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

bankruptcy

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

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

Acts of bankruptcy

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

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

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

                   (hc)  if the debtor breaches a debt agreement;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                            as the case may be;

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

                              (i)  set aside by the Court; or

                             (ii)  terminated;

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

                              (i)  set aside by the Court; or

                             (ii)  terminated;

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

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

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

                            to which the debtor is a party.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need finance?

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

More info on Bankruptcy?

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

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

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

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

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

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

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

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

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

Transcript

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

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

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

bankruptcy

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

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40(1)(d-h)

  

Acts of bankruptcy

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

                   (d)  if:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              (i)  present a debtor‘s petition; or

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

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

Need finance?

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

More info on Bankruptcy?

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

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

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

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

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

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

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

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

all right so let’s quickly go to section d

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

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

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

bankruptcy

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

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40(1)(b)

Acts of bankruptcy

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

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

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

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

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

                            (iv)  he or she begins to keep house;

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

Need finance?

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

More info on Bankruptcy?

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

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

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

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

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

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

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

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

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

Transcript

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

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

bankruptcy

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

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40(1)(b)

Acts of bankruptcy

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

(b)  if in Australia or elsewhere:

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

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

                            (iii)  he or she makes a payment; or

                            (iv)  he or she incurs an obligation;

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

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

Need finance?

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

More info on Bankruptcy?

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

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

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

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

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

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

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

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

version of the bankruptcy act 1966.

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

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

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

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

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

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

so thanks for tuning in uh

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

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

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

Bankruptcy – s40(1)(a) Bankruptcy Act 1966.

bankruptcy

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

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40

Acts of bankruptcy

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

(a)  if in Australia or elsewhere he or she makes a conveyance or assignment of his or her property for the benefit of his or her creditors generally;

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

Need finance?

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

More info on Bankruptcy?

What is a Bankruptcy Notices under the Bankruptcy Act 1966?

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

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

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

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

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

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

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

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

Transcript:

happy easter it’s mark smith here from business asset protection, a division of dc partner solutions
well we’re continuing part two of our series, on … part two of our series on s40 of the bankruptcy act
and uh it’s only a small section but wow isn’t it uh incredible?
so we’re gonna have a look now at s40(1)(a) and maybe we’ll get to b as well?
so sit back and enjoy
okay well now we’re looking at uh section 40(1)(a)

and we probably should have a look at b as well here because uh this is probably not going to take a huge amount of time
but these are acts of bankruptcy which the court can take into consideration
uh this is fit within uh the bankruptcy act
acts of bankruptcy proceedings in connection with bankruptcy
so uh when there are proceedings or if there are proceedings uh a court can take these things into consideration as proof of your bankruptcy
um and let’s probably we should just actually have a look at the word bankruptcy and just see what it actually means
um so this is a little bit of interpretation max so let’s have a quick look at the word bankruptcy bankrupt in relation to uh jurisdiction or proceedings means a jurisdiction or proceedings by virtue of this act.
bankrupt means a person against whose estate a sequestration order has been made or who has become bankrupt by virtue of them presenting their own debtors petition
so a bankrupt is a person whose estate is under administration
basically so that’s um that’s a very key concept
let’s now have a look at … a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases and there’s quite a few here
so we’re not going to go through them all today
but let’s have a look at section 40(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
and we’ll see how we go
so it’s um in in australia or elsewhere. so you could be in fiji for instance
and you make a conveyance
in other words that means you transfer you give away you move you kind of value something so you convey or assign his or her property
so that could be shares
that could be it doesn’t mean securing, giving away security so in other words mortgaging them it means conveying or partying with so losing control of and again this wouldn’t be a um one where a security when a yeah where a secured party sells or conveys it’s where his or her property is conveyed uh i think the assumption here is is conveyed by him or her for the benefit of his or her creditors generally so when a person’s personal assets are conveyed or assigned uh for the benefit of his or her creditors generally uh well that would be indicative of your bankruptcy so um so there’s clearly exceptions to this it suggests if it’s for the benefit of his or her uh creditors well if you were to transfer your uh assets not for the benefit of his or her creditors but you transfer them or assign them nevertheless that might be captured under a different section but this is ones where you’re disposing of your assets for the benefit of your creditors that’s indicative and the court can take that into consideration and later on we’re going to go and have a look at sections 120 to 122 these avoidable transactions so let’s say you give away your assets but not for the benefit of your creditors let’s say you gave the way to your children well we’re going to have a look at really this next section we won’t do it today in this particular video but it’s where you give away your where you make a conveyance that would be void if he or she became bankrupt would be void so this is another way that there are many many ways so we’ll just stick with that this is a very simple concept it’s uh in australia or elsewhere so it doesn’t matter if you go to china you go to russia you go to the other you go to the moon it could be elsewhere other than in australia or in australia. he or she makes a conveyance of or assignment. this is a technical area. if you want to talk about this uh with anyone uh if you’ve got assets well let’s say you’ve got a creditor and they have conveyed or assigned their assets for the benefit of some other credit but not you? that still may be something you can do? so we can talk to you about that 1300-327123 or uh bottom corner on our website, use the instant chat tools on our website www.dcpartners.solutions

uh and you can chat with us uh about that particular situation you can certainly using the instant uh chat tools send us some documents. uh we’ve got forms down the bottom of this particular blog. there’s a form that allows you to upload some documents. so if you’re in that position where someone has conveyed or assigned their assets. uh for the benefit of some other creditor, other than you. um again there’s exceptions, so secured creditors but if they give it away for unsecured creditors or maybe they uh you know try and hide their assets and give them to their children or something like that is an act of bankruptcy able to be unwound? very cool okay got any questions give us a call 1300-327123.

use the instant chat tools on our website www.dcpartners.solutions thank you very much

Bankruptcy – s40(1)(g) Bankruptcy Notices

bankruptcy

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

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40

Acts of bankruptcy

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

… (g)  if a creditor who has obtained against the debtor a final judgment or final order, being a judgment or order the execution of which has not been stayed, has served on the debtor in Australia or, by leave of the Court, elsewhere, a bankruptcy notice under this Act and the debtor does not:

                              (i)  where the notice was served in Australia–within the time fixed for compliance with the notice; or

                             (ii)  where the notice was served elsewhere–within the time specified by the order giving leave to effect the service;

                            comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the Court that he or she has a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt or sum payable under the final order, as the case may be, being a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand that he or she could not have set up in the action or proceeding in which the judgment or order was obtained

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

Need finance?

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

More info on Bankruptcy?

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

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 41

Bankruptcy notices

(1)  An Official Receiver may issue a bankruptcy notice on the application of a creditor who has obtained against a debtor:

                     (a)  a final judgment or final order that:

                              (i)  is of the kind described in paragraph 40(1)(g); and

                             (ii)  is for an amount of at least the statutory minimum; or

                     (b)  2 or more final judgments or final orders that:

                              (i)  are of the kind described in paragraph 40(1)(g); and

                             (ii)  taken together are for an amount of at least the statutory minimum

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

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

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

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

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

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

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

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

Bankruptcy – s41 Bankruptcy Notices

bankruptcy

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

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 41

Bankruptcy notices

(1)  An Official Receiver may issue a bankruptcy notice on the application of a creditor who has obtained against a debtor:

                     (a)  a final judgment or final order that:

                              (i)  is of the kind described in paragraph 40(1)(g); and

                             (ii)  is for an amount of at least the statutory minimum; or

                     (b)  2 or more final judgments or final orders that:

                              (i)  are of the kind described in paragraph 40(1)(g); and

                             (ii)  taken together are for an amount of at least the statutory minimum

Need finance?

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

More info on Bankruptcy?

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 – SECT 40

Acts of bankruptcy

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

… (g)  if a creditor who has obtained against the debtor a final judgment or final order, being a judgment or order the execution of which has not been stayed, has served on the debtor in Australia or, by leave of the Court, elsewhere, a bankruptcy notice under this Act and the debtor does not:

                              (i)  where the notice was served in Australia–within the time fixed for compliance with the notice; or

                             (ii)  where the notice was served elsewhere–within the time specified by the order giving leave to effect the service;

                            comply with the requirements of the notice or satisfy the Court that he or she has a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt or sum payable under the final order, as the case may be, being a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand that he or she could not have set up in the action or proceeding in which the judgment or order was obtained

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

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

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

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

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

Mark J. Smith
Mark J. Smith

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

Connect to Mark on LinkedIn.

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

Ralph Paligaru – profile

ralph paligaru

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

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

Public interest

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

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

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

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

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

Background – Ralph & Mohan Kumar aka Chhota Rajan

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

Ralph Paligaru’s boss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sale of 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paligaru:  “About $1.5m on settlement”.

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

Paligaru:  “Me, under the POA”.

Me:  “So where is the title deed?”.

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

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

Paligaru:  “Yes”.

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

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

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

Paligaru:  “No, not exactly.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ralph’s borrowings from Franklin Yeezy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elsewhere Ralph swore the following:

Paligaru admissions
Paligaru admissions – are you any clearer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronology continued – sale of the Kumar security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCPLH v Bargo Developments Pty Ltd (in liquidation), Craig Matthew Adams and others

632 old northern rd dural photo

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

Bargo was the one-time owner of 632 Old Northern Rd, Dural NSW purchased from Mohan Kumar (under POA, executed by Ralph Paligaru).

DCPLH is the assignee of the secured debts of Mohan Kumar, Reliance Leasing, and Ralph & Amreeta Paligaru (owners of Dural Alliances Pty Ltd).

Together DCPLH is owed some $6,000,000+ as assignee of these debts (i.e. the Kumar assigned debt and the Paligaru/Dural Alliances assigned debt).

To discuss this project, litigation funding, Bargo, Craig Adams, Australasian, Ralph Paligaru or others – call anytime on 1300-327123.

To view related blogs, case notes or otherwise, follow the following category links and tags below.

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

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

Golden Arrow International Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

golden arrow 3

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

Golden Arrow International Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (“Golden Arrow”) is a creditor (as the assignee of Ralph Ignatius Paligaru, Amreeta Paligaru and Dural Alliances Pty Ltd, together “the Paligaru’s“).

Craig Adams was the director of Golden Arrow and other companies placed into liquidation in mid to late 2018 as a result of a windup application initiated by DCP arising from the assignment by Ralph and Dural Alliances to DCP .

Golden Arrow was the owner of a large development site at Warriewood sold for $16,700,000.

DCP is the assignee of the Paligaru’s debt where it seems, an unsecured creditor, Australasian Property Group Pte Ltd may have been paid a preference payment (in preference to the Paligaru’s, our assignors) or the payment to APG and security it received may be voidable?

These alleged facts may become the subject of litigation before the NSW Supreme Court in the coming months?

Anyone interested to discuss Golden Arrow, Craig Adams, Australasian or the Paligaru’s can call us anytime on 1300-327123.

To view related blogs, case notes or otherwise, follow the following category links and tags below.

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

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