Many R’s Podcast – S1E8

0:01 Introduction

0:23 outline of the episode

0:36 person – mark’s heart attack

4:15 blog on holidays

5:00 the many r’s: where R they now?

5:12 hakan kutup

5:30 131MVR

7:49 Craig Adams, Bargo Developments, Ralph Paligaru, Dural Alliances (in liquidation), Mohan Kumar, John Mahony

8:29 Ralph Paligaru, John Mahony v Garry Steinberg, Reliance Leasing, Tim Horne, Horne Legal

8:50 Ralph Paligaru, John Mahony v Garry Steinberg, Reliance Leasing, Tim Horne, Horne Legal – exploration of potentially fake law suit?

14:27 review of the summons Paligaru v Reliance Leasing

14:45 review of the summons Paligaru v Reliance Leasing – declarations sought, borrower seeking declarations against lender.

16:22 parties to previous deed and parties to loan

16:50 unsigned summons

17:30 consent judgment

18:45 review of loan 1899 (assigned in 1/9/2017) and notice of assignment

21:17 review of ralph’s sworn affidavit of 2/3/2021

21:40 overview of alleged representations from Garry Steinberg to Ralph Paligaru

26:39 look ahead to Season 2

27:54 initial look at Westpac scandal

29:00 court submission “no individual” knew.

30:45 bank statement quick review

33:00 season 2 – coming up Steinberg: NAB v Craig Smith case, Signature problems

33:28 season 2 – coming up Mahony: OLSC v John Mahony, Signature problems

34:51 season 2 – coming up Andrew Gartrell: Signature problems

35:30 closing message

36:18 credits

Leave a Reply – nothing defamatory will be permitted, all comments moderated. Spam will not be approved.

Transcript

rogues rascals receivables rorts rip-offs receivers real estate agents and much much more this is the many r's podcast season 1 episode 8 our final episode for season 1 my name is mark smith from dc partner solutions give us a call 1-300-327-123 or contact us chat with us online or use our instant chat tools www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast

well in this episode we're having a review of 2021 we're going to see how many R and where R they now for some of them some of the special R's we're also gonna have a look ahead at season 2 so what is 'round the corner

well where do we start a recap let's start with me personally been a little gap between season 1 episode 7.5 and season 1 episode 8 which is today and i've had quite an adventure our last episode was on the 15th of september and on the 1st of october i had a huge huge awakening moment and let's just have a look this photo is a photo of my heart contrary to popular belief there is a heart in there and this is what your this is what a blocked artery looks like and we're just gonna go and have a look now at an unblocked one and wow this is a stand i actually had a heart attack on the 1st of october and that this missing tree trunk here this very faint line is called my left anterior descending artery and you can see just the tiniest bit of blood sort of getting through and that was quite a crisis so i've been i finished my studies in june on my sister's birthday 16th of june 2021 we moved house on the 28th of june 28th maybe 27th and and took up residence covid the shutdown sydney went into six months of shutdown more or less or five months or however long and i graduated i i elected to graduate in in absentia on the 6th of september for my juris doctor and on the 1st of october i get a very nasty dose of reflux i thought and i can assure you mylanta and those sorts of things did absolutely nothing i i truly thought i did not know i was having a heart attack i thought i had an ulcer or a a dose of reflex or something but turns out no there was a a blocked artery and a very important artery left anterior descending it's called the widowmaker so i i was gonna drive myself to hospital and good thing well i got my my what i really thought it was just reflux so none of the pains in your in your shoulder so for anyone that's watching this just you know apparently it felt like a burning reflux right where my where most people's heart is so i i took myself off to a hospital and within a very very very short period of time i'm talking 20 minutes they're putting a stent into me so restoring the blood flow and i i would like to i'll just show you right here that little dot there that's that's a scar no no big chest openings they go in through this tiny tiny tiny tiny opening there and i i do have bruises everywhere now unfortunately i i'm on thinners and all sorts of stuff so i i bruise terribly now but i'm alive and i'm very extremely grateful to wonderful doctors who put a stent into me very very quickly and i spent 5 days in hospital so where are they now well sorry where's our year in review well our blog has actually been on holidays so i had several days in hospital no visitors due to covid and not even my darling wife so i i have great sympathy for those that have been isolated or doing it hard and i feel like i've i feel much better since the heart attack i do feel better we've this blog has been actually on something of a holiday and well we have decided to at least wrap up season 1 and give you a look at we've had plenty of time to think so not everyone has been pleasant to deal with in the aftermath and we're going to talk about some of that and in this particular episode we're going to look at where R they now so that's a wrap on the personal so a number of people said well where's our blog gone? well come the 1st of october all the nasty letters i had some of our some some of R'S even texting me on holiday i'm texting me in hospital on the very day i'm having my my heart attack they're texting me and oh dear so anyway we decided to give our blog a bit of a rest for a couple months well you can be sure that not not very many of these opponents have have seen the LIGHT let's put it that way so some of the blogs will be reintroduced and well here we are here's our farewell to season 1 so we're we're still thinking about all the issues the Blog's been on holidays but many people have asked well where R they now so um

i i won't touch on COVID but it has been obviously a very difficult period for many australians and a lot of people that i know as well i can't cut it i i can't go past christmas 2021 without saying well i think i think i might i think i'll make hakan's his visit with in her majesty's company i think it's actually over i think he's out of jail so i mean that's that's where R they now. 131MVR that stands for 131 mona road st ives. and that where where is it now it's in liquidation and look i'm hearing that there's there's big moves a'foot ... the liquidator i know i continue to be owed thousands of dollars by that project and well i i and i appointed the liquidator with the assistance of the supreme court of victoria a man called gavin moss and chifley advisory was appointed liquidator well i'm i'm hearing that the liquidator we held public examinations on of the directors of that corporation back in about february or march of 2020. well look i'm hearing that the liquidator has found that the directors and macarthur projects let's put it this way the director sorry the liquidator wants something like between 7 and 12 million dollars of the company's money back so the liquidator is looking to the directors and to a company called macarthur projects now i was there i was actually there in the court in the supreme court of new south wales it was actually in the federal court i think i think it was in front of a registrar and you know two days were set aside for public examinations and i was there and one of the questions was okay so you owed a latrobe 7 million dollars is that correct yes that's right and you repaid that you did yes that's that's correct how much did you borrow to repay back the 7 million and these are words the effect and this is all in the public arena so in open court it's fine for me to discuss it how much did you borrow to pay back the 7 million 12 12. you borrowed 12 to pay back seven yes why'd you do that well i'm just paraphrasing here this is not why did you do that i don't remember what did you do with the other five don't recall i mean these are the sorts of these are sorts of questions that we're at so i mean the liquidators the liquidator has been sitting on this transcript for 12 months or 18 months or whatever and he's now calling that in well you didn't need the 12 you only need 7 you borrowed the the company went down the toilet the project 131 mona vale road st ives. did not get finished now exactly whose fault that is i'm not saying whose fault it is but that's where are they now on 131MVR now let's have a talk about our other this this whole collective of mates craig adams bargo developments now they're they're both in liquidation craig's in bankruptcy ralph paligaru oh dear one of his companies is in liquidation i put that down that was called dural alliances well mohan kumar he recently had a brush with the torrens assurance fund and lost justice darke we talked about that extensively in episode season 1 episode 7.5 john mahony was his lawyer and unfortunately shot down shot down now let's let's have a look at a few files so for the rest of them where are they now well let's have a look ralph paligaru he's suing garry steinberg ralph suing garry steinberg and reliance leasing in the supreme court of new south wales now this is the most interesting case because it's gone precisely absolutely nowhere nowhere so is it a fake lawsuit i mean

you tell me let's just explore this just a tiny bit more the question is this a fake lawsuit like is this a good question let's have a look at let's have a look one of the basic requirements of a lawsuit is the solicitor they've got to sign it they've got to sign it okay and john mahony is a lawyer he's been a lawyer for 40 45 50 years i don't know long long time john money hasn't signed this document and john only actually has to the any lawyer whoever acts has to sign this signature of legal representative look i mean it's right there in front of you signature plaintiff plaintiff's solicitor i certified that under clause whatever that another there are reasonable grounds for believing on the basis of provable facts and a reasonably arguable view of the law that the claim for damages in these proceedings has reasonable prospects of success

that is why john mahony needs to sign this to say okay we're not here to waste the court's time well he was the court's time i and john mahony putting his signature on a piece of paper to say we're not wasting the court's time okay well that that signature didn't happen on the 2nd of march last year now i think that's that's coming up to 10 months is that right 10 months 10 months it hasn't been signed 10 months have gone by and what's happened with this case well i'll tell you nothing nothing has happened so this is some correspondence now this is this is a court document this is a court order this is all public on the 7th of december the court ordered the court ordered order this matter is listed for directions on the 10th of february so so much so much has occurred since since it was listed on the second of march that we need a break i mean we're just so productive so we're gonna we're gonna push it out to 11 months there so 10th of february is more than 11 months since it was filed and what's happened nothing nothing nothing nothing so and and why has nothing happened now who are the parties let's just remind ourselves who are the parties so we've got ralph and reliance leasing parties ralph ignatius paligaru plaintiff, defendant reliance leasing so they're the parties and and the disputes between them so you would think that that has to be resolved between them but no i don't know so these aren't my words these are the words of john mahony and tim horne was my lawyer okay just let's just refresh tim horne signed this consent judgement on behalf capacity solicitor defendant consents yeah defender consents ralph and amreeta consent consent judge that's why it's called a consent judgment it's judgment by consent yeah we all agree we're consenting

yet i'm not even a party so why does tim horne say and and john mahony agree what do they agree this is on the 7th of september december 7th of december requests submitted by tim horne for four for me nope no no four reliance leasing the case paligaru versus reliance leasing the request the request is that the matter be listed for directions in february reasons reasons ah the intended settlement of this matter has got nothing to do with me i'm not even a party has been frustrated by a third party

by a third party who's going to get nothing out of it absolutely nothing the third party's frustrated this so remind ourselves this authority was to pay to pay me no no no so my company gets positioned at the loan on the first of september 2017 there's this elaborate pea and thimble trick whatever you want to call it maybe it's not a trick maybe it is there's going to be a dispersal from reliance back into the why do why does reliance have to take money out of this pocket and stick it in that one why do they even have to do that well because we've got i mean we've got a deed here we've got a deed of settlement all the fights they're now over and we've solemnly sat down we've resolved their differences yet mark smith is now frustrating things how's mark smith frustrating this not even a party we're instructed that there remains a possibility that this that this will be resolved shortly and in light of this so i'm just telling you it's christmas eve if someone wants to resolve this well you know well they're probably going to have to do something about this that's you know if you want to p if you if you owned a piece of property and called this debt and reliance leasing is proposing how about we pay you nothing yet yet tim horne tim horn's a very intelligent man he can go off to the court and say it's mark smith's fault because he's frustrating things i would say that there is well he's we are instructed there remains a possibility that this will be resolved shortly yeah pigs might fly unless unless a hundred and five thousand dollars it lands up in my pocket plus the interest or you know whatever then the court's time has just been completely wasted by these two very intelligent people called tim horne and the other party to this is john money they're both lawyers and and their clients pigs might fly we're instructed that there that there is a possibility this will be resolved shortly

so that that's addressing whether this loan is real now we'll go back and we'll look some more into this john mahony great lawyer okay he's handling this he's running the show he's he's the plaintiff's solicitor and we've got ralph ignatius paligaru suing reliance leasing so let's have a look at this summons and this is where are they now i'm just saying this is where they are i'm not making any judgments i'm just saying this is where they are relief claimed a declaration that the loan agreement of the 26th of may is valid and enforceable so john mahony is after declarations what is the loan agreement of the 26th of may well i'm glad you asked here's a copy and this is

this is a document to

effectively recycle money so john mahony is after a declaration that this piece of paper is actually valid i mean when you when you start with the assumption that if we sign this piece of paper it's valid so why would it be invalid

is it is it a mirage i don't know so the supreme court of new south wales is its time is being taken up and vast money is being spent to determine if this is some sort of scam or mirage or if it's a declaration that that it's valid and enforceable ah so the borrower wants a once a declaration from the supreme court that this loan is enforceable but hang on that's the borrower saying that the it's a loan and it's an enforceable loan against the lender well hang on it's usually the reverse it's usually the the the lender saying oh hang on we want a declaration that ralph is the money but no no no no this is and so we're after a declaration that it ought to be specifically performed an order that the defendants specifically perform a carry into effect the loan ah so give us the money give us the money

so okay this is interesting isn't it so we've got this i won't go into the details because it's confidential but there is a deed and all the parties on the 11th of march 11th march yes two and a half months before this date they've had a big dispute and they agreed to sell okay fine but so hang on the parties dcp litigation reliance ralph and his wife okay well that's interesting so let's have a look at the parties on this the summons who are the parties oh well there's only ralph and reliance

now this is interesting this is normally something that you normally you file something you normally have to sign it you put it in the supreme court where's the signature i mean can you see it there anyone so it's an unsigned document who are the parties okay this is ralph and reliance so on the 11th of march all the parties agreed to settle okay right and then on the 26th of may

there's this agreement to recycle money but hang on didn't we just settle i mean it gets it gets you know stranger so eleventh march we have this agreement and it and eleventh of march oh i got john mahony 's signature on this document for ralph and everybody so everyone agrees if we don't do what what's what was agreed to be settled well you can go and get it you can go and get a judgment so this is a consent judgment we consent that if we're going to do all these things that we agree in may hey march and if we don't then you can go and file this and and they give us the consent judgment upfront signed by john mahony and later it's it's it's signed by the same people tim horne reliance leasing now he happened to be my lawyers as well and it's so we jim signs this he was authorised to do so and he was instructed he was given a written instruction by reliance leasing on the third of july let's go ahead and get this consent judgment because this deed it hasn't worked out but hang on ralph is seeking specific performance of a loan that you must lend me money but i'm in great of this but you must lend me a hundred and five and a half thousand dollars and what to do is ralph want to get these hundred five thousand dollars no no no no no no here's the authority just take that from one pocket and stick it in the other i'm in i'm going to the supreme court to force you to take money out of this pocket and put into that pocket wow i mean are you confused what's the point of all this yeah like it does seem like a bit like smoke and mirrors so it's it's a very i mean this is a loan by the way loan 1899

now let's let's go back in time to the first of september 2017. one eight double nine oh there you go 1899 so this is a loan that he doesn't even that ralph wants a order that reliance specifically for form to take it from this pocket and stick it in that pocket but on the first of september 2017 here off reliance leasing this is first of september dear ralph reliance leasing hereby gives you notice that they no longer own the debt ah so where are they now that's this is a this is some sort of elaborate pea and thimble ... something maybe i don't know reliance leasing gives you notice that they no longer own the debt and that all of it all absolutely you know all all its rights title and interest under the loan agreement guarantees securities it's giving to my company absolutely absolutely oh there's the magic words and it's the loan agreement of the 18th of july and Ralphs got a copy this because i sent a process server in september 2017 i've got an affidavit of service that ralph was served this document it's only two pages but ralph neglected to acknowledge it but ralph was served and he's now saying well in in may of 2020 26th of may 2020 a debt that was the subject of this settlement dude that involves the replacement it's called the assignee ralph is now seeking declarations not against me that the reliance leasing must take their own money out of their own pocket and shove it in the other pocket and not give any of it to the to the actual owner so if you were the if you've spent four years from 2017 through to 2021 pursuing a hundred thousand dollars and then you sign these deeds and you don't actually know about this this is this happens all behind your back and then on the 17th of july your lawyer who happens to be reliance's lawyer yeah they agree well none of these things that were supposed to happen under this debate happen so let's go and enforce our judgment it's it's it must be it must sound very puzzling must sound extremely strange so that's that's where ralph is he's not suing me he's suing Garry steinberg he's suing reliance and he's saying you must you must lend us this these aren't my words these are ralph's words we can have a look ralph is sworn   an affidavit so that's sworn on the second of march and this is all these are all his words um

long story long story but maybe what ralph is saying is that during the there was a meeting that i wasn't that i didn't attend but i didn't even know about during the meeting i ralph had a conversation with mr steinberg to the effect ralph this this is a loan agreement which will refinance the original loan well hang on the original loan oh this one that you you signed over to me yeah yeah that 1899? yeah 1899. the affidavit and this is ralph sworn i wasn't there i don't know this is what ralph squares has occurred ralph this is the origin this is a loan agreement which will refinance your original loan i'm prepared to agree to refinance that loan in full in the sof a hundred and five thousand five hundred dollars that's all you need to pay off the loan say to me paid to Garry steinberg reliance ralph oh so despite smith having taken over the line yeah yeah that's right smith took it over when did you take that over let's just refresh yourself first of september 2017. this is what ralph swears so despite smith taking over the loan he will arrange for smith to take no action under the deed that signed in large such that once i signed this agreement all previous agreements relating to the original loan will have been replaced by this agreement now this is a two-party apparently this is a two-party agreement i'm not one of the parties and i think what he's i think what ralph's getting at here is Garry saying well he's my agent really nice to know that wouldn't it so you know if i've got anger and with someone and you know where's that anger now well maybe it's it'd be like if you went into westpac and said hey my line with the commonwealth bank can you just make it go away i wish i could say you're an idiot get out i'll call call the nutshops anyway ralph's having this conversation with Garry steinberg apparently this is what ralph says the conversation went by so all previous arrangements relating to the original loan will be replaced is that what's going to happen Garry yeah yeah that is that is right yes that is right i mean that's fairly clear yes that is right leave it to me i will take care of smith

really i will take okay how's that going to work i will take care of smith i will take care of smith so in the first of on the first of october when i'm lying there in hospital the tubes hanging at me and stents and you know having a heart attack wow i was being taken care of i'm actually getting text messages by this pair by ralph and Garry oh you know taking care of me I got a i get a christmas wish today today's the 24th of december i wish you you know i wish you well from Garry he's taking care with words no no we want we want Garry to take care with money you know cash Garry to ralph this is on the 26th of may also you only need to pay me what you can afford hang on you pay me to pay off the loan to smith and i'll take care of smith but you only need to pay me what you can afford

minimum 000 so even if you can't afford a thousand you pay it to me and i'll take care of smith ralph yes one thousand is about as much as i can pay and i agree that that will be the repayment no i wasn't there but this is what they swear what this is what ralph says also as you have no income other than the mill in fiji you won't have to commence payment under this loan until you start making money like this in the middle of covid two years go by and gary's making giving undertakings apparently for me

and then the timber mill suddenly blows over in a cyclone very very tragic a lot of destruction so you know i think what gary's saying here is you don't have to worry about making any payments i'll take care of smith yes Garry i agree i will commence payments as soon as the mill starts making money from me and of course the mill's destroyed so so ralph is forever led off this agreement apparently and i wasn't even there i wasn't there and i agreed somehow through Garry steinberg my agent that's that's apparently how it all goes so ralph is seeking declarations that this is valid that Garry must remove money from this pocket and stick it in that pocket and that makes mark smith go away despite that so this is on the 25th of 26th of may but in july of the same year last year Garry tells his and my lawyer tim Horne yep sign now this is what an election looks like when you sign something like this and then you file it in the court you have elected you're never going back on it so are you getting the gist of what i think of Garry steinberg what i think of

what i think of and how i now view these notices of assignment and it's and how i feel about being taken care of in this way i i hope that tells you where they R now okay we're going to deep dive in season 2 deep dive and when i say deep like it may be a series of dives we may i actually think that there's a lot here so we're not going to get into this in huge detail today but we're just going to quickly have a look at westpac we're going to have a look at a couple of more things to do with Garry reliance mahony that whole mess

we may come back to 131mvr as that progresses depending on what the liquidator does and so on we are interested and we're a creditor and this is a fair game andrew gartrell

very long story adam tilly now this is a guy that loaned money to craig adams and then subsequently loaned money to ralph paligaru and that's not a crime but well we're going to look at him in season two as well adam tilly now pacific 8 kesinda oh justin hatfield now justin hatfield's fingerprints were on lots and lots of these documents that were given to adam tilly and look we we we may need to come back and have a look at aqua law i'm very very disappointed with with them and so we'll just have a look at it now moving on to westpac well what's we've touched on westpac and there are a few things on our blog already there's a westpac who why a where and how but just in the very briefest of terms how what. what what is westpac about um

there is quite a lot to this there really actually is quite a lot to westpac and we'll start with these submissions and these are submissions that were given to the supreme court of new south wales i am certainly not accusing the barristers of any wrongdoing but i am saying that someone misled the barristers and so that is the scandal it's mr ollis had this seemingly magic cheque book that he could write out to checks for two hundred thousand fifty thousand for four hundred thousand and they would just magically magically put money in his account every day and well that's bad enough but the real scandal and mr ollis did not go to jail so he was not convicted of any fraud he wasn't even charged with any fraud

so no one's accusing him of anything although he did write cheques if we go now to let's have a look at this individual this word individual only appears once in this document and it appears in paragraph 38 and it says that it is clear and this is what i'm saying the scandal is it is clear on the evidence so this is what the barristers are writing is clear on the on the evidence or at least the evidence that the barristers have seen so if they haven't seen it well they're not misleading anyone but if they were not shown it that's what i'm saying may well be the scandal it is clear on the evidence that the bank made these payments well they certainly made payments and we're going to show you the bank's statements in a moment and that and that no individual so that's fairly clear no individual within the bank knew so maybe the computer knew but they're saying these barristers in their submissions to the supreme court say that no individual ah within the bank okay so was that someone outside the bank that knew this is well that's interesting no individual within the bank so that does not mean that individuals outside the bank didn't know but this is the evidence they're saying the evidence is that no individuals within the bank knew until so the first individual in the bank knew on the 12th of january 2006 and i am saying that that is false now i'm not accusing the barristers of anything they may well have been kept in the dark or maybe it was an individual outside the bank that knew very interesting no individual  well sorry i keep saying new things until the 12th of january of the drawings being made by alice on his business account so let's have a look at this business account and see what were those drawings and you be the judge like this this is only a shallow dive we're going to say i'm saying people inside the bank actually knew

these bank statements are 72 pages long on every single page is his stuff but um

This word invalid now the submission was until the 12th of january 2006. well i'm saying here's the bank statement seven months early on the 17th of june and i'm saying that an individual in the bank wrote the word invalid and that is knowledge they knew on that day they knew that this was there was an invalidity now that's not what the the submissions say they say no one knew of the drawings so we're kind of splitting hairs here but someone knew that there was this invalid replenishment authority and at this point on the 17th of june he was writing checks for forty thousand dollars and there was replenishments happening at forty thousand and eighteen dollars on that day now let's go let's march on to page say sixty and i have absolutely so much the the credits there's 10.3 million dollars going in and out of the account i mean wow i wonder if that was normal and i wonder if anyone was watching this i'm going to say no so this this bloke would come to work every morning and there'd be zero dollars in the account and then by december this is four and a half million dollars just turns up in his bank account in the morning wow that's a good day 4.1 million dollars he'd write on the 1st of december he wrote a check for 400 000. now if we go back to the the previous one on the 17th of june he's only writing checks for 40 000 and in six months he's gotten bolder and he's now writing checks for four hundred thousand dollars and they're still being honoured but the evidence the submissions were that no individual within the bank knew until the 12th of january and i'm calling that BS and if we go into the next page yeah this time instead of writing word invalid someone's written their pco status these are these are bits of evidence of knowledge so again we'll get we'll do a deep dive and we'll get into this in more detail

now let's go and have a further look at some of the things that we're going to look at in season 2 and i mentioned steinberg we're going to have a look at this seemingly innocuous case a national australia bank v smith now i'm not making any of this up and by the way that's not me that's someone else by that name this is a case that was heard in 2013 and you know this is this is a public document and ghs that's that's a related company of reliance they were part of it we're going to we're going to go into this case so that's something we're going to have a good dive at

we're also going to have a look at mr mahony and mr mahony is a is a borrower of of of reliance so Garry steinberg one of his borrowers is reliance and Garry gets a mention in this as well and reliance leasing so this is again this is real this is something that anyone can go to caselaw.nsw.gov.au and put in the name mahony and and the council of the law society took on mr mahony and what did they take him on for well let's have a look at this they they took an objection to the complaint the solicitor falsely witnessed the signature of this particular person and and who should be there but mr steinberg mr steinberg's here as well so mr steinberg gets around and it's it's i was unaware of some of these things but mr steinberg goes back further with people and the if we jump to this this account this matter of nab v smith well that's also involves mr steinberg and there's problems with the signature on documents there as well so these are not my opinions this is not these are factual findings the supreme court or the civil administrative tribunal in the case of the mahony and mr steinberg seems to find his way into you know these situations all the time

andrew gartrell has a problem with the signature as well and Andrew gartrell, i i he knows Garry steinberg as well and adam tilly well adam tilly i don't know how well he knows mr steinberg although they do know each other and ben and tim horne though well they know mr steinberg mahony knows mr steinberg mohan kumar he's met mr steinberg and ralph paligaru well the only people here that don't know each other steinberg knows 131mvr and he's a creditor of that as well this is you know very troubling

so these are some of the things that we're going to look at in season 2 there's going to be plenty more so stay tuned and i'll come back and we'll wrap up now

we'll look in closing thank you so much for joining us in 2021 and 2020 and hopefully you're joining us again in 2022 we appreciate your efforts we appreciate the messages of support we appreciate the instant chat tools if you have any questions if you have any questions give us a call 1-300-327-123 or come and visit us in the bottom right hand corner of our website www.dcpartners.solutions/podcast

and you can instant chat with us there in the bottom right hand corner if you've got any questions at all you want to talk to us you want to send us an email whatever you can call us again as i said 1300 327123 my name is mark smith i'd love to talk to you i'm i'm very keen i'm very willing to talk to anyone anytime about anything so give us a call happy christmas happy new year i hope it's a great 2022 and thank you again see you soon

Leave a Reply - nothing defamatory will be permitted, all comments moderated. Spam will not be approved.

James Stevenson SC – Profile

Hon. Justice James Stevenson

About James Stevenson SC: Now known as Hon. Justice James Stevenson

ANU Profile: https://law.anu.edu.au/alumni/alumni-profiles/hon-justice-james-stevenson

Employer/Department Then: Eleven Wentworth

Employer Now: NSW Supreme Court

Key Facts: watch this space

Key Relationships: watch this space

Key Dates: watch this space

Key Documents: watch this space

Any Contradictory Factual Circumstances: watch this space

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

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

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

Westpac v Ollis: Facts

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

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

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

Mark Murphy – Profile

Mark Murphy

About Mark Murphy:

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

Employer/Department Then: Westpac/Senior Manager Internal Investigations

Employer Now: AMP/Investigations & Compliance, Advice Compliance

Key Facts: Watch this space

Key Relationships: Watch this space

Key Dates: Watch this space

Key Documents: Watch this space

Any Contradictory Factual Circumstances: Watch this space

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

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

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

Westpac v Ollis: When?

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

9 May 2005
Transfer/replenishment
From account 541135

10 May 2005
Transfer/replenishment
From account 541135

11 May 2005
Reversal of credit
Transaction on 541135
732591 541135

12 May 2005
Reversal of credit
Transaction on 541135
732591 541135

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

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

9 June 2005
Transfer/replenishment
from account 541135 $1124.55

14 June 2005
“Withdrawal / Cheque 541135”

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

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

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

7 July 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 541135”

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

5 August 2005
“Transfer/replenishment by authority 180123”

8 August 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 541135”

9 August 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 541135”

15 August 2005
“Reversal of credit transaction on 120805 ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The date the cheque was presented.

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

3. The party to whom the cheque was written.

4. The amount of the cheque

5. The security for the cheque.

6. The signatory on the cheque.

7. Where the cheque was presented.

8. The balance of Ollis’ business cheque account.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Sorting

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smith was without notice to these documents until late 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RA Version #3 to NSWCC documents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smith was without notice to this matter until after 2011.

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

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

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

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

Commercial List Statement amended on 31 August 2007

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

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

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

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

Summons contains other items which mislead Smith & the court:

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

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

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

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

Letters posted in March 2004 suggest possibility of further drawings.

He possessed a cheque.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Westpac internal notes and Ollis’ bank statements suggest otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Findings of moral turpitude against Ollis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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