” admission; Westpac T&C and conditions (current & amended version 23 January 2006), 17 Jan 06 McMahon’s “no crime” admission) the investigation report letters versions #1-#4 to be false in a material (truth, engaged in serious crime related activities including larceny), and moreover Westpac knew or ought to have known there was no crime due as admitted to NSWP .

Additionally, Westpac in its corporate mind knew its then current terms & conditions made the overdrawing of the account an overdraft (see Wade “loophole” admission), such knowledge being very fresh in its corporate mind as it was just 2 business days from publishing replacement terms & conditions as it did on 23 Jan 06 (following a weekend in between).

Spark affidavit concurring in making and publishing the Westpac Investigation report letter is 3 pages in length, being as follows:

Page 1 – investigation report version #3, page 1
Page 2 – investigation report version #4, page 2
Page 3 – investigation report version #3, page 3.

Smith was without notice to version #4 of this document until late 2011.
19 January 2006Inference/s made that Westpac, through an unlawful collateral process conducted by NSWCC:

– intended to cover up its own negligence in amending ATR form creating a series of unauthorized withdrawals from Westpac’s UPI Ballina suspense account.
– intended to obtain money ($11m) and/or other valuable things, i.e. financial advantages.
– knows NSWCC can only confiscate assets if an authorized officer of the NSWCC swears to have reasonable grounds to suspect Ollis has engaged in “serious crime related activity” .
– did not intend that $11m of assets to be frozen by NSWCC would ever be confiscated, i.e. permanently surrendered to
– financial advantages Westpac received, which it intended to receive include:

– the NSWCC freezing orders (they did attempt but failed to obtain, on 13 Jan 06, such freezing orders from NSWP).
– documents, discovery and intelligence – via search warrants that NSWCC and NSWP obtained on 20 Jan 06 and executed on 23 Jan 06.
– undertakings for damages (NSWCC and the State of NSW gave undertakings to the NSWSC to obtain the NSWCC freezing orders), such undertakings remaining on-foot.
– time (the bank knew via the T&C’s of the Ollis account it had to give Ollis 80 days’ notice before commencing any legal proceedings against him, via the NSWCC debt security and recovery process the assets were frozen within 1 day of varying letter versions #1-#3, supplying version #4).
– equitable priority in Ollis’ bankruptcy and otherwise.
– access to the CAR Act it could not otherwise access.
– security for unsecured debts in amount of $11m.
– secrecy (NSWCC has legislation providing a near impenetrable wall against discovery).
– the affidavit of J. Spark of 19 Jan 06.
– etc.

Smith had no notice.
19 January 2006NSWCC applied to the Court for an order pursuant to s 27 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 that the First Defendant pay to the Treasurer of the State of NSW an amount assessed by the Court as the value of the proceeds derived from the illegal activities of the First Defendant that took place not more than six (6) years before the making of the application.

Sully freezing order obtained by NSWCC under invalid s 10 of CAR Act.

Smith had no notice until after registration of transfer of title from Burke to PTLC.
20 January 2006Westpac obtains the certificate of title for Lot 166 DP 750164 , before returning it to William Burke and Victoria Baker (previous vendors before Smith) who subsequently provided it to Smith without notice.

Alternatively, Westpac conduct a title search of the subject land and note that Smith company not yet on title.

Inference – Westpac elect to not give Smith notice of the interest of the NSWCC and to seek to obtain an interest “through” the Smith company rather than to caveat the land at the time itself.
20 January 2006NSWCC – CAR Search warrant obtained.

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
20 January 2006NSWCC Caveat AC62711 lodged on Doco’s properties to prevent transfer from Ollis to Hawkins & Flynn.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
20 January 2006Correspondence between investigative parties demonstrating knowledge that of title Lot 166 DP 750164 being Harrowvale property purchased by Smith not registered to Smith (contrary to Ollis’ discussions with Westpac on 17 Jan 06).

No NSWCC caveat lodged on Harrowvale title, NSWCC and Westpac “allow” transfer from Burke to the Claimant which occurred on gaining an indefeasible title.

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
20 January 2006Requested by Supt Dyson on 20/1/2006 to “piggyback” confiscation job with possible Fraud Squad investigation.

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
Between 19 January 2006 – 1 February 2006Westpac and NSWCC deliberately omitted to give Smith notice of the NSWCC Freezing orders contrary to its reports to NSWP and NSWCC – versions #1-4.
Between 20 January 2006 – 25 January 2006NSWCC return CT of Harrowvale to Mr. and Mrs. Burke.
21 January 2006Saturday
22 January 2006Sunday
23 January 2006Bank publishes revised T&Cs under PDS dated 23 January 2006, relevant overdrawing section amended.

Smith was without notice to this Westpac document until after 2011.
23 January 2006 (1000)Execution of search warrants – Dane Drive, Gosford; Coronation St, Parkes; Condobolin Rd, Parkes.

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
23 January 2006Search warrants executed – Westpac’s officer, Mr. Mark Murphy is seen entering 42 Coronation Street, Parkes and is video-taped by NSWP giving instructions to officers of NSWP.

Smith was without notice to this Westpac document until late 2016.
23 January 2006Ollis / Christopher Dibb meeting with Jonathan Spark in foyer of NSWCC.

Spark: “We would like to talk to you about settlement of the matter … What really needs to happen is for you to come to a settlement with the victim, Westpac”.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
25 January 2006Thommeny urges NSWP and/or NSWCC and/or Westpac that Smith be interviewed as a “matter of urgency” (put on notice) of the Ollis investigation & confiscations. Provides last known address and photo.

Smith is never interviewed by NSWP.
Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.

NSWP, NSWCC and Westpac all omit to interview Smith or provide notice of the freezing orders and/or seek to confiscate Ollis assets (i.e. unregistered security over Harrowvale land).
26 January 2006Thursday – Australia Day public holiday
27 January 2006No formal decision by NSWP to accept Ollis investigation.

Thommeny requested assistance forwarded to interview Smith to determine his association with Ollis. NSWP, NSWCC and Westpac omit to interview Smith until after transfer of land registered.

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
27 January 2006Friday long weekend
27 January 2006Burke supplies to Smith the CT for Lot 166, DP 750164 and a tax ruling he had obtained, a condition precedent to provision of the title.
27 January 2006Strike Force Greenvale investigation commences (no practical co-operation from Westpac for the investigation – quote “at no stage was forthcoming” until September 06).

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
28 January 2006Saturday
29 January 2006Sunday
30 January 2006Smith, still without notice of the orders, attends the Office of State Revenue in Parramatta NSW, pays $129,000 stamp duty for stamping of the contract between Burke and PTLC.

NSWCC and Westpac make no attempt to contact Smith despite being aware Ollis had provided a cheque for $128,000 payable to the OSR. Westpac by design intended to acquire a mortgage through Smith’s indefeasible purchase.
31 January 2006Smith attends LPI, without notice of the orders, Registration of transfer of title from Burke to PTLC.
1 February 2006 (approx. 0930)Smith attends his Post Office box at Pymble LPO and signs for certificate mail receipt of certificate of title.
1 February 2006 (approx. 1030)Smith attends office of Ollis at Gosford to supply certificate of title pursuant to equitable mortgage.
1 February 2006 (approx. 1430)Westpac investigators (Mark Murphy & Milan Sankovic) visit Mark & Lisa Smith, provide copy of false instrument (Sully orders) in furtherance to the making and publishing concurred upon between Westpac/Murphy & NSWCC/Spark (i.e. deception).

Westpac/Murphy tell Mark & Lisa Smith that Ollis had “stolen” $11m/funds “proceeds of crime” (i.e. deceptive).

Smith was without notice to the deception element in this matter until after 2011.
1 February 2006Spark swears stat dec attached to caveat AC84382 swearing truth under Oaths Act etc.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
1 February 2006 Spark speaking to Barrister Christopher Dibb:

Spark: “Most of our matters are settled by consent. If you can reach a deal with Westpac, we will withdraw our orders. Of course, that is subject to getting the consent of the Commissioner. Formally speaking, I have to get the agreement of the Commissioner to consent to withdraw orders but if Westpac agrees to the deal, I expect the Commissioner will as well.”

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
2 February 2006Meeting at Westpac 60 Martin Place attended by Dibb & Ollis together with Trevor McMahon, Rob Whitfield, Andrew Purchas and possibly Julia Hanna from Westpac.

MacMahon: “You are aware that the Crime Commission have now frozen your assets and you are gong to have to come up with a good deal to get us our money back. Otherwise we’ll get it from the Crime Commission.”

Dibb: “As far as I can see, if the Commission gets forfeiture orders, there will be nothing left for Westpac.”

Westpac: “We will just get the assets from the Commission.”

Dibb: “The legislation appears to not to allow that. It provides that the interests in property are forfeited to the Crown.”

Whitfield: “We are absolutely confident that we will get the assets from the Commission.”

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
2 February 2006Defendants Notice of Motion (NSWCC v Ollis) seeking to vary and/or set aside NSWCC CAR Act Freezing order of 19 January 2006 by adding the words:

“pending a hearing as to the existence of a reasonable suspicion within the meaning of section 10 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (“the act”) as at the date of such hearing that the property described in those Schedules is serious crime derived property within the meaning of section 9 of the Act; …”
2 February 2006Smith interview at NSWCC, notice to produce all documents, I say for a collateral purpose (to provide to Westpac).
3 February 2006NSWCC caveat AC84382 on Harrowvale allegedly authorized by Sully J orders / s 10 CAR Act.

Smith was without notice to this matter until April 2006 – as notice of caveat never received/sent to the wrong address.
6 February 2006Westpac receive valuation of Harrowvale @ $1,000,000. Fundamental factual errors, i.e. land subject to DA for major commercial development (valued by Ernst & Young @ circa $25m+ as at 2006).

Smith was without notice to this matter until mid-2006.
7 February 2006Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion (NSWCC v Ollis) seeking to be heard before the Defendants Notice of Motion filed 2 February 2006 to the effect that a single judge cannot vary the freezing orders by adding words requested by the Defendants.
8 February 2006Dissemination pursuant to s 7 of the NSW Crime Commission Act 1985 to Damian Hodgkinson of Pitcher Partners (forensic accountants).
9 February 2006Public hearings, transcript
– Transcript pg 121, line 35 – acknowledging terms and condition as given when account opened (further confirmed Sarah Rodger 11/9/06)
– Sought to rely on an offence other than larceny as basis for continued confiscation activities (knew Ollis not involved in serious crime related activities including larceny).

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
14 February 2006 (1040)Execution of search warrants at 3 Royal St, Parkes.

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
16 February 2006Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion (NSWCC v Ollis) referred to Court of Appeal, pursuant to s51 (5) (a) of the Supreme Court Act 1970, as sworn by Spark on 28 February 2006.
16 February 2006Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion removed into the Court of Appeals list pursuant to s 51 (5) (a) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 … ;
28 February 2006Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion (NSWCC v Ollis) seeking further public examinations of the Second Defendant
28 February 2006Affidavit of Spark, alleging illegality – swearing false statement s 178BB of Crimes Act.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.

Reference made to Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion of 7 Feb 06.
16 March 2006Submissions for NSWCC.
21 March 2006Supplementary submissions for NSWCC.
23 March 2006Dissemination pursuant to s 7 of the NSW Crime Commission Act 1985 from NSWCC to HDY.
29 March 2006Defendants supplementary submissions in reply
4 April 2006Dissemination pursuant to s 7 of the NSW Crime Commission Act 1985 from NSWCC to HDY.
5 April 2006Dissemination pursuant to s 7 of the NSW Crime Commission Act 1985 from NSWCC to HDY.
5 April 2006Affidavit of Jonathan Lee Spark (NSWCC v Ollis) seeking public examinations of:
Hussein Karimjee – Ollis’ in house solicitor
Ann Hunter – his accountant
Stephen Holmes – a lender to him
Garry Pilgrim – his estate agent
5 April 2006Plaintiff’s further submissions in reply (NSWCC v Ollis) re offences and reasonable grounds to suspect.
7 April 2006Westpac commence civil proceedings, 20 + 60 days after demand of 17 Jan 06. Multiple false statements or omissions.

Originating process received (2nd hand) by Smith 12 Apr 06.

Because of the deceptive nature of the material omissions in the documentation, in part, the Claimant did not seek joinder in Westpac v Ollis, as a result, steps were not taken to prevent the orders of 31 August 2007 / 28 March 2008.

Lists items Westpac claimed Ollis ‘knew’.
● Items 9 (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) the Bank claimed Ollis knew potentially rebuttable?

Commercial List Statement amended on 31 August 2007

Comparison of changes between 07 April 2006 and 31 Aug 2007
7 April 2006 – 20 July 2007Westpac make around 238 changes to the Commercial list statement which is re-filed on 20 July 2007, including:

Change to declaration in the alternative sought that Ollis’ interest in my land was subject to a charge in favour of the plaintiff.
My guarantee to Ollis was subject to a charge in favour of the plaintiff.
Contention 8 – Bank reworded its allegation that Ollis ‘fraudulently’ drew cheques against Business cheque account, instead merely ‘drew’ cheques.
Contention 9 (d) – Bank alleges Ollis knew he did not deposit funds into his business cheque account during the period he wrote cheques.
Contention 9 (g) – the Bank defined what it said was “the mistake”.
Contention 9 (j) – that Ollis knew … the bank would pay the cheques
Contention 17 – that Ollis provided no consideration whereas the bank collected fees from Ollis.
NEW Contention 21. Ollis was entitled to write cheques. The bank, if it honoured cheques would treat the cheques as an application for credit and failed to despite realizing Ollis was writing cheques seeking credit. If the bank was to demand repayment of its money would provide 80 days’ notice before commencing legal action rather than being entitled to demand on no notice.
New Contention 24 – Ollis did not refuse to repay the bank.

Smith received no notice of the amended commercial list statement until late 2016.
12 April 2006Smith receives fax copy of summons which states (in part):

“any withdrawal transaction which would cause his account to have a debit balance could be treated by the Bank as an application for credit…”

Summons contains other items which mislead Smith & the court:

ContentionMaterial Fact
8c . the Bank mistakenly honoured the cheques on presentation due to an error in the operation of the ATR functionThe ATR operated to reduce Ollis business cheque account balance to 0.00 c as intended seeking to draw funds from the personal account.

A status of PCO (Post credits only) meant the debits were instead applied to Westpac’s Unposted Items Account – as the ATR operation was designed to function.

A series of approximately 166 human failures in a manual process within the Unposted Items Account daily reconciliation meant that the Ballina Branch & Concord West CSC caused funds to be credited to Ollis’ business cheque account by the ATR process operating at the end of each day as it was intended and authorised to operate.

The bank further admitted a breakdown of its double entry accounting system indicating the cause of the honouring of cheques was a combination of human error and design error and/or otherwise.
9(c) he did not have cash in any account he held with the Bank to be able to meet the cheques upon presentation;Ollis variously had hundreds of thousands of dollars in his Bona Parts Accommodation Business account at any one time.
9(d) he was not entitled to draw cheques against the Second Ollis Account for the amounts that he didThe terms and conditions of his business cheque account and ATR agreement say otherwise.

Letters posted in March 2004 suggest possibility of further drawings.

He possessed a cheque.

He issued cheques which the bank honoured.
His bank statements suggest the bank had a level of knowledge of his drawings.
9(e) he did not have an overdraft facilityThe terms and conditions of his business cheque account and its related ATR agreement state and presume respectively otherwise.

Each cheque, being an unconditional demand upon the bank pursuant to s 10 of the Cheques Act 1986 represented a request for an overdraft facility.

Ollis’ terms and conditions of his account specified if the bank honoured the cheque the sum would be considered an overdraft.
9(f) the Bank had been mistakenly honouring cheques drawn against the Second Ollis Account due to an error in the operation of the ATR function;See response to contention 8c above.
His bank statements suggest the bank had a level of knowledge of his drawings.
Also see design error, human error and the breakdown of double entry accounting within the bank.
9(g) the Bank’s officers were not aware that:
(i) the Bank had been honouring the cheques;
On a daily basis, the cheques the bank was honouring were being debited against Ollis’ personal deeming account and then ‘bouncing’ to the banks unposted items account (UPI) where officers of the bank manually failed on 166 consecutive daily occasions to properly reconcile this account.

On multiple occasions Westpac internal notes entered upon Ollis’ bank statement/s infer a level of actual knowledge by the officer of the cause for the reversal manual entries.

The officers were stationed at the Ballina and Concord West offices of the bank.

On 22 November 2005 a discussions occurs between Ballina and Concord West “Corrections” department (acknowledging the repetitive nature of their entries yet fail to diagnose the cause.

As at 22 November 2005 Ballina and Concord West were posting consecutive daily corrective manually in the multi-millions of dollars.

On other occasions the bank acknowledges the PCO and invalid replenishment authorities.
9(g) the Bank’s officers were not aware that:
(ii) there was an error in the operation of the ATR function;
See above response to 9 (g)(i).
Westpac internal notes and Ollis’ bank statements suggest otherwise.
9(h) if the Bank’s officers became aware that:
(i) the Bank had been honouring the cheques;
(ii) there was an error in the operation of the ATR function;

they would take steps to prevent any further cheques from being honoured.
See above response to 9 (g)(i).

See above response to 9 (g)(i).

Westpac internal notes and Ollis’ bank statements suggest otherwise.

They did not take steps to prevent further cheques from being honoured until 9 January 2006, a date the bank told the court was in fact 12 January 2006. The bank failed to take the steps that a prudent banker would have taken on around 166 occasions between May 2005 and January 2006.
DateEvent
20 April 2006Dissemination pursuant to s 7 of the NSW Crime Commission Act 1985 from NSWCC to HDY.
26 April 2006Letter from NSL to Westpac. Westpac response (silent) deceptive by omission of material facts, causing the Claimant & Smith to be misled/deceived resulting in non-joinder in Westpac v Ollis proceedings.
28 April 2006Submissions of NSWCC citing “illegal activity” as the basis of continued confiscation (i.e. affidavit in Wollongong Local Court, December 2005).

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
28 April 2006Meeting at NSWCC between Ollis and Giorgiutti. G states: Westpac require priority payments from Ollis’ foreshadowed bankrupt estate, other creditors to sit behind bank.

Inference – Westpac sought an unlawful preference payment in the proposed bankrupt estate of Ollis and/or the liquidation of PTLC.
Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
3 May 2006Dissemination pursuant to s 7 of the NSW Crime Commission Act 1985 from NSWCC to HDY.
3 May 2006Received fax from General Manager of Parkes Shire Council (consent authority and development partner of Smith for the Parkes Airport development project) showing adverse publicly.
5 May 2006Step taken – Fax from Smith to Ollis seeking execution of variation deed, Ollis points to restraining orders as being unable to deal but sympathetic.
30 April 2006 – 15 May 2006Step taken – Fax from Smith lawyers (NSL) to NSWCC re collateral agreements qualifying mortgage terms (including copy of proposal variation deed).
17 May 2006/ 18 May 2006Step taken – Meeting between NSWCC, Westpac and Smith at NSWCC.
18 May 2006Spark attempting to broker a settlement between Westpac & Ollis, including:
– requirement that Ollis release Harrowvale title deed
– Ollis to procure Smith consent that Harrowvale held on trust for bank, or alternatively perfect mortgage.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
18 May 2006 (1300)Proposed settlement between Ollis & Westpac brokered by Spark/NSWCC. Did not proceed.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
24 May 2006Defendants Commercial List Response, Westpac v Ollis.

Ollis claims to have had an overdraft.
24 May 2006Defendants Commercial List Response, Westpac v Ollis filed for second and third Defendants.

Ollis claims to have had an overdraft.
Late May 2006NSWCC admission:

Novakovic: “we have got nothing to go forward against Ollis on, we are trying to mediate … Westpac likely to lose $7m”.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
1 June 2006Affidavit of Spark – pay money to the Treasurer of NSW.

Inference – Spark and NSWCC knew the CAR Act provided only for confiscated funds to be paid to the Treasurer of NSW, any use of powers to achieve another outcome an abuse of power.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
3 June 2006Submissions of Dibb re Ollis larceny: denies larceny, suggests possible offence of fraudulent appropriation s 124 Crimes Act (not “serious crime related activity” pursuant to CAR Act); argument as to the money not being proceeds of crime even in Ollis’ hands.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011
7 June 2006Summary judgment – NSWCC v Ollis (judgment not available); appeal determined 2 Nov 07; 29 Nov 07 – Ollis parties lodge appeal to HCA.

Smith was without notice of the proceedings in 2006.
15 June 2006Letters of instruction, HDY re: Westpac v Ollis (not obtained).
19 June 2006Summary judgment NSWCC v Ollis.
19 June 2006Sales advice from Hunter & Co real estate for deposit and off plan sale to Petatok @ $137,500 per hectare. Requires DA by specific date.

Inference – Harrowvale development areas around 200ha, possible gross realization $27,500,000++
20 June 2006Steps taken – Meeting Smith, Westpac, NSWCC – at NSWCC. Seeking consent to sell off concessional allotments to fund legal costs / vary caveat.

Also discussed need to vary caveat in light of sales advice the Claimant to Petatok and deposit – need to protect possible underlying value $27m.

NSWCC and Westpac refused to vary caveat.
21 June 2006Steps taken – Fax from NSL to NSWCC requesting that caveator replaces itself as caveator with Public Trustee so as to minimise commercial loss to Smith.
23 June 2006Invoice from NSL to Smith confirming meeting dates and date faxes sent.
27 June 2006Fax from NSL to NSWCC, please deal with fax of 21 Jun 06 urgently.
27 June 2006Instruction letter – HDY to John Henry Williams, PPB Chartered Accountants .
27 June 2006Instruction letter – HDY to John Henry Williams, PPB Chartered Accountants, Appendix 1 – unknown
Appendix 2 – Resume of John Williams
Appendix 3 – Index to Expert Brief to PPB (comprising materials obtained by NSWCC following the execution of search warrants).
Appendix 4 – Summary of accounts conducted by Ollis, Shields & Koala.
Appendix 5 to 13 – Account Transactions & Percentages of Westpac and Non-Westpac Money
Appendix 14 – Deposits & withdrawals
Appendix 15 – Allocation of payments (reconciled)
Appendix 16 – Allocation of payments (unreconciled)

Draft amended summons provided (but not obtained).
28 June 2006Fax from NSWCC proposing consent orders, seeking Smith to achieve Ollis’ consent and the registration of Ollis’ equitable mortgage in return for lifting of freezing orders and damaging caveat.
30 June 2006Affidavit of Robert Colwell, Westpac v Ollis.

Notes:
– No explanation why Personal deeming account allowed to overdraw by $36,536.29. Why ATR function didn’t reject for insufficient funds?

Confirms ATR governed by Banking Services Guide dated 1 October 2003 (not obtained).
Admits to being responsible for cash management products provided to “mainly” institutional clients including responsibility for the ATR product.
Represents the ATR form to provide a “true” copy of the ATR authority.
Purports that 17 February 2004 occurred simultaneously in Business Cheque and Personal Deeming accounts. The banks’ relevant Banking Service Guide makes clear that replenishments between accounts in two different accounts are not intended to be replenished the same day, hence Ollis is inferred to have authority to generate a debit balance in the Business Cheque Account.
30 June 2006Affidavit of Mark Murphy, Westpac v Ollis.

Notes:
No explanation of why Personal deeming account allowed to overdraw by $36,536.29. Why ATR function didn’t reject for insufficient funds?
20 Mar 04 letter L2250 hints some transactions may still eventuate.
No explanation why 45 cheques did not come to the attention of any Westpac personnel despite bank clearing processes and the Cheques Act 1986?
2 July 2006Letters of instruction, HDY to PPB re: Westpac v Ollis (not obtained).
3 July 2006Steps taken – NSL fax to NSWCC re caveat AC84382 damage and variation sought with regards to mortgage.

Inference – decision to maintain caveat AC84382 consciously and willfully made on notice as to damage and loss being caused.
4 July 2006Smith receives fax from Ray White Parkes re: damaging effect of caveat.
7 July 2006Fax from NSWCC to NSL, giving Smith notice that registration of any subdivision would be a dealing contrary to freezing order.

Inference – a deliberate frustration by caveator on notice the purpose of the acquisition of Harrowvale was to enable dealing.
10 July 2006Steps taken – Fax from NSL to NSWCC re caveat AC84382 damaging Smith , forwards selling agents fax of 4 Jul 06
10 July 2006Dissemination pursuant to s 7 of the NSW Crime Commission Act 1985 from NSWCC to HDY.
11 July 2006NOM from NSWCC to NSL
11 July 2006Fax from NSWCC to NSL re mooted NOM, caveat, registration of mortgage.
11 July 2006Affidavit of Jonathan Lee Spark, NSWCC v Ollis annexing letter of 12 July 2006.
11 July 2006Letters of instruction, HDY re: Westpac v Ollis (not obtained).
12 July 2006Letters of instruction, HDY re: Westpac v Ollis (not obtained).
13 July 2006Affidavit of John Henry Williams, PPB Chartered Accountants, Westpac v Ollis.
28 July 2006Affidavit of Robert James Witheridge, Westpac v Ollis.

Notes:
Admits responsibility overseeing both debit and credit transactions within the bank .
– Admits responsibility in overseeing both debit and credit transactions to have the transactions posted to the correct customer accounts .

Oversees 600 ‘corrections’ transactions per day .
Admits role is to investigate the transactions and determine the account to which the suspense account transaction needs to be sent.
Admits to the timing of reversals, although some timing admissions require investigation?
Does not explain the collection notes.
Does not explain the variations from standard reversal entry text.
Admits to the “total breakdown of double-entry accounting” and unintended ATR design error consequences.
28 July 2006Affidavit of Frank Mazzone, Westpac v Ollis.

Notes:
– Admits that proper banking practice within the bank was that the ATR should have been manually cancelled by his area of Collections on 22 March 2004 when the account status for the personal deeming account was changed from NOR to NFD and PCO .
– Admits the cancellation of the ATR would have prevented the honouring of Ollis’ cheques from the UPI suspense account
28 July 2006Affidavit of John Henry Williams, PPB Chartered Accountants, Westpac v Ollis.
28 July 2006Affidavit of John Henry Williams, PPB Chartered Accountants, Westpac v Ollis – comparing changes made to the report between 13 July 2006 and 28 July 2006.
2 August 2006Dissemination pursuant to s 7 of the NSW Crime Commission Act 1985.
7 August 2006Steps taken – Fax NSL to NSWCC noting:
– NSWCC seeking to register only mortgage memorandum when that did not contain entire agreement and requires significant variation.
– provided valuation report to be provided in near future for NSWCC reliance
– proposal by Smith that NSWCC agree to Harrowvale being sold at its present fair market value to limit Smith losses.
7 August 2006Steps taken – Valuation dated 7 Aug 06 received shortly thereafter independently valuing Harrowvale, provided to NSWCC and Westpac.
16 August 2006 (1030)Meeting L1, 255 Elizabeth St, Sydney, Det Vait Dyrmaier noting:
– Westpac’s failure to supply NSWP with evidence, documents or statements to allow criminal investigations.
– Westpac stated completed 4 weeks prior (Civil proceedings), had not been instructed IF Westpac wished Police action/investigation. Had written to a colleague for instructions (no response whether to investigate).
– Westpac stated: “terms & conditions” of replenishment facilities allowed the account holder to go into debit (overdrawn) and this facility is considered similar to a ‘line of credit’. Furthermore if a replenishment/ automatic transfer facility exists between different accounts with different BSB numbers the replenishment account will continue to go into debit (apparently a fault now being fixed by Westpac). No further requests were given to __ and he believed it futile to continue with any further inquiries for Police, until WBC confirmed they wished Police action. Estimated some 2 weeks for a reply.”
– handwritten notes discussing letters sent to SA acknowledging “debts”

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014
20 August 2006Affidavit of Dr. Peter Flynn re admissions of NSWCC late May 06.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
23 August 2006Affidavit of Shields – alleging further concurring between NSWCC and Westpac, including the release of all intelligence/search warrant materials obtained. Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.

Inference – Westpac and NSWCC knowingly abusing the powers of NSWCC pursuant to CAR Act with no intent to recover funds to the benefit of the Treasurer as required.
25 August 2006State of NSW through the NSWCC used its draconian and coercive powers under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act to re-assign from the Treasurer of the State of NSW (Proceeds of Crime Account) to Westpac Banking Corporation all funds received in relation to Lot 166 DP750164.
25 August 2006Westpac becomes a Respondent to NSWCC v Ollis to Amended Notice of Motion.
25 August 2006Novakovic swears affidavit and Amended NOM for NSWCC v Ollis assigning and registration of mortgage or alternatively seeking sale proceeds of Harrowvale to be paid to Westpac contrary to CAR Act.

Inference – NSWCC concurred with Westpac / Murphy on or around 17-18 Jan 06 to abuse its powers to recover a civil debt for the benefit of Westpac, including via CAR Freezing orders if required.
25 August 2006State of NSW through the NSWCC used its draconian and coercive powers under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act to re-assign from the Treasurer of the State of NSW (Proceeds of Crime Account) to Westpac Banking Corporation all funds received in relation to Lot 166 DP750164.
25 August 2006Westpac becomes a Respondent to NSWCC v Ollis to Amended Notice of Motion.
25 August 2006Novakovic swears affidavit and Amended NOM for NSWCC v Ollis assigning and registration of mortgage or alternatively seeking sale proceeds of Harrowvale to be paid to Westpac contrary to CAR Act.

Inference – NSWCC concurred with Westpac / Murphy on or around 17-18 Jan 06 to abuse its powers to recover a civil debt for the benefit of Westpac, including via CAR Freezing orders if required.
27 August 2006 Affidavit of Victor Warren Ollis re: concurring (conspiracy) between Westpac & NSWCC/Spark.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
28 August 2006Affidavit of Darryl Barlow swearing Westpac admission re benefit received as intended via NSWCC search warrant (not requiring own discovery):

“The Crime Commission had everything …. we got everything we wanted”.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
11 September 2006Meeting between NSWP, Sarah Rodgers confirmed terms & conditions document was given to Ollis when he opened account 180123. Account opening form is signed and confirms T&C’s provided.

Smith was without notice to this meeting and/or its findings until late 2014.
20 September 2006Meeting between Supt Dyson, Insp Christey, Sgt Dyrmaier with Westpac employees Sarah Rodgers, Mark Murphy & Westpac solicitors noting:
– discussions about T&C’s
– Police documents show clause-indicating overdrawing would be considered an application for credit.
– Rodgers states these T&C’s existed in all business accounts (and applies to Ollis’ account/s).
– Mark Murphy contradicts.
– NSWP sought and obtained the Terms and Conditions pertaining to this account. These were obtained (see scanned document). Pages 17-18 states a similar condition “if your account becomes overdrawn without arrangements, that overdrawing of the account will be treated by the Bank as an application for credit by you.”
– T&C’s also mention ULR – unapproved loan rate – as consideration payable.

Smith was without notice to this meeting and/or its findings until late 2014.
25 September 2006Steps taken – Affidavit of Smith , Notice of Motion, Submissions in relation to NSWCC caveat and security – putting Ollis, NSWCC and Westpac on notice as to collateral agreements/obligations qualifying (unsigned) memorandum of mortgage.
October 2006Approx. October 06 – Westpac provides NSWP with copies of requested documents affidavits.
Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
4 October 2006Affidavit of Robert Reynolds, Westpac v Ollis.
16 October 2006Westpac on notice of Submissions of the Claimant and Affidavit of Mark Smith of 25 Sep 2006
17 October 2006Strike force Greenvale progress report given confirming:
– lack of cooperation from Westpac for investigation.
– records Sarah Rodgers admission of 11 Sep 06 that Ollis received T&C’s at time of opening account 180123.

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
24 October 2006Westpac issues subpoena to Smith in Westpac v Ollis.

Inference – Westpac from this time was fully on notice as to the qualifications of equitable mortgage security interest Ollis held (if any).
9 November 2006SF Greenvale meeting, NSWP & Westpac (Senior Management + legal representative), Supt Dyson, Insp Christey and Sgt Dyrmaier.
Notes recorded:
On 9 November, 2006 Det Supt Dyson and Insp Christey met with T3 (Senior Management plus a Legal Representative) from Westpac Investigations re S/F Greenvale and other issues. T3 “acknowledged” that there was no criminal prosecution possible against Ollis due to the clause within the account opening details which indicates any overdrawing of the business account shall be treated by the bank as a loan.

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
10 November 2006 (1101)NSWP Investigation terminated.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
15 November 2006NSWP review log, NSWP determine matter a civil debt.

Smith was without notice to this matter until late 2014.
21 November 2006Judgment and published reasons, Mareva injunction and freezing order, Westpac v Ollis.
22 November 2006Notice from Westpac of Bergin Mareva injunction/freezing order and undertaking for costs and damages.
28 November 2006Affidavit of Smith in NSWCC v Ollis NOM hearing.
28 November 2006 (1644)Submissions of NSWCC in NSWCC v Ollis NOM hearing containing numerous false statements.

Smith was without notice as to the falsehoods until after 2011-late 2014.
29 November 2006Defendant submissions, NSWCC NOM in NSWCC v Ollis.
1 December 2006Subpoena of Ollis on Westpac in Westpac v Ollis (unknown to Smith until 2011-2012 approximately) pursuant to an allegation of conspiracy (concurring) between Westpac & NSWCC to do unlawful act, e.g. misuse NSWCC powers pursuant to CAR Act.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
4 December 2006Fax clarification from the Claimant to Westpac, mortgage admitted to only an equitable mortgage.
5 December 2006Summons, affidavit and NOM prepared and sworn for Smith , filed in NSWSC in PTLC v Ollis, NSWCC v Ollis.
5 December 2006Submissions for Smith in NSWCC v Ollis NOM hearing.
6 December 2006Summons of Mark Smith and the Claimant filed in NSWSC further placing on notice all parties of contingencies in mortgage memorandum.
6 December 2006 – 15 December 2006Steps taken – notice of motion in matter 15984/2006 for joinder of PTLC & Westpac v Ollis (Summons matter) to NSWCC v Ollis 10278/2006 and/or for expedition of Summons against Ollis to set-aside mortgage.

Expedition unable to proceed due to the non-appearance of Ollis and discontinuation of the legal representation of Ollis in the proceedings (and as such, service could not be affected).

In the conduct of the proceedings (10278), NSWCC & Westpac submitted that Ollis’ conduct was (words to the effect) “criminal” with “$11m stolen”.

As a result Smith & the Claimant were given advice (in order to avoid an adverse order for costs, and because the orders were also likely to be given) that the Claimant should: 1) not continue to oppose the registration of the mortgage by the plaintiff, and 2) serve the process, and 3) pursue the summons proceedings against Ollis or his successor to set aside mortgage.
20 December 2006In correspondence between Westpac & Smith, bank acknowledges Smith seeks to vary mortgage to set aside Ollis’ obligations qualifying the mortgage.

We say this document is prepared in furtherance of the deception of the Smith.
22 December 2006Notice to produce / subpoena provided to Mark Smith of Smith to produce documents.
2 February 2007Notice of Motion – to set aside subpoena to Mark Smith & notice to produce to PTLC.
8 February 2007NSWSC entered orders made on 6 Dec 06 for registration of mortgage & signing mortgage on behalf of the alleged mortgagee who refused in furtherance of deception of PTLC.
February 2007Production of a new certificate of title by LPI (provided to NSWCC) pursuant to CAR Act to NSWCC.
19 February 2007Mortgage AC924905 registered by NSWCC, withdrawal of caveat AC84382.
21 February 2007Steps taken – Fax from NSWCC to NSL

Having refused to remove or vary its caveat, the former caveator, now opposing the sale of Harrowvale at its then fair market value “as is” per sworn valuation.
22 February 2007 (1743)Steps taken – Fax from NSL to NSWCC
– reasserting Smith’s position re qualifications as to mortgage including as set out in Summons.
– discussed s 10 (4) of CAR and Ollis appeal due April 07
– oppression
23 February 2007 (1630)Steps taken – Fax from NSWCC to NSL re new NOM to be heard 26 Feb 07
23 February 2007 (1643)Steps taken – Fax from NSWCC to NSL re issues in dispute.
26 February 2007Further orders in NSWCC v Ollis NOM matter – consented to as the mortgage’s registration defeated the purpose of the Smith / the Claimant NOM.
26 February 2007Separate proceedings unknown to Smith at the time, NSWCC v Ollis NOM for preliminary discovery.

The action failed but the action is based upon a not-well prepared argument of malfeasance or malicious / partial exercise of power (and without the comprehensive volume obtained by Smith ).

The proceedings which Smith are preparing, it is considered, have substantially more evidence of concurring (conspiring) between NSWCC / Westpac than appears to have been available to Ollis and others in this NOM hearing.

Smith was without notice to this NOM until after 2011
25 June 2007Defendant submissions in support of preliminary discovery (NSWCC v Ollis) for 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
12 July 2007Affidavit of Garry Wade, Westpac v Ollis
13 July 2007Affidavit of John Henry Williams PPB, Westpac v Ollis
23 August 2007Declarations for WBC, $11m obtained by Ollis held on trust for Westpac owing to ‘fraudulent conduct’, which the bank acknowledged, was a civil debt, and could never be subject to criminal prosecution.

Findings of moral turpitude against Ollis.

Smith / the Claimant not a party to the proceedings.
2 November 2007Judgment in NSW Court of Appeal matter, Ollis v NSWCC – held:
– lower court judgment made in error “… did not deal with the application in accordance with the principles that govern summary disposal of proceedings…”
– majority verdict re: whether Ollis was entitled to witness immunity relating to alleged illegality (pervert course of justice, not larceny).
– NSWCC should not have obtained summary judgment against Ollis as there was a “real question” to be tried, NSWCC could not rely upon offence of perverting the course of justice (for summary judgment)

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
29 November 2007Ollis party’s application for special leave to appeal to HCA re illegality basis (7 Jun 06 Summary judgment in error).

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
14 December 2007NSWCC v Ollis discontinued by NSWCC, NSWSC will not release NSWCC undertaking for damages.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
28 March 2008Westpac file submissions on priority in Green Parks hearing of Westpac v Ollis.

Inference – submissions demonstrate the intent of Westpac before 19 Jan 06 Sully orders, to use/misuse the NSWCC powers and CAR Act to obtain a financial benefit, including caveats, security, priority, equitable preferences, etc. Inference supported by acts taken on 20 Jan 06 (day after Sully order) by investigating/ confiscating parties to caveat Doco’s estate property caveat AC62711 allegedly pursuant to CAR Act 10 (3).

Further inference – submissions and cumulative conduct of Westpac demonstrate it was anything other than a silent and passive volunteer
Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
23 April 2008 – 24 April 2008Assignment of mortgage from Ollis to Westpac, Westpac on notice of contingencies and qualification of mortgage.

Westpac represented that the Deed of Assignment had been ordered by Einstein J. Subsequent enquiries have been unable to establish that Einstein J ordered the disclaiming of Ollis’ obligations pursuant to the mortgage.

On 23 Apr 08 Westpac gave notice of the orders providing for assignment of Ollis’ interest (if any, arising from either fraudulent obtain or fraudulent registration) to Westpac.

On or about 24 Apr 08, Smith for the Claimant signed and returned an ‘acknowledgment’ of notice.

Smith was without notice of any assignment until after the making of the order. Assignment acknowledged post the making of the order.
August 2008Hearing of Green Parks “priority issues” identified in document entitled “submissions” disclosing the mind of the bank at the time of the (alleged fraudulent) obtaining of said equitable priorities against Green Parks parties (victims).
Same “priority issues” NOT used as against PTLC.

Westpac win on all counts v Green Parks due to priorities established due to “fraud” by Ollis.

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.
August 2009s 57 (2) (b) – false statement made by Westpac (alleging $3m due and payable)
Steps taken – request farm debt mediation (refused).
October 2009Repeated false statement by Westpac (repeat false statement under s 57 (2) (b) that $3m due and payable).

Steps taken – engaged ERA Legal to correspond with Westpac re settlement of disputed matters.
January 2010Appointment of receivers (by Westpac) to take possession of Harrowvale on basis of “unauthorised withdrawals”, false statement as no monies due and payable.

No notice of the taking of possession until taken.
26 March 2010Steps were taken – engagement of Simmons & McCartney, correspondence to Westpac & Ray White Parkes demanding the discontinuation of sale by auction programme and the undertaking of Farm Debt Mediation.
27 March 2010Sale by public auction by Westpac at $1,060,000.
April – July 2010Steps taken – several caveats filed on 166/750164 (in error).
July 2010Westpac file & serve summons against the Claimant & Smith seeking to set aside caveat and an order restraining Smith from filing future caveats.
1 August 2010Steps taken – Smith receives Gerondis fraud report #1
3 August 2010Steps taken – Smith reports knowledge of Ollis fraud (but not Westpac fraud) to NSWP on COPS event 44239786.
4 August 2010Withdrawal of caveat AF670829W (per caveat AF546791) on mortgage AC924905.
4 August 2010Filing of caveat AF670830N on mortgage AC924905, mortgage obtained by fraud on notice to Westpac.
4 August 2010Caveat hearing, oral submission for Westpac:

“Ollis stole about $11m … Einstein finding Ollis held on trust … fruits of stolen money.”

Further submissions and evidence re: urgency of sale, prospect that bank would lose buyer. Urgency motion of bank prejudiced hearing of Smith’s caveat defense and timetable.

Inference – deliberate perjury or deception by those acting for Westpac knowing Ollis could not be charged with any criminal charge which misled Smith to withdraw caveat AC670830N and not seek to cross-examine Westpac witnesses, put on evidence.
5 August 2010Letter from Piper Alderman to Westpac, WBC on notice they have no interest, “not entitled to protections of s 42 or s 43 of RP Act as they were on notice …”
9 August 2010Letter in reply from HDY to Piper Alderman.
26 August 2010Smith received the Gerondis fraud report #1.
1 November 2010Transfer of Harrowvale occurs pursuant to transfer AF701846 by mortgagee exercising power of sale, 3 months after alleged urgency.
30 June 2011Smith complaint letter to NSW Police – why have NSWP charged Ollis?
22 July 2011Smith receives letter from NSW Police – State Crime Command explaining
18 April 2011Westpac confirms undertakings for damages pursuant to Bergin freezing orders of 21 Nov 06 never withdrawn, orders still on foot.
25 March 2013Smith wrote to CEO of Westpac & its proper officer separately seeking settlement discussions
8 March 2013Notice to Produce by Mark Smith issued to the NSW Crime Commission
2 April 2013Letter from Westpac refusing to enter into discussions or settlement negotiations.
27 May 2013 – 29 May 2013Production of documents by NSW Crime Commission following (narrowed) Notice to Produce of 27 May 2013
August 2016Historical title search of Harrowvale sold by Westpac.

There is a lot more information that we are working on in this matter – so watch this space.

Do you know any of the people discussed in this blog? Do you want to share your experiences? See the below tip-off form / contact form, or use the instant chat tools in the bottom corner.

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).

Many R’s Podcast – S1E3

Podcast Mark Smith

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

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

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

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

Season 1, Episode 3 will focus on:

0:00 Many R’s Podcast S1E3 (Opening)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Season 1 will focus on:

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

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

Transcript:

S1E3 podcast – transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

now Read

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

there’s an R for you um

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

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

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

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

okay before i get into

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

been fully frank with the court

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

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

very complex

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

he satisfied that that person

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

uh and his team

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

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

westpac’s cause of action was we

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

who was aware

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

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

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

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

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

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

uh whether they were

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

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

col dyson you’re legit

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

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

no longer at westpac

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

over there for

probably more than 20 years i kept journals and ron sczanner

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

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

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

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

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

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

on police raids now

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

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

by police

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

one of the crimes is to gain a financial advantage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

uh i guess

i guess that carries responsibilities

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

james stephenson made up his instructions

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

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

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

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

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

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

we’ll

see of issues here

that is westpac and ollis

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

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

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

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

you can read the

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

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

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

subsequent to that andrew did not appeal

so

you may view that as andrew accepting

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

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

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

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

appealed

andrew saunders

andrew saunders’s firm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

however

Brett Le Plastrier

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

had in his possession

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the emails tracked and between

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

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

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

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

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

so are we to believe that colin biggers and paisley lawyers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it came out that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ralph has NO interest in 632 old northern road

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and he is our fiduciary so it’s

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

so it is a fact he handed it over

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

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

so

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

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

ralph looks after ralph’s interest

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

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

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

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

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

ralph goes from working for mohan kumar

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

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

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

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

uh john mahony also um has …

a lawyer cannot contact the clients of another lawyer

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

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

that he that steinberg had a lawyer and

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

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

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

to be continued….

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

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

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

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

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

in the rural space

i think we want to as a nation consider

whether some of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

um

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

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

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