Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Equititrust?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
The case against Tucker and Cowen will create legal precedent in terms of :

"solicitors not channeling filthy profits through their trust accounts, derived from their own malfeasance at the expense of innocents investors and clients "

The day of reckoning is coming...
 
As I stated many years ago, Tucker and Cowen were flying under the radar.

Tucker as usual being the "KING of CONflict of Interest", was acting for everyone and willfully hiding his interest in MS Asia...

Cowen knew what was going on and basically held the ladder...

Now both face the very real prospect of financial ruin and being banned as solicitors, if it is proven in court that they channeled client money from their Trust Account, to interests connected with themselves both onshore and offshore...

It doesn't get more serious than that...
 
No Trust said:
The insurers that Tucker is trying to Blame Shift his malfeasance on, will be coming at him hard in terms of discovery…

Will a magical USB make its appearance soon ???
Hint:
Mossack Fonseca was nothing compared to this information dump… TICK TOCK…

Bye bye David ?
Click to expand...

---

Tucker > MS Asia etc..... Hong Kong, British Virgin Islands........ hmmmmmmmmm.

From above:

"Hint:
Mossack Fonseca was nothing compared to this information dump… TICK TOCK…

Bye bye David ?"

---

en.wikipedia.org

Mossack Fonseca - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Mossack Fonseca "Panama Papers" leak​

Main article: Panama Papers
On 3 April 2016, the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) announced that 11.5 million confidential documents from the firm had been leaked to them. These documents, dubbed the "Panama Papers", reveal how clients hid billions of dollars in tax havens.[35]

----

:D;)??
 
As a guarantee a formal complaint is being made against both Tucker and Cowen with the Australian Taxation Office… ATO very interested in the Thumb Drive as I’m sure the insurers will be…

Everyone has their day of reckoning when they’ve acted like an utter prick all their professional life… David’s Day is coming… ?
 
For Equititrust Investors it’s a simple fact that their funds were financially raped and pillaged by both McIvor and his one time solicitor / board member and “supposed friend” David Tucker…

To date there has been no justice for the innocent elderly Australians that were ripped off… Well until now.. The money won’t come back but those responsible for their funds disappearing are in for a world of pain over the coming months and years…

#justiceiscoming
 
The truth is slowly starting to come to the surface... This is the level of disclosure that Tucker and Cowen did not want in a million years...

Tucker is effectively saying that save for a few admissions that the repayments were for loans from the Equititrust Loan Book - Some $11,419,038.61 and $5,880,035.77 were monies owing to him and his secret squirrel offshore tax haven entities... Talk about recreating reality... Do his lawyers seriously believe that attempting to gas light the court and the insurers will cut the mustard ???

This is an utter joke...

Of note though is a number of the names popping up in the borrower list.

This clearly shows a prior history of dealing with Tucker on a personal basis for many years, which will be "illuminating" to many, in proceedings about to be commenced in the Queensland Supreme Court...

The liquidators now have irrefutable evidence (in their own proceedings against Tucker) of the interrelated dealings that Tucker (as Equititrust's / McIvor's personal solicitor) had with some of McIvor's borrowers and co-conspirators in fraud.


 
This is just gob smacking... Tucker appoints his mate Michael Peldan at Worrell's (his go to guy in bankrupting his enemies like McIvor for instance, and acting as bankruptcy trustee, ) to be the receiver of MS Asia and then pretends to be the solicitor for his bestie, Peldan, whilst actively having a beneficial interest in MS Asia.

He then proceeds to directly transfer funds out of the Tucker & Cowen Trust Account, not to the receiver but to MS Asia directly and now claims (in the further and better particulars attached below) that he had a right to do so, because his bestie acquiesced and effectively let him do it.. SMFH

Barfley Cohen have tried to polish this turd as best they could, but alas I agree with the Insurers who say this...


1624351329482.png


 
Tucker and Barfley Cohen, his unfortunate lawyers, are really attempting to practice the dark art of gas lighting and illusion with a solid dose of smoke and mirrors, in attempting to say that some $17M recovered from borrowers on behalf of Equititrust EPF Investors, was really money owing to Tucker / MS ASIA...

Tucker in his Further and Better Particulars is trying to assert that;

If it wasn’t for the hard effort put in by MS Asia (in which he held an undisclosed beneficial interest) in commencing litigation and (using himself to conduct the litigation for his friendly receiver and bestie Michael Peldan), then the money would not have been recovered and therefore it was not repayable to Equititrust.​
​
This is analogous to a bank robber saying, look your honour, I put enormous effort into tunneling into the bank I used to work for using inside information and I should be rewarded for my efforts by converting the stolen money into nice crisp clean untainted funds now "owing" to me... ​

Tucker is about to soon learn that repaying the money ? will be the last of his problems. The diversion of trust account moneys belonging to a client to interests aligned with himself and his law firm will have life long consequences…

GREED KILLS
 
Last edited:
Any knowledgeable person aka a Queens Counsel has to laugh at Tucker’s defence to paying out trust monies held on behalf of Equititrust directly to his offshore “Piggy Bank”

Saying that his friendly receiver mate aka Michael Peldan didn’t object does not replace a trust account authority… This friendly receiver sham between Tucker and Peldan has not fooled anyone and will not fool the court either…
#joke

EBA42236-9958-40E2-8994-11992682FE44.jpeg
 
Tucker’s ruse with Worrells / Michael Peldan has been well and truly exposed for the sham it was and is…

How on earth could Tucker effectively acting for himself (MS Asia) not be a conflict of interest. If he had appointed an independent receiver, that receiver would never have allowed Tucker to act for himself and pay away monies from his firms trust account ( without written authority ) to an offshore entity in which Tucker held a beneficial interest…

#Exposed
 
On a lighter note Tucker's son (a law graduate) has been employed by Tucker's defence lawyers Bartley Cohen...

Surely not a great idea... But hey in this circle, bad ideas are par for the course...

#Conflict
 

Contact Us - Hall & Wilcox

We are a leading independent law firm of more than 1300+ people, including over 145+ partners. We service corporate, public sector and private clients,…
hallandwilcox.com.au hallandwilcox.com.au

hallandwilcox.com.au

Queensland Supreme Court not afraid to strike out claim for limitation of actions defence

The decision of Port Ballidu Pty Ltd v Frews Lawyers & Ors [2017] QSC19 delivered in February 2017 gives clarity to two aspects of the law concerning limitation periods in Queensland.
hallandwilcox.com.au hallandwilcox.com.au

There is no statutory limitation period in Queensland for breach of fiduciary duty.

Thinking | 6 April 2017

Queensland Supreme Court not afraid to strike out claim for limitation of actions defence​

The decision of Port Ballidu Pty Ltd v Frews Lawyers & Ors [2017] QSC19 delivered in February 2017 gives clarity to two aspects of the law concerning limitation periods in Queensland.

The decision is significant for two reasons. Firstly, the court considered it appropriate to grant summary judgment on the basis of a limitation of actions defence. Secondly, the Queensland Supreme Court followed a decision of Gerace v Auzhair Supplies Pty Ltd [2014] 87 NSWLR 435, in that a court will apply a limitation period by analogy to a claim for equitable compensation when there is sufficient similarity between that equitable claim and a common law action which has a statutory limitation period.

The case concerned a claim against a firm of solicitors who were allegedly knowingly concerned in a director’s misconduct allowing the registration of a mortgage over the plaintiff’s property and the fraudulent use moneys by the director secured by that mortgage. The solicitor was engaged by the director to act for the company in the loan transaction. The lender commenced proceedings to recover the loan from the plaintiff. The plaintiff tried to defend those proceedings on grounds which included the alleged fraud of the director. During the proceedings brought by the lender the plaintiff became aware of the conduct of the solicitors which pointed them being knowingly concerned in the director’s conduct. This awareness happened more than six years before the commencement of the proceedings brought by the plaintiff against the solicitors.

Under section 10 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) a plaintiff has six years within which to commence proceedings for breach of contract or tort giving rise to economic losses. There is no statutory limitation period in Queensland for breach of fiduciary duty.

The defendant had to overcome the general reluctance of courts to make interlocutory determinations on limitation periods as suggested in the High Court decision of Wardley. The court found that if the plaintiff proved what it had pleaded its action in negligence against the solicitors would be statute barred. Given the relevant facts in the statement of claim were not contested by the defendant the court considered that it was warranted in making a determination at an interlocutory level.

The court then found that the common law cause of action in negligence was sufficiently analogous to the claim for equitable compensation against the solicitors that the limitation period of six years for the negligence claim should also effectively apply to the equitable claim. There was an absence of Queensland Supreme Court authority on the point, but the court considered that it should follow the decision of Gerace referred to above.

From a Queensland perspective, the decision is very significant as it helps clarify when a court will chose to make an interlocutory decision on question of limitations of actions, but perhaps more importantly confirms that the decision of Gerace is good law in Queensland.
 
www.gnl.com.au

Private prosecutions in Queensland

In QLD, if you are a victim of a criminal offence, you can commence a private prosecution yourself rather than the state prosecuting. Find out how.
www.gnl.com.au www.gnl.com.au

Brisbane & Sunshine Coast Criminal Lawyers | Gilshenan & Luton

Our head office is located in CBD Brisbane and we have a visiting office (by appointment) in Caloundra. In today's world of technology, we also assist clients across Queensland with their criminal law inquiries.
www.gnl.com.au www.gnl.com.au

Private prosecutions in Queensland​

TUESDAY JANUARY 14, 2020
DOWNLOAD AS PDF
woman-talking-in-court-smaller.jpg

Who can bring a private prosecution?​

In Queensland, if a person (including a corporation) is a victim of a criminal offence, that person can commence a private prosecution against the offender. This means that the person (or corporation), rather than the state, prosecutes the offender.
Ordinarily, private prosecutions are commenced by a person when the police have elected not to take any action in relation to a criminal complaint. However, this is not a prerequisite for the laying of a private complaint.
Whether you are considering commencing a private prosecution or you are a defendant in a private prosecution, below is some information to assist you about the private prosecution process.

What types of offences can be privately prosecuted?​

A private prosecution can be commenced in relation to criminal offences.
Like police charges, the offence can be either summary (less serious offences dealt with in the Magistrates Court) or indictable (more serious offences which may need to be dealt with in the District or Supreme Courts). Some examples of charges that could be privately prosecuted include assault, stalking and even murder.

How is a private prosecution commenced?​

If the complaint is for an offence that can be dealt with summarily, the private prosecution process is commenced by the complainant filing a private complaint in the Magistrates Court. They must then serve the complaint on the defendant with a summons requiring the defendant to appear on a specified date in the Magistrates Court. The Justices Act 1886 (Qld) governs this process.
If the alleged offence is an offence that cannot be dealt with summarily, a person can charge another person as long as the person has the leave (permission) of the Supreme Court. If leave is granted, the private prosecution is commenced by the presentation of what is called an ‘ex-officio indictment’. This process is governed by the Criminal Code (Qld).

Validity of the charge/complaint​

Importantly, when a private complaint is laid and the complaint alleges a criminal offence, for it to be valid at law, it must strictly comply with the provisions in the applicable legislation.
For example, a complaint alleging a summary offence must be:
  • in writing and in the prescribed form;
  • contain a sufficient description of the offence;
  • detail the particular act, manner or thing alleged as the foundation of the charge; and
  • specify the time, place and manner of the defendant’s acts or omissions.
If a complaint fails to include all of these matters, it will be invalid.
The complaint must also be legitimate and truthful and the person laying the complaint must have sufficient evidence to support his or her allegation.
If the court considers that the complaint is an abuse of process, is frivolous or is vexatious, the complaint can be ‘struck out’ (dismissed).

Who represents the parties in a private prosecution?​

The complainant and defendant both have the right to legal representation (meaning lawyers and/or barristers can appear for each party). However, sometimes the complainant and/or defendant choose to appear themselves (as self-represented litigants).

Who hears a private prosecution?​

As with any criminal charge, it will be heard and decided by either a magistrate or a judge (depending on which court it is heard in).

What happens if a private prosecution is successful?​

If a defendant is convicted of a criminal offence in a private prosecution, as with all criminal proceedings, the defendant can be convicted and sentenced by the court.
All sentencing options available in criminal proceedings can be applied by the court when sentencing a defendant who has been privately prosecuted. For information about those sentencing options, read our article ‘How does criminal sentencing work in Queensland?’

Who pays for the private prosecution?​

In private prosecutions, the costs of the proceedings are the responsibility of the parties. However, costs orders can be made by the court in certain circumstances.
For example, costs can sometimes be awarded to the complainant, upon conviction of the defendant. They may also be awarded to the defendant if the complaint is struck out (upon an application that it is an abuse of process or frivolous or vexatious) or if the defendant is acquitted of the charge (found ‘not guilty’).

What should I do if I’m served with a private complaint?​

Private prosecutions can be daunting for people who don’t practice in the law. They can involve complex legal issues and if successful, can result in criminal convictions and costs orders being made.
It is recommended that you take the following steps if served with a private complaint:
  1. Don’t contact the complainant;
  2. Review the complaint and summons with special attention being given to the date on which you are required to attend court;
  3. Note the court date in your diary and apply for leave from work (if required) so that you can attend court; and
  4. Contact our firm for advice and representation.
If you are considering whether to privately prosecute a person for a criminal offence or you have been served with a private complaint, we recommend that you contact us urgently. We have expertise and experience acting for complainants and defendants in private prosecutions.

DOWNLOAD AS PDF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top