In Part 5 we discussed what the law was that made what Ralan did illegal.
Today I want to talk about what made Westpac, Wingate and Deloitte potentially illegal.
We are in investigating and I have no proof.
Without evidence I cannot win.
I also cannot tell the public that someone has done something wrong unless I have evidence.
So at this stage I am not saying that what Ralan did was with the knowing assistance with Westpac, Wingate or Deloitte.
However, I have my suspicions that they did know. My background in construction finance means I know how it works.
I do not know what happened between Westpac and Ralan. But I know what is normal practice is. Banks do not normally go against the normal practice.
Under the normal practice, a bank like Westpac would look very carefully at Ralan’s bank account. They would check the details in the account. They would make sure there are no lies in the account.
They would consider whether or not Ralan’s finances reflect what Ralan had done and was doing. A construction lender always looks at the history of the developer. They are looking to see the developer has always makes the profitable project.
We have been told by Grant Thornton that Ralan may never have been profitable.
So there is something unusual going on here.
My experience tells me that a construction financier would always look closely at the pre-sales. The main thing they are looking for is the fraud by the developer.
In Ralan’s case, they appear to be a fraud on a massive scale. Let me explain.
The purpose of the pre-sales is so if the developer goes into liquidation the lender can still sell the unit and in that way they get the money back.
That does not happen here. Wingate has taken over the Arncliffe development. You would think that the normal process for them will be to sell the units to the people who have bought them off the plan.
Normally they would get the deposit. In this case, the deposit was loaned to Ralan. It is not in the trust account. With this money gone I think that Wingate will find it unprofitable to sell to the unit buyers.
The reason is it will make more money by selling on the open market. If they sell on the open market, they get the deposit. If they sell to the Ralan victims, they lose the deposit.
So this is very strange Wingate has done something unusual. It appears they have even not done due diligence or took the risk that Ralan would go into the liquidation.
If I speak to a man in Wingate right now I would say what are you doing? Why didn’t you check those deposits whether in the trust account?
I would say the same thing to the Westpac why didn’t you check?
They will say we are victims as well. Ralan gives us false trust account details. They said they had all the money in trust. They didn’t tell us where they released.
But that dose not makes sense for me either. Remember a lender checks on trust account details when they are looking for a fraud.
Ralan was the real estate agent. Therefore Ralan operated the trust account. Therefore it was obvious that Ralan could commit this fraud by providing false legders.
No one with a brain would trust Ralan’s figures. They would check the actual bank account to make sure the money was there.
Now last week in the Australia Financial Review, Wingate said if Matthew Bransgrove sues us we will defend very very vigorously
They said that they did not know about the release the deposit.
Is that correct?
Time will tell.
I think it would be very hard for them to prove they did not know. There are too many records. Every single time that a loan settled was on the settlement adjustment sheet.
The loan to Ralan being repaid. It would show an interest earned. The unit buyers would insist on that. Otherwise how would they know that will be in repaid?
We know this happened because a solicitor told Australia Financial Review that in 2013 he saw the loan on a settlement adjustment sheet.
In order to convince Westpac and Wingate to release the title Ralan had to show them the settlement adjustment sheet. On that they may notice that the loan of the deposit and payment of interest.
Perhaps they overlooked on two units. But we are talking about hundreds of units.
How was that possible. These questions need to be answered.
Now I have with me the Australian Law in relation to the liability of accessory.
And now I would put on the screen.
This is s 79 of the Corporation Act, it says involvement in contraventions.
A person is involved in a contravention if, and only if, the person has aided, abetted, counselled or procured the contravention, or has induced, whether by threats or promises or otherwise, the contravention, or has been in any way, by act or omission, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contravention, or has conspired with others to affect the contravention.
Now each one of them has “or” after it. This means you don’t have to prove all of them, just one of them. And not just one of those four, it is one of those seven, because the first one could be broken up into four options.
Now there are a lot of cases where these have been discussed how there must be knowledge of the contravention. They don’t need to know what was done was illegal just that the loans were being made.
I have seen a lot of paper work. It looks to me as though the paper was designed for another company to look at. Ralan is trying to convince someone. I think they were trying to convince Westpac, Wingate and perhaps Deloitte.
I think that what they said to these companies may have been this. We are allowed to borrow people’s deposit. That is not illegal, what we are allowed to do is borrow money.
So when they did borrow money without selling you units they created false documents to make it look as though the loan related to a unit.
So a lot of people come to me and said they loaned money to Ralan but did not buy the units, but the loan documents refers to the units.
I am wondering why, why were they doing that?Who are they going to show that document to?
I think they were going to show to one of the lenders or their accountants, Deloitte.
Perhaps Deloitte knew it was illegal for them to borrow money without the financial service license, but they wrongly believe that was ok to retain the deposit.
Perhaps Wingate and Westpac said it was ok to take money of your trust account, as long as it was released deposit. Perhaps that is why Ralan created this false paper work.