Consolidated Transcript of our Videos

Part 1 Recorded 26 August 2019

  1. I am author of Essential Guide to Mortgage Law in Australia.
  2. The book is 2nd edition and has been cited multiple times by judges.
  3. I am author of Avoiding Mortgage Fraud in Australia.
  4. I specialise also in Corporate Law.
  5. That law that deals with the raising of money.
  6. In 2008 City Pacific collapsed.
  7. It was a mortgage scheme based on the Gold Coast which had $1Billion dollars of funds under management
  8. I acted for the board of directors in litigation that went on for 8 years.
  9. One of the assets of City Pacific was the Paradise Waters Resort, site of the Ralan Ruby project.
  10. In 2012 I was contacted by a company called Ralan.
  11. They contacted me because I have a speciality in raising funds from the public legally.
  12. The owner of Ralan wanted me to advise on how to set up a managed investment scheme. Although I was talking with William ODwyer my client was Ralan.
  13. I visited him in hios offices in Chatswood in the top floor of the building in Chatswood Chase.
  14. I had never met him before but had heard of Ralan. I knew Ralan had done a lot of building up and down North Shore.
  15. I asked him to tell me all about his company and what Ralan wanted to do in the future.
  16. He said he immigrated to Australia from England. He was Anglo / Irish. When he arrived he only had 3 weeks rent in his pocket. He got a job in project marketing.
  17. This means he sold units that had not been built to investors.
  18. He has a talent for sales and built up a following of Chinese clients.
  19. Eventually he started his own company which he called Ralan. This company did project marketing.
  20. In 2008 he told St George bank that he was upset with the quality of units he was selling and St George bank encouraged him to build his own product.
  21. The first Ralan project was on the highway at Wahroonga, opposite the Abbotsleigh school. It consisted of 67 units.
  22. The builder was Steve Nolan constructions. St George recommended Steve Nolan. Steve Nolan was a former manager for concrete constructions.
  23. Steve Nolan Constructions built all Ralan’s buildings.
  24. At that time he told me he had a $250M facility with the CBA. He either had or had in the past borrowed from Westpac, NAB, ANZ and St George.
  25. I asked him how he could afford to build so many projects at once. He said he used mezzanine funder called Wingate.
  26. I should explain what a mezzanine funder is. There are 2 people who typically provide money the money needed to build a block of units. They are the owner and a bank. Sometimes if the owner does not have enough money of his own he borrows extra money on a second ranking mortgage. This sits in the middle, that’s why they call it mezzanine finance, middle.
  27. It is a very risky business. If you lend on a second mortgage and something goes wrong you will lose a lot of your capital.
  28. For example in 2008 all the Mezzanine funders I had exposure to lost all their capital which they had out on loans.
  29. The reason was that pre-sales were falling over. This means people who pre-purchased properties were not able to settle when the project was complete.
  30. The loss of pre-sales caused a breach of the construction banks mortgage to the developer. The bank then charges a much higher interest rate which eats into the profit of the developer and the mezzanine funder.
  31. I cannot stress enough that if a construction job has problems the mezzanine funder usually loses money.
  32. I said to William O’Dwyer that Wingate was very brave lending him so much on 4 separate projects, particularly as Ralan was using one builder and all their projects.
  33. I said to William O’Dwyer that is very dangerous, if Steve Nolan goes into liquidation Ralan will follow. It would be better to have 4 different builders.
  34. William O’Dwyer said “That’s what the banks always say to me, I say No Steven Nolan is very good. He has one client which is Ralan. If he is only building for me how can he get into trouble?”
  35. I replied, usually the builder will take money out of your project and spend it somewhere else. William O’Dwyer said that’s not going to happen with Steven Nolan. I have someone who visits sites every day and talks to subcontractors and make sure they are being paid.
  36. I said I still think it is very risky what if Steve Nolan dies? He said Steve Nolan is very fit.
  37. I gave him report which said to raise money legally Ralan would need an Australian Financial Services Licence.
  38. After I left him I set up a Google alert so if Ralan appeared in news I would know.
  39. In 2014 I received a Google alert. Steven Nolan Constructions had gone into liquidation.
  40. Steve Nolan had not paid his sub-contractors on the Ralan sites.
  41. The year before Ralan had loaned Steven Nolan $3.4 million because Steven Nolan Constructions was having financial difficulties.
  42. The trade union movement was blockading the site where Ralan was building in St Leonards. Ralan had gone to Court to stop the union blockading.
  43. I read this news and firmly expected Ralan would be put into liquidation and O’Dwyer made bankrupt. There was, in my experience, no way he could survive.
  44. He had told me that Ralan had retained profits of $70 million. However I did not think it would be enough. I had heard rumours that the Burwood project had a lot of troubles and that was was sure that had eaten into his balance sheet.
  45. As I saw it with mezzanine finance on his 4 existing contracts, and a breach of his loan contract with the bank, none of the four building projects would be profitable, they would actually lose a lot of money.
  46. There is a reason for this. When a builder goes bankrupt and another builder has to take over. The new builder becomes responsible for any problems. This is because of the Home owners builders warranty scheme.
  47. This is a law designed so that people who buy a unit do not have to pay for repairs if there are issues later on. This is the reason the replacement builder always wants a lot more money than normal to cover that risk.
  48. Therefore you have:
    a. Extra money to the new builders
    b. Extra interest on the bank loans
    c. Extra interest to the mezzanine funder
  49. My instincts told me there is no way Ralan should have been able to survive the impact of Steve Nolans liquidation.

Part 2 Recorded 27 August 2019

  1. Hello, I am Matthew Bransgrove.
  2. This is the part two of our series on the Ralan Ponzi Scheme.
  3. Yesterday we looked at the history of Ralan up to and including 2014.
  4. In 2014, Ralan’s builder, Steve Nolan Constructions, went into the liquidation.
  5. According to the report in Australian Financial Review, Steve Nolan had secretly been building up a property empire of his own.
  6. He’s been using the money which Ralan gave to him in order to service the debt on that property empire.
  7. According to the Australia Financial Review, Ralan loaned $3.4 million to Steve Nolan Constructions shortly before it is collapsed.
  8. Yesterday that I told you that according to my professional experience, Ralan should have gone to the liquidation. They should not have been enough money in those four projects to make profit.
  9. Normally, when a builder goes into the liquidation there is a great loss incurred. Not only does the developer not make profit, usually the mezzanine funder who holds the second mortgage also suffers the loss. It is usually a catastrophic loss.
  10. When I met with William O’Dwyer in 2012, he told me that he had retained earnings of $70 million. Those retained earnings were in the form of units in the developments that he had built which he kept.
  11. I am not sure whether that is true. I performed a search on the title of William O’Dwyer’s house in Beverly Hills. I discovered a mortgage to a bank and two mortgages to Wingate. The first mortgage to Wingate dated back to 2010.
  12. Think about it. If you had $70 million I think you would pay off the mortgage over your home.
  13. I suspect that closer to the truth is that Ralan was never very profitable. Ralan developed simple units they were not luxury units. They were not like Mirvac, they were probably closer to in quality to Meriton.
  14. It is a competitive market and the developer of such units has very thin profit margins. This requires you to keep overheads low.
  15. Ralan did not keep expenses low because Ralan had mezzanine finance on all their developments.
  16. William O’Dwyer told me that he paid 20% per annum interest on his Wingate loans. But I do not think that is necessarily correct.
  17. Just as I do not think he had $70 million saved, I also do not think he would pay 20% for mezzanine finance. In my experience, the mezzanine funding is usually closer to 30% per annum.
  18. If there is a default, the interest can go up to 50% or 60% per annum.
  19. Those very high costs of funding would have eaten into the profit.
  20. So I think what was happening with Ralan was they were doing a lot of development and growing extremely fast, but not making a great deal of profit because it’s borrowing costs were so high.
  21. I think its activity was very beneficial to the banks and very beneficial to Wingate. I think it also helped William’s ego, but not necessarily his balance sheet.
  22. It’s therefore my theory that in 2014 when the crisis came William did not have a strong balance sheet to prevent the extra costs sending Ralan into liquidation.
  23. William told me that he wanted Ralan to be the next Meriton. He proudly told me that Ralan was the second largest builder of units in NSW.
  24. I think that ambition explains why he undertook the very large project at Burwood.
  25. I understand there were problems during the construction process. I suspect that there was very little profit in that project.
  26. So you have Ralan which has very little money on its balance sheet faced with a tsunami hitting it in 2014 when Steve Nolan Constructions goes into liquidation.
  27. But it wasn’t just Ralan that faced a terrible situation, it was also Wingate.
  28. By my reckoning when 2014 happened Wingate would have suffered severe losses.
  29. So it is a mystery, and very unusual, that Ralan did not go into liquidation.
  30. Normally you would expect Wingate would sell the remaining properties in each development, then call on the personal guarantee of William O’Dwyer and then sell his house in Bellevue Hill and bankrupt him.
  31. But it did not happen. So what happened?
  32. It is possible that Wingate surveyed the situation and realised the best chance of recovering the most money was to keep William at the helm of Ralan and pretend the things were going well. In particular they had to sell all the remaining units and they were relying on Ralan’s Chinese clients to buy them.
  33. If Ralan had gone into the liquidation, its main asset, which was all its Chinese clients, would run away.
  34. So that was what in 2014. In 2015 I got a Google alert. It said that Ralan had purchased the Paradise Waters Resort.
  35. According to the Gold Coast Bulletin, Ralan paid $75 million for the site.
  36. When I heard this I was absolutely flabbergasted.
  37. I immediately telephoned William O’Dwyer. I said that I was familiar with the Paradise Water Resort site. It used to be an asset that belonged to City Pacific. He invited me to join him on the Gold Coast and have coffee.
  38. We met at the site.
  39. I asked him why he would buy on the Gold Coast when it was notorious for being the graveyard of property developers. Was he crazy?
  40. The bigger the project on the Gold Coast the less chance it will be successful. The market goes up and down and up and down. He was doing a four stage development which meant that the project would be in both the up and down period and left him very little chance of survival.
  41. I expressed surprise that he did not go into liquidation in 2014. He said it was very close he had several meetings with the bank. He was afraid that they would put him in the liquidation.
  42. The main problem was the projects had stopped being built. I said I noticed that you won the court case against the trade union movement. He said the unions he said ignored the judgement and continued to blockade his site. Ultimately he was forced to pay all the subcontractors who were owed money by the Steve Nolan Constructions.
  43. He had to pay millions and millions. In addition to the normal cost.

Part 3 Recorded 28 August 2019

  1. Hello, this is Matthew Bransgroves.
  2. This is the part 3 of our Ralan Ponzi Scheme series.
  3. You will remember that at the end of the part 2, I went the Gold Coast to met with William O’Dwyer on the site of the Paradise Water Resort.
  4. He told me that he planned build a new development there called Ruby.
  5. I said, that is very clever you. You must have done that because of Jewel. Ruby is a precious stone and a Jewel is a precious stone. How do you think your product will compete with a Jewel?
  6. He said to me what is Jewel? When he said that, I was shocked.
  7. I couldn’t believe he did not know what Jewel was. Jewel was a former asset of City Pacific. Paradise Water was also a former asset of City Pacific.
  8. Jewel Resort is billion dollar development in Broadbeach just 2 kilometres away. It is owned by the Chinese Yuhu Group. The gross realisation is $1.4 b, the same amount as the planned Ralan Ruby Project.
  9. However there is one big difference. It is directly on the beach. Three enormous towers, with absolute beach front access.
  10. Holiday makers staying in Jewel are able to get the elevator down to the ground floor and walk to the beach without crossing a road.
  11. The Ruby resort is 2 major streets back from the beach. Holiday makers staying in the Ruby resort who want go to the beach will have to cross two major roads and walk about 500 meters.
  12. I explained this to William and he seems very surprised and embarrassed. He should be embarrassed. He was the man proposing to build $1.4b development.
  13. He was already committed to purchasing the property, and hadn’t done any marketing research to make sure he will be able to sell at the end.
  14. I said to him, “are you sure you will be able to sell this development?”
  15. He said, “Yes, my Chinese investors are very loyal. They always buy my products.”
  16. I said, “Yes but your products in the past have been on major areas in Sydney. Always close to railway stations and always close to schools. This is totally different, it is in the Gold Coast which is used for the holidays.
  17. He said, Matthew I have no problems, the Commonwealth Games will be coming soon. There will be a new tramway going to the Southport. And I am happy my investors will always buy my products.
  18. I was not convinced.
  19. I spoke to several very experienced developers in the Gold Coast about the Ralan’s plan. They were very dubious and thought that would end in disaster because it was too ambitious.
  20. I asked William how he got the $75 million money he needed to buy the site when he obvious lost a huge amount of money when Steve Nolan Constructions went into liquidation.
  21. He said, that there was a delayed settlement and he only needs to pay $20 million.
  22. He said, I can get the Development Application and begin selling off the plan long before I have to settle.
  23. I was still amazed he had the money to pay the deposit. Here was a man I thought should be bankrupt in 2014 buying properties for $20m cash down in March 2015.
  24. So I continued to monitor Ralan using Google alerts.
  25. I was even more surprised to see that there were multiple purchases he made on the Gold Coast after that date. In fact he became the biggest single land holders on the Gold Coast at on stage according to the Gold Coast Bulletin.
  26. However, in November 2016 came an article saying he was pulling out on one of his purchases.
  27. He explained to the media there was a clause that allow him to withdraw, after paying a $3.95 million deposit.
  28. He told the press that his cash could be better utilize in elsewhere.
  29. I also received an alert that Ralan was being sued by the strata organization of one of his units. The strata organization was claiming he that there ware defects in the building and he was not fixing them up.
  30. It was the opposite what he told me in 2012. In 2012, he told me that his marketing rule was always repair any defects in his buildings very quickly without charge.
  31. Even if Ralan was not very legally required to repair problems, he repaired them anyway to make sure his buyers continue to think Ralan stood for quality.
  32. I sent him an email by asking him about this but he never replied.
  33. These two incidents – the fact he stopped a purchase and the fact he refused to repair the defects one of his buildings, let me to believe Ralan had financial problems.
  34. Then there was article in the Australian Financial Review in 2018. It stated that a certain broking house was no longer accepting loan applications from buyer for the Ruby Project.
  35. I was very suspicious of the article. This was because the finance broker making the announcement is a very small company. I couldn’t understand why the Australian Financial Review was quoting a very small company.
  36. Sometimes, the newspaper quotes from a small company when they cannot get an official quote from a big company. I now suspect that the major banks have stopped lending to buyers on the Ruby resort but the newspaper couldn’t get anyone from the banks to go on record.
  37. I emailed the article to William O’Dwyer and I asked him what is all about.
  38. He replied and said it was nonsense.
  39. He said Ruby stage 1 was settling around November 2018 and by the time Ruby 1 was finishing settling, all his land holdings on the Gold Coast would be debt free.
  40. We are now know this is very untrue.
  41. I then noticed there was curious article that came out in November 2018 in the Australian Financial review.
  42. In that article, Wingate was announcing that they were very, very confident in the Gold coast. They were saying they had invested a lot of money in the Gold Coast and in the coming year 2019, they are planning investing a lot more.
  43. I wondered about this article and why Wingate would make that media release.
  44. Financiers like Wingate don’t normally need to advertise. They don’t normally need to market themselves. They normally keep a very low profile.
  45. I can decided that Wingate gave the Press release because they wanted people to think Ruby was going well.
  46. This let me to conclude there were serious problems in Ruby. Those problems are most likely that the purchasers of Ruby apartments are having trouble to getting finance.
  47. I act for a lot of finance brokers in relation to their dealings with banks and mortgage aggregators.
  48. We act for lots of Chinese brokers.
  49. I was aware that the banks in Australia have been squeezing Chinese borrowers.
  50. My opinion was that Ralan would be unable to settle the pre-sales of Ruby 1 and that would cause the rest of the project to be cancelled. Then Ralan would probably go into the liquidation
  51. It was a staged development so there was also the possibility that if they had a strong balance sheet that they wouldn’t go to the liquidation but they would just cancel the rest of the project.
  52. According I was not surprised when I heard Ralan going into the voluntary administration.
  53. I was absolutely surprised when I heard there was $500m of unsecured creditors. That made no sense at all.
  54. I expected that Ralan would owe the builder the last payment or two. The builder of Ruby 1 Hutchinson Builders has said its is owed the last payment which is $5.5 million.
  55. That was the size of the debts I expecting. Perhaps $5 million owed to the builder of Ruby, $5 million owed to builder of Arncliffe, and perhaps $1 million in wages and superannuation to Ralan staff.
  56. That is the nature of the property development. No one lends money to a property developer without security, so the unsecured debts big when a developer goes into liquidation.
  57. I expected Wingate to suffer a large loss, but remember it is a secured creditor.
  58. I realise that something extremely wrong had been going on.
  59. I started to think about what might have gone wrong based on all the clues that I had learned.

Part 4 Recorded 29 August 2019

  1. Today is part 4 of our series on the Ralan Ponzi Scheme.
  2. Today we are going to go through the Grant Thornton investor slides from the first creditor meeting.
  3. You will recall first three videos we moved through time with the story of Ralan as I understand it.
  4. Now we have reached the appointment of the administrator. Pretty much everything we know about the administration is contained in this document.
  5. In part 5 of this series, I am going to discuss what the debentures scheme is and the very strict laws that are in place to stop just this sort of thing happening.
  6. Will then look exactly what the evidence shows so far about what Ralan and others did.
  7. In part 6, I will be telling you my case theory and why I believe you can recover money.
  8. Michelle Ma, who works for me, has very kindly translated this document into Chinese.
  9. She is in the room right now but she is not on the camera. Thank you Michelle
  10. That document has been posted on our WeChat group and on our website.
  11. I have the English version and Vivienne has the Chinese version. The page numbers are the exactly the same.
  12. When the news broke that the Ralan was in the liquidation the media release given by Grant Thornton said that $500 million was owing in unsecured debt.
  13. Unsecured debts means the people who are owed the money do not have a mortgage over any property to secure the debt.
  14. Today is the 29th of August 2019 and I still do not know what the $500 million is made up of.
  15. This document only shows $277 million.
  16. I draw your attention to page 5 of the document.
  17. Here we have the background of the administrators’ appointment.
  18. The administrators on this page are attempting to establish that they do not have a conflict of the interest. To put that crudely they are attempting to say that they are not the best friends with William O’Dwyer, or anyone else who would have motivation to influence them.
  19. It says they first met William O’Dwyer on William O’Dwyer on 29 July 2019.
  20. This document says that the meeting was at Deloitte. Deloitte is another large firm of accountants. There is nothing here to explain why Deloitte introduced the administrators to William O’Dwyer.
  21. However in the first creditor’s meeting Said Jahani said Deloitte were the accountants of Ralan.
  22. I suspect that this administration was carefully planned for some period of time before it happened.
  23. It certainly seems that Grant Thornton managed to put all the figures for this document together very quickly. It is likely that Grant Thornton was provided by these figures by Deloitte.
  24. I also draw your attention to the fact that the administration occurred on the last day of the last financial year. If you are a suspicious person you might think that it was for some particular reason.
  25. For example, the financiers Westpac, Wingate or perhaps the builders, would not have to declare the bad debts if they occurred on the last day of the financial year.
  26. After the administrators were appointed Wingate appointed Deloitte as a receiver to four properties.
  27. Again, if you are suspicious, you would think this was more than coincidence.
  28. I suspect there is some pre-existing relationship between Wingate and Deloitte in relation to Ralan.
  29. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps they appointed Deloitte because they reasoned that Deloitte knew about Ralan.
  30. I am now on page 6.
  31. Although we have seen on previous pages there are a large number of companies in administration page 6 shows that the most of those companies are not trading.
  32. There is one company for Ruby Tower 1, one company for Arncliffe, ten companies associated with the Gold Coast Developments that have not begun. Then there is the main culprit, Ralan Capital.
  33. There are also four real estate management companies. I believe they are associated with the past buildings Ralan developed in Sydney.
  34. I now take you to the page 10. I was surprised to see the expression shortfall from the trust used by the administrator.
  35. It is a difficult question. However the money is not the trust money. The money was released and loaned to Ralan Capital. Accordingly there was no technical shortfall of trust money.
  36. In the Australian system of law, trust money is sacred. If you have a trust account, it is not your money and you must not touch it. If a company goes into liquidation and it has trust monies the creditors cannot touch it. It must go back to the person it belongs to.
  37. Here victims signed documents that took the money out of trust and loaned it to Ralan Capital.
  38. In Ruby 2, the shortfall is $59 million.
  39. This is the money that has been loaned to Ralan Capital. Money which started as a deposit held in trust.
  40. Now I have heard rumors from several people that some investors loaned money to Ralan without buying units. Documents were falsified to make it look as though they had bought the units.
  41. If you are one of those people, I need to talk to you. That may be key evidence.
  42. It may be that Wingate needed to see that the money being loaned to Ralan was a released deposit. If I can prove that, it would have a huge effect on this case.
  43. Ruby 3 has a $60 million shortfall.
  44. Ruby 4 has a $39 million shortfall.
  45. Sapphire has a $60 million shortfall.
  46. I now reach page 13.
  47. Ruby 1 has a $3.6 million shortfall.
  48. I have heard rumours that Wingate is attempting to settle those remaining units. I have also heard that they are asking buyers to replace the missing deposits.
  49. For legal reasons, I do not think they are able to do that. If this is happening to you, you should contact me. This is the mortgage law, and remember I am the leading expert in Australia on mortgage law.
  50. I am now on page 14, where it says the total shortfall is $277 million.
  51. There is no mention of where the rest of the $500 million in unsecured creditors is owed.
  52. I do not think there are $500M in unsecured creditors.
  53. Before I finish today, I want to comment on something the administrators said.
  54. They said they were going to try to organise the completion of Arncliffe. I think that is completely wrong and not at all possible.
  55. When a construction goes bad, the bank takes over and finishes the project. They certainly are not interested in an administrator who does not work for them dealing with their asset.
  56. That’s all what we have for you in this part of the video series.
  57. Thank you for joining us. I know it is lot to absorb, but you need to understand your case to make the decision. Thank you again.
  58. Thank you for the people who load up the videos to the Tencent.

Part 5 Recorded 30 August 2019

  1. Today is the part 5 of the Ralan Ponzi Scheme.
  2. Today we are going to talk about the regulation in Australia that should have prevented this happening.
  3. This is the picture of Charles Ponzi.
  4. The hat he is wearing is made from straw, it is called boater, it was very popular in the 1920s.
  5. That is when Charles Ponzi committed his famous crime.
  6. He told the investors that he can get them a 50% on return of their money in 6 months.
  7. He paid the interest promptly, word of mouth spread and more and more investors trusted him with their money.
  8. The problem was he did not have legitimate business.
  9. He was using the new investors’ money to pay interest to the old investors.
  10. Eventually the scheme collapsed. It was widely reported in the newspapers.
  11. Ever since then, when someone uses the investors’ money to pay new investors it is called a Ponzi scheme.
  12. In recent years, the most famous Ponzi scheme was the one run by Bernie Madoff.
  13. This is the picture of Bernie Madoff.
  14. He lived in New York. He had 64 billion dollars in his Ponzi scheme.
  15. When it collapsed, the thousands of investors were left without any money.
  16. It was very sad, because they worked very hard for a very long for their money.
  17. Mr. Madoff was sentenced to jail for 150 years.
  18. Now the administrator of Ralan has said it is a quasi-Ponzi scheme. I think that’s because there was a legitimate business behind it.
  19. My view is that was $277M worth of debts. Those who knew what was going on could not for a long time have believed Ralan was going to be able to pay everybody back.
  20. The size of the debt compared to the small assets of Ralan means they must have known there is no chance of repayment.
  21. As late as July, Ralan’s sales people were calling unit buyers with increasing urgency and asked them to put more money in.
  22. Therefore this is a real ponzi-scheme.
  23. I have said before that I think the Sales staff of Ralan have something to answer for.
  24. If they did not know about it, they were incredibly stupid.
  25. If you are senior sales person in Ralan, you would know how much money you personally are raising.
  26. You would be able to roughly work out in total how much has been raised by knowing how many units have been sold by other salesstaff.
  27. If you knew how much had been raised in total, then you would know it could never been repaid, not from the buildings that have been constructed.
  28. Now I will explain how the Australian legal system outlaws this sort of behaviour.
  29. Because so many people have lost invested money in the past there are strict rules against a company borrowing the way Ralan did.
  30. Those rules are contained in the law called the Corporations Act.
  31. The Corporations Act says you cannot raise money unless you have a prospectus.
  32. A prospectus is a document that explains all of about the company’s finances. These figures must be audited to make sure they are true.
  33. If Ralan’s finances had been explained to any of you, you would not have loaned.
  34. The prospectus has to be lodged with ASIC.
  35. ASIC is the financial policeman of Australia.
  36. They would have read this prospectus and closed down Ralan very early in the crime.
  37. Essentially Ralan has no assets.
  38. I have said before that Ralan only needed $39 million to build Ruby 1 and Arncliffe.
  39. The rest should have come from Westpac and Wingate.
  40. The fact it borrowed so much shows it had no substance.
  41. It was a trick.
  42. It may not always have been a trick but it certainly is a trick after 2014.
  43. The Australian law required that a company raising money from the public must have its accounts audited.
  44. This means an independent company looks through the account and check all the figures are correct and there are no lies.
  45. If this had happened the auditors would have said Ralan was insolvent and ASIC would shut it down.
  46. Then no money could have been raised.
  47. The Australian law also required Ralan to have a trustee.
  48. A trustee is a company which holds the assets of the borrowing company.
  49. The purpose is to keep these assets out of control off the borrower.
  50. The trustee’s job is to make sure that the investors would able to be paid back in the future. I will give you an example.
  51. 5 years ago there was a large company call Provident Capital.
  52. Provident Capital operated a debenture scheme. This means they borrowed off the public like Ralan. However they did it legally.
  53. One day their trustee decided to put them in liquidation.
  54. Provident Capital disagreed and went to court.
  55. The trustee said to the judge. We have looked the accounts. They are going well now and make a good profit. However we can see in two years time it might be a small loss.
  56. Provident Capital said to the judge that the trustee was wrong in their calculations. They made many powerful arguments that they should be allowed to continue the business.
  57. The judge said the way I seen why take a chance. I don’t want the investors lose any money.
  58. So Provident Capital was liquidated. And money returned to investors.
  59. ASIC who is the financial policeman has special rules called benchmarks.
  60. These rules says how much the extra money the borrower must have, in case the investors want to ask for their money back suddenly.
  61. All this means only a profitable company can continue to borrow money from the public and there is no disaster like Ralan where people lose their life savings.
  62. The Ralan Ponzi scheme would never have been possible.
  63. The only reason it was possible here was because no one knew about it. When I say no one knew about it I mean no one in ASIC knew about it.
  64. There were nearly one thousand investors knew about it, but none of you thought it was illegal.
  65. It was not illegal for the victims but it was illegal for Ralan.
  66. Now Ralan has gone and there is no money.
  67. William O’Dwyer has no money. Maybe he has a small amount of money in his house but I don’t think so.
  68. I did a search of his house and there is a mortgage to the National Australia Bank.
  69. There are also two mortgages to Wingate.
  70. And caveat by one of the sales lady of Ralan.
  71. Because of this my feeling is he has nothing left.
  72. So where can you go to get your money back from?
  73. I am focused on three places: Wingate, Westpac and Deloitte.
  74. Each of one those companies may have known what was happening.
  75. I cannot think how Wingate did not know.
  76. I know all of about the construction industry.
  77. I am a specialist in construction finance and my experience tells me they ought to have known.
  78. To win the case we need to get evidence.
  79. If we can prove these companies knew what was going on then we can do a class action and recover the money owed to you.
  80. Thank you.

Part 6 Recorded 02 September 2019

  1. Hello everyone, I am Matthew Bransgrove.
  2. This is the Part 6 of the Ralan Ponzi Scheme.
  3. In Part 5 we discussed what the law was that made what Ralan did illegal.
  4. Today I want to talk about what made Westpac, Wingate and Deloitte potentially illegal.
  5. We are in investigating and I have no proof.
  6. Without evidence I cannot win.
  7. I also cannot tell the public that someone has done something wrong unless I have evidence.
  8. So at this stage I am not saying that what Ralan did was with the knowing assistance with Westpac, Wingate or Deloitte.
  9. However, I have my suspicions that they did know. My background in construction finance means I know how it works.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. We have been told by Grant Thornton that Ralan may never have been profitable.
  14. So there is something unusual going on here.
  15. 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.
  16. In Ralan’s case, they appear to be a fraud on a massive scale. Let me explain.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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?
  23. I would say the same thing to the Westpac why didn’t you check?
  24. 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.
  25. But that dose not makes sense for me either. Remember a lender checks on trust account details when they are looking for a fraud.
  26. 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.
  27. No one with a brain would trust Ralan’s figures. They would check the actual bank account to make sure the money was there.
  28. Now last week in the Australia Financial Review, Wingate said if Matthew Bransgrove sues us we will defend very very vigorously
  29. They said that they did not know about the release the deposit.
  30. Is that correct?
  31. Time will tell.
  32. 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.
  33. 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?
  34. We know this happened because a solicitor told Australia Financial Review that in 2013 he saw the loan on a settlement adjustment sheet.
  35. 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.
  36. Perhaps they overlooked on two units. But we are talking about hundreds of units.
  37. How was that possible. These questions need to be answered.
  38. Now I have with me the Australian Law in relation to the liability of accessory.
  39. And now I would put on the screen.
  40. This is s 79 of the Corporation Act, it says involvement in contraventions.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. I am wondering why, why were they doing that?Who are they going to show that document to?
  49. I think they were going to show to one of the lenders or their accountants, Deloitte.
  50. 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.
  51. 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.

Part 7 Recorded 03 September 2019

  1. (Hello, everyone) I am Matthew Bransgrove.
  2. Today we are going to talk about Arncliffe.
  3. A lot of people contacted me about the letter they received from Deloitte.
  4. I thought deeply about its meaning.
  5. I see here that Deloitte has been appointed by Wingate as the receivers of Arncliffe.
  6. Now they are asking for a number of documents from you:
    a. A copy of contract for sale.
    b. Bank statements that recorded the payment of deposits.
    c. Evidence that the deposit was actually paid.
    d. Copy of the agreement with William O’Dwyers
  7. Now it is clear to me that Deloitte is considering what is the status so far as the pre-sales are concerned. Deloitte are receivers for Wingate.
  8. Wingate stands to lose the most if Arncliffe is not finished promptly.
  9. As I said earlier video it will not be Grant Thornton who completes Arncliffe it will be Wingate. When they finish they are going to want to sell all the units to get their money back.
  10. Normally that would be a simple matter of calling for the pre-sales to complete. The receiver does not have to honour the developer’s pre-sale contracts. They have a choice. They can settle the pre-sales, or they can sell on the open market.
  11. What decides the matter is how can they get the most money. If the pre-sale is above the market value they will settle the pre-sale. If the pre-sale is below market value they will sell on the open market.
  12. What’s happening now is that Deloitte is trying to work out which units they will settle and which pre-sales they will abandon. It all comes down to how much money they can make.
  13. If you bought your property in 2014 the market has gone up. If you bought your property in 2018 the market has gone down. However the question is more complex in Ralan’s case. The reason is because of the released deposits.
  14. I have here are copies of one of the release deposit contracts. Unlike the Ruby development and Sapphire development the Arncliffe the deposit was released to the developer who owned the property.
  15. That means if Deloitte want to settle the pre-sales they must apply the deposits. They cannot force you to pay the deposit twice.
  16. The reason is they do not have contract with you. Ralan Arncliffe has a contract with you. They can use that contract to force you to settle but they much credit you the deposits.
  17. So they are doing their sums. What they want to do is find out how much they are going to get from the units if they credit for the released deposits and then compare that to the price they will get on the open market.
  18. My guess is that in most cases they are going to sell on the open market. If the property market drops severely, between now and when they go to settle, which is in May or June in 2020, then they may settle more pre-sales.
  19. If your unit is chosen for settlement that is good for you, that means your deposit was not stolen. And effectively you get your deposit back. However it means you paid too much for your unit because it is under the open market value.
  20. It is unusual that the receiver would be asking you all these questions and asking for all these documents. Normally they would just get the information from the company records. However to their surprise they have found fraudulent documents.
  21. A large number of you have contacted with me to say that you loaned money to Ralan without buying a unit. However Ralan gave you paper work that pretended to sell you a unit. You then took this debt to the administrator.
  22. As a result on some units there may be two sets of released deposits. Eventually they will work out which one is the genuine one and then go from there.
  23. I would recommended that no one would send them documents at this stage. This is a serious document. Sending what they request could affect your rights. You need legal advice.
  24. Bransgroves Lawyers is prepared to act for you. We will write to Deloitte on your behalf. We will make sure your interests are protected. We will charge you one dollar.
  25. And after all of this over you have to buy me a Chinese meal, and Vivienne.
  26. We will put a retainer agreement up on the WeChat to explain this. That is all I have to say about Arncliffe at this stage other than to point out the time is on your side.
  27. It will be many months before the development is completed. So no one has to make any decisions or do anything quickly.
  28. I would like to at this time thank everybody who have been sending me information.
  29. Every bit of documentation helps me to build up the picture of what’s going on.
  30. As I have said in the previous videos, this business of lending to Ralan and getting a document that pretends to be a pre-sale is the key to this case.
  31. I think it hints that Ralan was showing these documents to Westpac and Wingate in order to trick them. That is what developers normally do with fraudulent pre-sales. They used false pre-sales to convince lenders to lend.
  32. However normally there is money in trust account to prove the pre-sale is genuine. However we all know Ralan spent the money. It was not in the trust account.
  33. So how did Westpac and Wingate not notice this missing money? My suspicion is Ralan actually told Westpac and Wingate the deposits were being released. If I can prove that we will win the case and you can get your money back.
  34. Anyone who knows anything about this please let me have the information.
  35. Even if you don’t have all the information I can put all the peices together to give the full picture.
  36. Thank you for your time and good night.

Part 8 Recorded 05 September 2019

  1. Hello, I am Matthew Bransgrove.
  2. This is the Part 8 of our series of Ralan Ponzi Scheme.
  3. Today I want to talk about the approach Grant Thornton made to the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
  4. The Administrator approached the court to ask for the extension through to December.
  5. I have here a copy of the judgement.
  6. It is a decision of Justice Gleeson dated on 21st August.
  7. As the part of the application to the court, an affidavit was filed by the administrator.
  8. An affidavit is a sworn statement. It is a very serious business, you are not allowed to swear an affidavit and tell a lie.
  9. The Judge has given us some of the details of what was in that affidavit. He says there are 2635 creditors. This approximately what we were told at very beginning.
  10. However, the big news is that $222 million of the $500 million debt we were told about is actually secured creditors.
  11. That means Wingate, Westpac and Balmain.
  12. It says here there are 2300 unsecured creditors. That means is the victim like you. However I do not except that total.
  13. I think the truth is some of the creditors are being counted twice. Because they bought two units, and so on.
  14. The amount owing to the unsecured creditors, meaning victims such as you, has increased to $292 million. You will remember that at the first creditor meeting we were told the figure was $277 million.
  15. In this document, it says that the books of Ralan are in disordered.
  16. I am very curious to know more information. I have written a letter to the administrators asking them to provide a copy of the affidavit they gave to the Judge.
  17. They cannot pretend that they are too busy. All they have to do is email to me.
  18. And then I can share it with you.
  19. I need to get more information out of Grant Thornton.
  20. In a few weeks, I am going to ask each of you to instruct me to get information from Grant Thornton.
  21. This will not involve any costs on your part.
  22. However, if 1,000 Ralan victims appoint me as your solicitor, Grant Thornton cannot ignore it.
  23. If I have the instruction from one thousand creditors and I ask for a copy of an affidavit, and they say that they are too busy to give to me, I will go up to the court and ask the Judge to order them to give to me.
  24. And he would make that order not because he likes me, but because he respects your loss. Your loss is $292 million dollars. That is very powerful in the eyes of the law.
  25. Unfortunately we have not heard anything from Grant Thornton. They have not released any information. We know from this judgement that they have extra information. But they are not sharing it.
  26. Thank you very much for joining us. I will see you next time.

Part 9 Recorded 05 September 2019

  1. Hello everybody, this Part 9 of Ralan Ponzi Scheme series. I am Matthew Bransgrove.
  2. Now after Ralan Part 8, we have some people come back to us and ask about the court judgement.
  3. The court judgement is published on the internet.
  4. We recently posted the answers to WeChat questions.
  5. These were 54 questions they you asked us on WeChat.
  6. In one of those answers we gave the link to the judgement.
  7. Anyone who has any questions please put them on our WeChat. We will wait until we have big bench of them and sit down and answer them. I will try to answer them once a week.
  8. I have here a letter that I sent to Grant Thornton. It has been posted on our WeChat it is date 5th September. I posted two versions, one English and one Chinese.
  9. What I said to Grant Thornton is this seems to be three ways that Ralan raise money.
  10. First, they asked genuine buyers to release their deposits.
  11. Second, they used the people who are not genuine buyers but gave them a false pre-sales contract anyway. They gave them a special side letter. The side letter said that they could get out of the contract to purchase the property anytime before ten months. This meant the contract was a sham, because it was only binding on one party, Ralan, not the buyer.
  12. Finally, there were contracts they entered into with the people they thought they could trust. This was mostly the Ralan salesman. It seems that sales people did not trust Ralan. They insisted on the proper loan agreement.
  13. The loan agreement made no mention of the pre-sale contract. It stood alone and a Judge reading it would not think it had anything to do with a pre-sale contract.
  14. However, this loan agreement was also accompanied by a false pre-sales contract with a deposit equal to the amount in the loan agreement.
  15. The sales staff would get 20% per annum interest, not 15% per annum interest which every else was getting.
  16. In return, I am guessing they were going to tell people who asked that the pre-sales were genuine—but they were not genuine.
  17. I want you to think about it, why would someone who wants to earn 20% per annum buy units which only yield 4 or 5% per annum.
  18. So I told this to Grant Thornton. Then I said but you already know about this, because the victims have sent these documents to you with their proof of debt.
  19. The purpose of my letter it to tell you what it means. I explained that I am an expert in construction finance. I have been doing it for 20 years.
  20. I also explained that I have written a book called Avoiding Mortgage Fraud. It has a chapter on false pre-sales. That means I am an expert on fraudulent pre-sale contracts.
  21. There is only one reason a developer like Ralan would create false pre-sales. It is because they wanted to trick a construction funder into lending them money. The construction funder will only lend money if the development has pre-sales.
  22. So we can assume Ralan was defrauding Wingate and Westpac.
  23. I came across a letter from Ralan’s solicitor, enclosing one of these false pre-sales contracts. So I called him on telephone. We had a chat.
  24. He said he did not know about the false pre-sales. As far as he was concerned, he received the instructions and they were the real pre-sales.
  25. He also told me something interesting. He said that from time to time the construction funders would ask him to box all the pre-sales contracts for a project into plastic boxes.
  26. Then a courier would come to pick it up and deliver them to Ralan’s construction funders. This is the normal industry practice. The lender has to check the contracts are genuine.
  27. They have their lawyers. Someone like me. Go through the contract and check the signatures. They asked for the originals because they want to make sure it is real ink and not something falsified on a computer.
  28. That tells me that Ralan’s lenders Westpac and Wingate were doing good due diligences. They did not trust Ralan. Which is proper practice.
  29. I know what they did next because I am a lawyer who does this job myself. The next job was to check the deposits were in the trust account.
  30. Another reason we know they did this is because Ralan broke up big loans into small receipts to look like pre-sale contract deposits. That tells me Westpac and Wingate were looking at the trust account deposits.
  31. Ralan operated its own trust account. There is an obvious risk. The risk is they will alter their accounts to show money in their trust account that were not in the bank account.
  32. Therefore the only way Westpac and Wingate could do meaningful due diligences was to look at the bank statements themselves and talk to the bank to make sure the money was there.
  33. It is called audit. It is not complicated. There is no room for error. The money is either in the trust account or not.
  34. There is $292 million missing. So it was not in the trust account. So what happened?
  35. I have been thinking and thinking and there is only one explanation I can think of. They did check to see the deposit that was paid and they saw that the deposit was then released, and they were ok with that.
  36. In other words, Ralan told them that they were borrowing money from their buyers. If I can prove that. You could get your money back.
  37. That is what I told Grant Thornton. I said drop everything you be looking at that one question. I need emails, I need letters, I need other evidence that is what happened.
  38. I need it as soon as possible. There were literally thousands of people who had lost their life savings.
  39. Now you must listen to me. I can write a letter. But Grant Thornton will not listen because I am just one person. I have no power. But you have power.
  40. The people I am talking to in this video have $292 million they have lost. The law will give them respect. Grant Thornton is there to protect your interests. If you give me authority to write to Grant Thornton on your behalf, they have to answer.
  41. So think about it because in a few days time, I am going to ask everybody to appoint me as their solicitor to write to Grant Thornton and ask them very important questions.
  42. I have seen that there are some reservations by people on WeChat who are worried. They want to know about the class action. They want to know about the litigation funding. They want to know how it all works.
  43. I have 3 or 4 more videos. To explain everything. Then I think I have done everything I can to educate you for the moment.
  44. Then it is time for me to ask for you to give me the authority on your behalf to speak to Grant Thornton and get that information.
  45. I am not going to ask today because I want to finish telling you everything you need to know about the whole process. I want you to ask me a lot of questions on WeChat.
  46. I am going to answer them all. And when everybody is happy. Then we would move forward and start to get your money back.
  47. Thank you very much and I will see you next time.

Part 10 Recorded 09 September 2019

  1. Hello, my name is Matthew Bransgroves. This is Part 10 of Ralan Ponzi Scheme.
  2. Today we are going to talk about the class actions and litigation funding.
  3. You cannot have one without the other. A class action is when seven or more people want to sue the same company for the wrong. It is a great way to save money.
  4. These proceedings have been estimated to cost approximately 5 million dollars. That would not make sense for any individual victim. But if everybody joined together in a class action that would make a lot of sense.
  5. Even so, experience shows that when people lose money on something like the Ralan disaster, they are not interested in paying one cent in legal fees. That’s where a litigation funder comes in.
  6. If the litigation funder thinks the case is winner then it will provide the money necessary to pay the lawyers to bring the case to the court. In return, the litigation funder gets 30% – 40% of what you win. It is a good deal for everybody.
  7. I have seen a lot of people on WeChat say we should not use Matthew Bransgrove. Maybe he does not know what he is doing.
  8. I am not sure I will be running this class action. What happens with a class action is if the evidence is good, lots of people want to run it. If the evidence is bad, noone wants to run it.
  9. I am hoping your evidence is good. If your evidence is good, litigation funders and class action lawyers will be competing for your business. That’s a good thing.
  10. When this matter goes to court, the Judge will often allow 3, 4, or 5 cases to continue. Each one representing a different group of investors. But eventually the Judge says, Enough, we need to combine these cases together.
  11. There are two ways of doing this. First, the judge can order all the cases to be consolidated together so that the different lawyers go to the same court, each one presents his own evidence.
  12. There is anther way it can happen. The Judge can order that all of the cases except for one get stopped. Then everybody would be represented by the one action proceeds.
  13. Now, you may hear about the expression “opting-in” and “opting-out” in class action.
  14. That’s to do with an open class action. Australian has an “opt-out” process. That means if you do not agree to join it is does not matter you are still being joined. This means no matter how many funders and separate actions there are you will not miss out.
  15. The only way you can miss out is to put your hand up and say I do not want to be in this action. That’s called opting out.
  16. The “opt-out” stage comes very late. By then, all the different actions have been made into one.
  17. From a practical point of view, no one opts out. If you opt out, you would not get your money. And everybody else will get their money. If you are a man. Your wife will never let you forget your mistake.
  18. So don’t worry about opt-out. The key issue is whether or not you sign up with a particular litigation funder. It is possible that one funder will offer you 70% what you won. Another one will let you keep 80%. You will want to choose the one that lets you keep the most.
  19. However this is all in the future. To make a decision between funders you have to wait until there are at least two funders offering. At the moment, there are exactly zero funders offering.
  20. What I want to do is to put together evidence to get the litigation funders are interested.
  21. I am in talks with one of them. He has agreed to pay some of my costs. However he has not agreed to take the case.
  22. I once worked with him before. I said to him this case is a winner.
  23. That was what I said for the last case we run together. I was right.
  24. However at this stage he cannot see the case because I don’t have the evidence that I need.
  25. So to all of you out there, I want you to understand that at this point there is nothing I am doing that is going to hurt your chances. Everything I am doing will help your chances.
  26. Let’s image you do not like me. You should still support what I am doing because I am the only person that is trying to put this case together.
  27. Once I have formulated the case, and it is a good one, litigation funders will come from everywhere.
  28. And that is when you may decide bye bye Matthew. That is ok. I am going to be little upset. My pillow will be very wet, but it is dose not matter.
  29. Here is why I am doing this. This is not an easy case. It is not a case where litigation funders immediately say it is easy money. Last year, there was a class action started involving AMP. 5 lawyers and 5 litigation funders started proceedings.
  30. They were all so excited by the easy case. None of them are here now. That is because this is not an easy case.
  31. This is a strange case.
  32. I happen to know all of about debentures. This is because two of my clients run debenture funds.
  33. I happen to know all about the Corporations Law. That is because I was involved in very long running litigation involving City Pacific which involved Corporations Law.
  34. I happen to know all about all about corporate collapses which cost lots of investors lots of money. That is because my involvement of City Pacific.
  35. I happen to know all about Construction Law. This is because this is the area I practice in.
  36. I happen to know all about false pre-sales. There a chapter in my book about it.
  37. I happen to know a lot about Ralan, because I have been following the company for many years.
  38. All these things coming together make me realise something. I am the only person who can see the case.
  39. When I heard Ralan had gone into administration I shook my head and sipped my coffee. I did not think I would be involved.
  40. I did not want to be involved. It is not my business. I mainly do private mortgages. That means I act for people who loan money out to other people privately.
  41. I do not do class actions. However there was a problem, after several days of newspaper reports, I noticed that no one in the media had said anything about it being an illegal debenture scheme.
  42. The Gold Coast Bulletin and the Australian Financial Review, which are newspapers, both ran the articles about whether or not it was illegal to release the deposits under state law.
  43. I said to myself I am the only person who can see this is the Federal Corporations Act that has been broken. Apparently I was.
  44. So I wrote to the Financial Review and I told them. They wrote an article. There was a little bit activity as a result.
  45. Two or three lawyers firms set up web-forms on their website and started taking names for a class action. I met some of them. They did not have a clue.
  46. That’s when I realised that if the Ralan victims are going to get their money back I have to do it. Otherwise it will not happen.
  47. We are talking about $292 million dollars. It seems to me that the Ralan victims, because they are Chinese, might miss out.
  48. So I am taking these steps to make sure that does not happen.
  49. Some people on WeChat have said that they worry about trusting me. My wife used to feel that way.
  50. However I am very steady fellow. I have been doing what I do for 20 years and will do it for another 20 years.
  51. I am making lots of money doing what I am doing. Ralan is not part of my money making plans. If I do this class action, it is probably because no one else will do it.
  52. If I get the evidence, and I package it correctly, then other people take over from me, I would be happy with that.
  53. Anyone who has concerns about what I am doing should asks questions in public on our WeChat account. I will answer them.
  54. It is my sincere hope that by the time I finish there are lots of litigation funders and lots of lawyers. That would result in the best deal for you. Until then we will stuck with each other.
  55. I hope I have explained enough about the class actions and litigation funding for the moment. I am not asking anyone to make any decisions concerning litigation funding and class actions.
  56. When we get to the point it will be months from now. Then we will visit the subject again.
  57. What I tell you then will depend on where we find out ourselves. We may alone with just one litigation funder, or you may have a lot of choices. We can worry about that then.
  58. Thanks for watching.
Scroll to Top