Year: 2013

I would like to wish our clients, colleagues and friends a happy Christmas and New Year.

2013 has been a huge year for Rushmore Group.

We have worked on more than 100 engagements during the year and have investigated many issues, traced 1000’s of transactions, searched for assets all over the world and valued businesses across Australia.

We look forward to assisting our clients in 2014 and we will continue to give our clients the best possible result be it a forensic accounting report, business valuation, financial investigation or any other engagement that uses our accounting, finance, technology, database and programming skills.

Christmas Office Hours

• Monday 23  December (Open)
• Tuesday 24 December (Open)
• Christmas Day (Closed)
• Boxing Day (Closed)
• Friday 27 December (Closed)
• Monday 30 December (Closed)
• Tuesday 31 December (Closed)
• New Years Day (Closed)
• Thursday 2 January (Open)

If you have an urgent forensic accounting or other issue over the Christmas holiday period, then please call us toll free on 1800 454 622 or contact us and we will get in contact with you.

Merry Christmas!
Andrew Firth
Rushmore Group

 

Consumer activist Denise Brailey has countered claims from the corporate watchdog that she had failed to provide documents for them to investigate low-doc loan fraud.

Australian Securities & Investments Commission deputy chairman Peter Kell told Fairfax Media and the ABC this week that ASIC had invited Ms Brailey to “provide evidence of the systematic loan fraud she alleges”.

“The very limited material provided to date simply does not support any of the claims she makes,” said Mr Kell.

However, Denise Brailey has confirmed that more than 100 of the members of her action group, all alleging loan fraud, had filed complaints with ASIC only to receive a form letter saying there would be no investigation and advising them to get a lawyer.

ASIC turns down request

BusinessDay has contacted many of the borrowers to confirm this. The borrowers, many who are pensioners and small business people, cannot afford a lawyer. Of these complaints, many had Loan Application Forms (LAFs), which they claimed had been tampered with, attached.

“ASIC has close to 100 LAFs from members (of her action group Banking & Finance Consumers Support Association) who say they wrote letters to ASIC and lodged formal complaints and attached the offending LAFs,” said Ms Brailey.

“Others wrote letters (another 60 people or more) that were formal complaints that contained no LAF. Every one of my members says they received an identical form letter from ASIC.”

As reported on Monday, the veteran consumer rights campaigner has made public 2500 private emails and bank documents to expose what she describes as ”Australia’s subprime crisis”.

Ms Brailey claims that lenders and mortgage brokers tampered with documents to provide more credit for borrowers with ”low-doc” loans.

She says she is making private documents public after years of trying to get corporate regulators to investigate the banks and other lenders over what she alleges is ”systemic fraud” in the ”low-doc” market.

Low-documentation loans are made to borrowers such as business owners who can’t prove a regular income, but the borrower signs a declaration as to estimated income. The loans usually carry a higher interest rate than other loans, as they are seen as more risky.

Of the borrowers who have asked for help from Ms Brailey’s action group, Banking & Finance Consumers Support Association, 1170 of them claim their loan application forms (LAFs) have been tampered with. In most cases, the income figure has been increased to justify more credit. “There is not one clean ‘LAF’ among them,” said Ms Brailey.

The banks and the corporate regulators reject Ms Brailey’s claims. They say fraud in the low-doc loan market is the fault of ”rogue” mortgage brokers.

In his repudiation this week of the Brailey claims, Mr Kell said ASIC had recently banned seven mortgage brokers for fraud or misconduct relating to loan applications.

Not just ‘rogue brokers’

However, the flood of responses this week to the Brailey claims, along with the emails and other documents published this week on her website, support the view that low-doc fraud is more widespread than the work of ‘‘rogue’’ brokers.

Lawyer Graeme Hancock, who has assisted victims of low-doc lending, says the cases he has seen corroborate this.

“I’ve reviewed many files from BFCSA,” Mr Hancock said. “I’ve seen towards 100 Loan Application Forms, all of which have been completed in more than one set of handwriting, and all the income details are grossly overstated in someone else’s handwriting.

“The mere fact that I have seen the same thing in so many cases clearly suggests this type of thing is systematic. Other parts of the process, such as the broker asking the borrower to sign the application form as ‘true and correct’ without all the detail being included is just too widespread to be just a coincidence.”

Most of the people Mr Hancock had interviewed did not have the means of fighting lending recoveries. The situation had improved with the introduction of the national lending laws in 2010. Until then it was only NSW borrowers, under the Contracts Review Act, who could ask the court for relief on the basis that the transaction was unjust.

“But that doesn’t help anybody before then and I gather they are the vast majority of cases. Without being able to take the unjust route you would be left trying to prove that the transactions and the relationship was unconscionable, which is very difficult,” he said.

Service Calculator

In another aspect of the claims, Denise Brailey has downloaded on her website information relating to the Service Calculator which she says is the program used by all the banks and other low-doc lenders that determines loan approvals.

It is via the Service Calculator that the lenders are orchestrating the low-doc lending process and using the brokers as their agents, she claims. Mortgage brokers have a password the Service Calculator which enables them to enter the bank and non-bank lender’s computer system to have loans processed but it is the lenders who determine the outcome.

Therefore, she claims, the lenders are responsible for the ‘imprudent lend’ to customers who cannot afford the loan.

Ms Brailey has called on ASIC and the Financial Ombudsman Service to use their powers to demand the lenders release the Loan Application Forms and information relating to the Service Calculator which she maintains is the key to unlocking the systemic fraud.

This article originally appeared in Kempsey’s Macleay Argus

Since the earliest days of my forensic accounting career, I’ve always thought of forensic accountants as operating at the intersection of the law, accounting, technology and mathematics.

I see this as a unique approach as it opens ones thinking to the idea that the solution to one particular problem may use more of one particular discipline than another. Another problem will rely on a greater percentage of another discipline. Over and over again, I see that this approach opens up solutions that would never have been possible had the forensic accounting practitioner simply relied on their background in accounting.

In a previous matter, I was involved in a family law property settlement dispute and mid-way through the first day of the final hearing I recalled the above principle. I was spending hour upon hour watch the two opposing barristers make back and forth settlement proposals, however I could see that these proposals if they were going to be successful would be more likely down to luck than any “system” or methodology. Another way of putting this was that I knew that in mathematical terms each side had a range of scenarios that they would accept and a range that they wouldn’t accept. Each “line” of solutions could in effect be plotted on a graph. The intersection of these lines would result in a negotiated settlement.

So with pen and paper, I sat down outside the Court and tried as best I could to convert houses, cars, superannuation, businesses, and various other assets into a mathematical form and then try and see whether I could force a solution.

This approach and re-defining the problem immediately changed my viewpoint and also the viewpoint of my client. It was as if we put down our career and personal bias for a moment and looked for a solution with a different viewpoint. Moments later, I revealed an anomaly in my clients thinking that made sense from a personal point of view but didn’t make sense from a mathematical point of view. It was at this stage that I was quietly confident that clear, precise, and mathematical thinking would find a solution that the divorce lawyers would take much longer to get to.

I then realized that to make progress I would need to make a couple of simplifying assumptions. This is a technique that I use in other forensic accounting engagements. Once a solution has been found, any simplifying assumptions can be relaxed and the solution can be recalculated without these constraints. So the first simplifying assumption was that my clients’ former partner would need to keep the business in the property settlement for there to be any chance of agreement. I could see that from the opposing sides point of view this was absolute. My client, whilst happy to take the business could also have quite as happily forgone its ownership. This may appear to be obvious reading this post, but it was far from clear leading up to this point.

The next major asset was the house and the mortgage over the house. My client for a variety of personal and financial reasons (which were completely logical) to keep the home and mortgage. So by this stage, my analysis tentatively proposed one partner keeping the business and the other keeping the home and mortgage. There was also a personal loan mixed up in the marital assets that was used to finance the business. So given this connection, I assumed that these naturally “went together”. I put this loan on my clients’ ex-partners side of the property settlement ledger.

At this stage, I felt that I was making progress and I wondered if it was this simple, why hadn’t a settlement been reached in the previous two years? I reviewed some of the other associated issues and at this point I realised that one of my clients nonnegotiable items was inconsistent with a related but different part of the case. This had been a key stumbling block to reaching earlier agreement. Again, I thought of the item from a logical position, I realised that even if my client pursued this angle, there was a fairly strong likelihood that my client wouldn’t financially benefit from it.

Once I got this clarity in my own mind I was able to “translate” this thinking into a simple statement for my client. We needed to drop that item from our proposal as it was preventing a property settlement from being made, it was going to be a waste of legal fees and in the end it was quite possible not to have resulted in additional funds to my client. So now that I had sorted out that logic, I came back to the draft proposal.

To recap, one side had the businesses and a loan that related to the business and the other party had the house and the mortgage. I then worked out what in my own mind was a logical division of the assets in percentage terms. This was based on assets and liabilities at the beginning of cohabitation and the various contributions throughout the relationship. It’s important to note that this was based on my own analysis and didn’t refer to either what the divorce lawyers and counsel were thinking or any other factor. Looking at the assets and liabilities, I thought that there appeared to be greater risk on the part of the other side in terms of the type of assets and liabilities that they had. For this and a number of other reasons, I thought it would be equitable to split the pool 60:40 in favour of the other side. I didn’t share this thinking with the client or anybody else, as I reasoned that it was better to present the proposal in totality. These numbers were required so that I could calculate which remaining assets and liabilities needed to be allocated to each side of the property settlement.

I then starting with the next biggest asset and slotted this into one column. A number of other assets were slotted into the other column, so that the totals approximated the 60:40 assumption I made based on the net marital asset position. I now had a draft proposal that was grounded in logic (including a number of rough assumptions). Around 4 hours later, I got a call to say that agreement had been reached and the division of assets was largely the same as the above proposal, with some small variations and a couple of assets that I had excluded due to their relatively small size.

For me it was satisfying to be part of this process where agreement was reached. I believe it is safe to say that basic maths and logic played a part in the overall solution. It also makes we wonder how many other disputes are battled out in expensive litigation when there may be a simple way of getting to that magical intersection?

A woman who fell through a glass panel in the foyer of a Brisbane office building while intoxicated intends to take her $179,000 damages claim to the High Court.

Jodie Smith suffered severe cuts to her face, neck, arms and torso after she stumbled and fell through a glass panel on the ground floor of the 138 Albert Street office building on December 21, 2001.

She had been returning to the building with colleagues about 8.30pm.

In the hours before the incident, Ms Smith, then 29, had consumed about 10 glasses of white wine at her office Christmas party, and at least six glasses of pre-mixed spirits at a nightclub.

Her blood alcohol level was about 0.26 per cent at the time and she was unsteady on her feet.

As she was looking in her handbag for her entrance swipe card, Ms Smith stumbled backwards into the glass panel, which broke into large shards.

Those who witnessed the fall said they were surprised the glass panel broke. It did not seem as though Ms Smith fell heavily, they said.

Ms Smith was left with scarring on her body and face and suffered psychological difficulties as a result.

She sued the building’s body corporate in Brisbane’s District Court and was awarded $15,000 for loss of future earning capacity.

Not satisfied, Ms Smith took her case to the Court of Appeal, saying the judge should not have found she “negligently contributed” to the incident.

Ms Smith was also unsuccessful in the Court of Appeal and has since lodged an application to have her case heard in the High Court.

The panel was made of six-millimetre thick glass which complied with workplace health and safety standards when the building was constructed in 1971.

But the body corporate had failed to do a proper safety audit that would have found the glass was no longer compliant in 2001.

“The pedestrian traffic flow in and out of the entrance way and foyer was about 4500 to 5000 people per week and students often milled around it,” Court of Appeal president Justice Margaret McMurdo said.

“In those circumstances it should have appreciated that there was a real risk of someone falling into or being pushed against the glass wall, breaking it and being seriously injured, perhaps even fatally.”

However, Ms McMurdo concluded Ms Smith should take some responsibility for compromising her own safety through “voluntary, gross intoxication”.

Ms Smith lodged a special leave application in the High Court on Tuesday.

(Source: Marissa Calligeros, Brisbane Times, 9 May 2013)

Federal public servants seeking workers’ compensation payouts face the biggest crackdown in decades.

A federal government review of the $1.2 billion Comcare insurance scheme has urged sweeping reform to reduce the number of dubious claims for psychological injuries, payouts for dodgy therapies, doctor shopping and outright fraud.

The review has made more than 147 recommendations to rewrite the legislation on Commonwealth public sector compensation claims, with the aim of getting injured bureaucrats back to work and ending their “passive” reliance on compensation.

The taxpayer-funded insurer lost more than $500 million in the 2011-2012 financial year as the number of claims for psychological injuries in the public sector – many related to accusations of bullying and harassment – increased.

According to the review’s two reports by Melbourne barrister Peter Hanks, QC, and former Defence Department boss Allan Hawke, the “long tail” of the Comcare scheme means an individual claim can exceed $2 million.

The review, ordered last year by Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten, cited a case of taxpayers paying nearly $30,000 for massage therapy that had “no curative effect” and another of a bureaucrat in Brisbane who was flown to a Buddhist meditation retreat in Alice Springs to treat his anxiety disorder.

The reports do not call for cuts to benefits for injured workers but urge a shift from a payout-oriented scheme to one that emphasises rehabilitation and a return to work.

The report says claims for psychological injuries have increased by 30 per cent in the past three years and are four times higher in the federal public service than for other employers.

Mr Hanks says compensation for these claims should not be paid for more than three months without a diagnosis by a properly qualified medical practitioner.

The senior barrister also wants an end to payouts for mental stress caused by imaginary factors.

“It is an unfair burden on employers to make them liable to pay compensation for a psychological injury that is caused by an employee’s fantasising rather than by any aspect of employment,” he wrote.

Among the recommendations is a no-fault, provisional liability that would cover injured workers for a three-month rehabilitation period and a shift in jurisdictions for workplace dispute resolution from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to Fair Work Australia.

Mr Hanks wrote that Comcare’s legislative framework, the the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, was supposed to be beneficial to workers but the insurer had a duty to spend taxpayers’ money wisely.

He urged greater vigilance on doctors who supported compensation payouts, saying health practitioners should be ”held accountable for their conduct”, so ”they do not exploit what is, in effect, a publicly funded scheme by overcharging, overservicing or providing services that do not meet basic professional standards”.

Mr Shorten said he would consult ”stakeholders” about the reports.

“It is vital that the Comcare scheme is focused on early and effective intervention to promote recovery of injured workers. It is also critical that employers and Comcare are pro-active in supporting injured workers from the point of injury, during rehabilitation and when they return to work,” he said.

Recent cases

• Commonwealth public servant compensated, after a court appeal, for injuries sustained during a “vigorous” sex session in a motel room on a work trip.
• Underperforming Canberra public servant compensated after she claimed one-on-one counselling sessions constituted bullying.
• A public servant in Brisbane was flown to Alice Springs for a Buddhist meditation retreat to treat his anxiety disorder.
• Canberra government worker paid $29,000 for massage treatment that had “no curative effect’’.

(Source: Noel Towell, SMH, 30 March 2013)

AUSTRALIA’S $5.2 billion foreign aid program has been hit by corruption claims involving a flagship project in Afghanistan, while a forestry deal in Papua New Guinea has triggered a diplomatic rift.

AusAID has confirmed an investigation is under way into allegations that education scholarships, known as Australia Awards, were being on-sold for profit by corrupt officials in Afghanistan.

AusAID said GRM International, which had managed the program, was conducting an independent investigation after losing the $80 million contract when the allegations were raised in August.

However the new manager, US firm International Relief and Development, is itself subject to a fraud claim involving US aid.

AusAID boss Peter Baxter said he had expressed “strong concern” to the head of IRD that AusAID was not told about that allegation. He said the level of fraud activity had halved across its programs but it was investigating 178 “active” allegations.

Meanwhile, concerns have been raised that hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted on useless climate change programs.

In one case Papua New Guinea’s Forestry Minister Patrick Pruaitch wrote to his Australian counterpart Senator Joe Ludwig to complain that PNG was not consulted before Australia engaged US-based environmental organisation The Nature Conservancy to help deliver a $6 million sustainable forestry program.

The PNG government said the decision could have “serious ramifications” for the livelihoods of local communities.

“We are not happy with the manner in which the project has been formulated,” Mr Pruaitch wrote on January 18. “Consultation and needs analysis have not been undertaken to capture the requirements of the (PNG) government.”

It comes after opposition whip Warren Entsch blamed AusAID cutbacks in PNG health funding for a rise in tuberculosis cases, which had spread to Australia. The Coalition has said it would redirect aid funding to Australia’s East Asian and Pacific neighbours.

(Source: Steve Lewis and Lisa Cornish, News, 11 March 2013)

Public servants have been paid workers’ compensation for “dirty looks” and a coffee-shop quarrel, as bullied bureaucrats pocket an average of $251,000 for mental stress.

Government insurer Comcare has been forced to pay compo to more than a dozen public servants who won court appeals in the past year.

They include a Tax Office data analyst compensated for “psychological injury” after fighting with a colleague over who should drink a cup of coffee.

An Austrade auditor won stress workers compensation after her manager told her that clients had trouble comprehending her poor English.

And a Centrelink staffer who confessed she could not deal with 70 per cent of public inquiries was compensated for “adjustment disorder”, after she complained of clients’ abuse and colleagues’ “dirty looks”.

Mental stress now accounts for at least one in every 10 compensation claims across the public service, with payouts averaging $251,000.

It also makes up a third of Comcare’s payout costs. Comcare’s latest statistical report reveals 44 per cent of stress claims relate to harassment or bullying, while 34 per cent of claimants cite “work pressure”.

The number and cost of claims has caused a $9.5m blowout in workers’ compensation premiums across 34 federal government agencies, official statistics provided to a Senate estimates committee reveal.

The cost to taxpayers of insuring against injury, bullying and stress claims has soared nearly $100m – or 50 per cent – in the past five years.

Comcare will charge agencies $291m in premiums this year.The Tax Office will pay $36m – even more than the Federal Police ($31m) or the Defence Department ($29m), where in-the-field jobs are inherently dangerous.

The Department of Human Services – which includes Centrelink, Medicare and the Child Support Agency – will pay the highest premium, of $61m this year.

It has been hit with a $2.6m penalty payment this year, due to the number and size of workers compensation claims. In total, 34 departments and agencies – including national broadcaster the ABC, corporate regulator ASIC, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and even Comcare itself – have been penalised a total of $9.5m this financial year.

The cost to taxpayers has been offset by savings from 44 other agencies, which together were granted a $10m reduction in premium payments as a reward for reducing their workers compensation claims.Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten has ordered a review of the snowballing Comcare scheme.

The “no fault” scheme means injured workers do not have to prove negligence.

Injured staff can be paid their full salary for 45 weeks, then up to 75 per cent until the age of 65 – on top of a lump sum of up to $168,000 for permanent disability.

Comcare is seeking leave to appeal in the High Court against a recent Federal Court order that it compensate a public servant hurt when a light fitting fell on her during sex with an acquaintance in her motel room during a business trip.

CASE STUDIES

* A Tax Office data analyst was punched in the arm when he flicked coffee over a workmate’s face and shirt in a cafe.

Months later, he claimed the punch had caused a whiplash neck injury.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled the coffee-shop biff was not work-related – but still awarded compo for “psychological injury”, due to the man’s perception that colleagues were “ganging up” on him at work

.* An Austrade grants auditor was paid compensation for “adjustment disorder” and “depressed mood”. She complained after a manager told her that grant applicants where having difficulty understanding her, given that English was “not her first or second language”.

* A frontline Centrelink staffer was compensated for “adjustment disorder” after management told her she must work more than one day a week. The woman claimed she was unable to deal with 70 per cent of enquiries, that customers often became agitated or abusive while waiting to be served, and that her team leaders often gave her “dirty looks”.

Comcare blamed the woman’s stress on her personal life, but the AAT ruled the job had contributed to the “adjustment disorder”.

* A Defence Department business manager won compensation for “anxiety arising from conflict in the workplace”.

The AAT ruled that her boss had aggravated her “adjustment disorder” in the way he investigated other staff complaints about her “belittling” manner and “micromanagement”.

* An Education Department manager was compensated for “mental injury” caused by “perceived” bullying and harassment from a colleague who “wanted to take over her domain”.

She suffered depression and wet herself during an anxiety attack in her office. The AAT ruled that changes in her work duties had triggered an “adjustment disorder”.

(Source: Natasha Bita, News, 23 February 2013) 

Further Workers Compensation Information

If you require more information in relation to a workers compensation claim, audit, review or require the assistance of a workers compensation specialist, then please don’t hesitate to contact us on free call 1800 454 622. We provide our workers compensation expert advice to clients across Australia.

 

 

High Court judge, Mrs Justice Proudman, today said she was “appalled” by the amount of money the family had spent squabbling over the inheritance of the late great writer, actor and raconteur.

Igor Cloutier von Ustinov, 56, Sir Peter’s son by his second wife, was today hit with a £114,000 legal costs bill after failing in a bid to uncover the whereabouts of the “rights and royalties for Sir Peter’s creative works” which Igor says have been lost to his children.

Igor, a sculptor, has been battling Lady Helene Ustinov, his late father’s third wife and widow, in the Swiss courts, since 2004, seeking to reverse a ruling that Sir Peter’s last will, which he signed in 1968, should be revoked.

The proceedings in the Swiss courts are still on-going, despite a settlement on some issues in 2007, but Mr von Ustinov launched a paralell case in London designed to track down the fruits of Sir Peter’s writings and film work.

Ian Meakin, for Mr von Ustinov, argued that “overarching” lifetime trusts set up by Sir Peter had put the valuable “intellectual property rights” in his work out of reach of his widow, and put a “sizeable” slice of his assets in the hands of his children alone.

The whereabouts of those rights and royalites – which were said to have been put into a “tax efficient” offshore structure by Sir Peter decades before his death – however remain a mystery.

The barrister argued that investigations by Igor lasting two years indicated that two retired Swiss lawyers are the trustees of the alleged trusts – something which they vigorously denied.

Mr Meakin asked the judge to transfer the part of the legal row concerning the alleged trusts to the jurisdiction of the English courts.

Mrs Justice Proudman said that Sir Peter, before his death, had set up “tax efficient structures under which he could receive royalties for his creative endeavours, namely writing and acting.”

She added: “There has been protracted litigation between Mr von Ustinov and Lady Helene about Sir Peter’s estate. The question of whether the lifetime trusts are part of Sir Peter’s estate remains live in the proceedings in Switzerland.”

But, rejecting Mr von Ustinov’s claim, she said: “The allegation is that a trust must have been set up, but there is no evidence of any actual trust.

“Mr von Ustinov can’t say who are its beneficiaries and what are its terms. His claim is the most fragile claim imaginable. Nor is there any evidence of any trust governed by English law.”

Transferring part of the proceedings to the UK from Switzerland would lead to “risks of inconsistent findings and irreconcilable judgements” she concluded.

“There is no need to revert to the English courts and, accordingly, I make a declaration that this court does not have jurisdiction to try Mr von Ustinov’s claim in this action.”

Mr von Ustinov was left with a £114,000 legal costs bill after the judge she was “appalled” by the money that had been spent by the family on lawyers.

Mr von Ustinov said outside court that he had spent almost his entire fortune on the terrible battle over his father’s legacy and, having lost today, was now approaching bankruptcy.

“It’s a horrible situation,” he said.

“I was very close to my father – when he died I was holding his hand and I felt like he had asked me to put some order into his affairs, but it has been very hard.

“Now I’m close to bankruptcy and I don’t know what to do. Nine years I’ve been fighting and I didn’t inherit a penny yet.”

Saying that the battle within the family is effectively over, he added: “This action was not really against my stepmother or my sisters, it was about the fact that my father saved up money and rights for years and now they are not available to the family.

“These trusts contained the rights and royalties to everything he wrote, his film rights and everything. It’s a very sad story because the family have no way of getting hands on them.”

Tamara Ustinov Rennie, Mr von Ustinov’s half-sister, who lives with her husband in Hove, East Sussex, said outside court: “Its been a long and wearing nine years and at least this is a step towards a final solution. It’s one of those funny situations which arise in families sometimes. I can’t begin to imagine what it has cost.”

Malcolm Rennie, Mrs Ustinov Rennie’s husband, earlier said outside court: “Peter was a wonderful man and I loved him very much as a son-in-law, but being successful at such a high level as he was, everybody wanted a piece of him.”

“He was an actor, writer, raconteur and UNICEF ambassador, crisscrossing the globe daily, and, because of that, he was not able to be the present father that he would have liked to have been to his children and he tried to compensate by trying to provide his children with material things“.

He added: “I would be surprised if there is anything left in the estate – it has probably all gone to the lawyers.”

(Source: Telegraph, 24 Jan 2013)

Further Information – Forensic Accountant

If you would like further information about using our forensic accounting services for an inheritance dispute,  financial investigation or other expert witness matter, then please contact us on 1800 454 622 for an obligation free discussion.

We provide services to corporations, law firms and individuals in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and across Australia.

Energy provider Western Power will face court over the electric shock death of beloved Geraldton teenager Amber Finch almost two years ago.

The utility was charged under the Electricity Network Safety Regulations following an investigation by power watchdog, EnergySafety.

EnergySafety acting director Don Saunders confirmed the utility would face the Geraldton Magistrates Court in April.

He declined to comment with the matter now before the courts.

Amber Finch, 17, was walking home from a party with a group of friends when she stepped into a live wire hanging from a tree at about 2.30am on January 30, 2011.

A friend who went to her aid was also injured before being rescued by a male friend.

Speaking shortly after her step-niece’s death Tash Thornton described Amber as an “outgoing, bubbly, happy girl” who “never had a hard word to say to anyone.

“She adored her brothers,” she said. “She was someone who always helped everybody.”

Amber lived with her mother and two sisters in Geraldton while her father, who was married to Mrs Thornton’s sister, lived in Kalgoorlie with her three brothers.

(Source: Rania Spooner, SMH, 8 January 2012)

Further Information – Forensic Accountant

If you would like further information about using our forensic accounting services for a personal injury, financial investigation or other expert witness matter, then please contact us now on 1800 454 622 for an obligation free discussion.

We provide services to corporations, law firms and individuals in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and across Australia.

FORMER Speaker Peter Slipper is facing charges he misused taxpayer-funded Cabcharge vouchers, after a lengthy investigation by the Australian Federal Police.

Just weeks after sexual harassment allegations were thrown out by the Federal Court, the one-time Liberal MP will face a court in Canberra next month.

After an investigation stretching back to July, the AFP said it had served Mr Slipper with a summons “in relation to three offences of dishonestly causing a risk of a loss to the Commonwealth”.

The alleged offences involve the use of Cabcharge dockets, according to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

They relate to alleged breaches of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and, if proved, carry a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

Mr Slipper, who three weeks ago won a major legal victory after the Federal Court threw out sexual harassment allegations, is due to appear in the Canberra Magistrates Court on February 15.

The Opposition Leader says the latest development involving Peter Slipper exposes the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment.

After his stunning court win in December, he now faces the prospect of defending allegations that he defrauded the Commonwealth through the use of taxpayer-funded Cabcharge dockets.

Mr Slipper’s former adviser, James Ashby, alleged that he witnessed the former Speaker signing a series of blank Cabcharge dockets during trips to Sydney in early 2012.

It is not known whether the AFP legal action relates to these matters. Last night, police said it would “not be appropriate to comment further at this time“.

Mr Ashby was interviewed by the AFP shortly after he filed allegations of sexual harassment against his former boss in April.

Police spent three months investigating a series of allegations involving Mr Slipper’s use of entitlements before referring matters to the Commonwealth DPP.

In a statement, the DPP’s office said it could “confirm that the AFP have sworn an information and summons which alleges three offences against section 135.1(5) of the Criminal Code (Cth) in relation to allegations concerning the use of Cabcharges by Mr Slipper”.

The DPP said it would be “inappropriate to comment further” as the matter was before the Canberra Magistrates Court.

Mr Slipper resigned as speaker in October, after the publication of graphic and lewd text messages.

They were published as part of the sexual harassment case brought by his former staffer, Mr Ashby, which was dismissed by Justice Steven Rares who ruled it was part of a campaign to inflict political damage on the ex-speaker.

News Limited understands the Finance Department, which polices parliamentary entitlements, initially referred allegations involving Cabcharge to the AFP.

This suggests the court matters may not relate to the allegations brought forward by Mr Ashby, which involved a Sydney-based hire car driver.

The former Liberal MP, who now sits in parliament as an independent, has been forced to repay more than $20,000 in family travel and other entitlement perks over the years.

(Source: Steve Lewis, Daily Telegraph, 8 January 2013)