Found Deceased Australia - Karen Ristevski, 47, Melbourne, Vic, 29 June 2016 - #9

[Puggle]

If the total of the estate minus any jewellery to be given to Karen was only.... $368,000...... which is not a fortune. ....if realestate was sold.

Then I'm guessing the jewellery was simply her mothers items..... and no massive payday..

 

[Puggle]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Karen got ALL of her father's jewellery.

Maybe she did not want to cash in any of her father's jewellery, or part with any remaining part of her inheritance, to assist a cash-strapped family.

Combine that with Karen not wishing to reduce her stock any further than the current 50% off sale prices. Could have led to an overly frustrating situation for someone else.

Im thinking it had no signifigance .....IMO...

Just based on the total inheritance amount...... doesn't suggest persons who had the wealth to accumulate a goldmine in jewels...

 

[Amalgam]

Im thinking it had no signifigance .....IMO...

Just based on the total inheritance amount...... doesn't suggest persons who had the wealth to accumulate a goldmine in jewels...

I agree.

Media reported that his estate was to be converted into cash (I assume that meant sale of any real estate in South Africa) and the proceeds to be divided evenly between the two siblings, Karen and Steve, with jewellery to go to Karen.

Given Karen's mother predeceased Karen's father, it is reasonable to assume her jewellery went to Karen's father at the time & that was the majority if not entirety of jewellery Karen inherited from her father's estate.

If it was men's jewellery and/or Steve felt an entitlement to it, he could have contested the will. I doubt there was any bad blood over the jewellery between Steve and Karen and I severely doubt the jewellery played into Karen's murder.

 

[SouthAussie]

Given Karen's mother predeceased Karen's father, it is reasonable to assume her jewellery went to Karen's father at the time & that was the majority if not entirety of jewellery Karen inherited from her father's estate.

.

Good point.

 

[SouthAussie]

However, I am still looking at a blow up about finances as a motive for Karen's murder. Someone who thought they could do a better job at running the show alone, despite their poor past performance, and their current job of supplementing the store income - or weakly trying to defray the losses - by Uber driving (and time spent at TAB?)

The Australian sure spent some time digging up all the info on the poor financial situation. Something spun them in that direction.

And another person(s?) knew about the issues, too. No matter how much they concealed it from their friends. Could have been a shop staff member(s). As staff are often the people who get paid late. Receive the phone calls and visits from creditors. See the 'final notice' bills come in. See their Superannuation entitlements not being paid into their personal Super fund by their employer. Know they spent all day on their feet, and sold next to nothing.


Last year, one source told the Herald Sun in reference to the Ristevski family: “They lived well ... flying business class ... but there were financial issues there.”
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...r/news-story/40f1398bea83269138863afbab78c990

 

[ThaiBali]

Not sure. He was the pallbearer behind BR.

Oops, this was in response to someone asking if SR spent much time at her boyfriend's place.

 

[ThaiBali]

And for sure the $850 was removed.

I doubt there was any $850 to begin with. Just a red herring that she may have taken a flight out of the country or set herself up in a hotel.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I doubt there was any $850 to begin with. Just a red herring that she may have taken a flight out of the country or set herself up in a hotel.

:yes: The first of many lies, imo. There's a lot a person could do with $850. if their purpose was to disappear and lay low. But now Karen has been found, none of it was possible, she was dead the whole time.
Red herrings, smoke and mirrors, this case has it all, much like Sharon Edward's disappearance.

 

[matey]

I have to disagree with that, I don't think the friend spoke to any family or had any approval to start the fund. I think she just started it thinking it was a good idea at the time.

I also don't think friends would be aware of the Ristevski's financial situation - you know keeping up appearances and all.

Confirmation that it was Karen was late on the 20th Feb, the fund was started on 21st Feb.

Karen's friend who started the GoFundMe page for Sarah mentioned that Sarah and family members had no idea about the fund being started and hoped that Sarah wouldn't be embarrassed, as she was only trying to help her financially by doing so.

I thought that a specific reason had to be given to start a GoFundMe page ie..family losing everything in house fire...a child suffering terminal illness needing expensive medical treatment that parents cannot afford...farmers having to walk off their properties due to years of drought etc.etc?

 

[sosocurious]

However, I am still looking at a blow up about finances as a motive for Karen's murder. Someone who thought they could do a better job at running the show alone, despite their poor past performance, and their current job of supplementing the store income - or weakly trying to defray the losses - by Uber driving (and time spent at TAB?)

The Australian sure spent some time digging up all the info on the poor financial situation. Something spun them in that direction.

And another person(s?) knew about the issues, too. No matter how much they concealed it from their friends. Could have been a shop staff member(s). As staff are often the people who get paid late. Receive the phone calls and visits from creditors. See the 'final notice' bills come in. See their Superannuation entitlements not being paid into their personal Super fund by their employer. Know they spent all day on their feet, and sold next to nothing.


Last year, one source told the Herald Sun in reference to the Ristevski family: “They lived well ... flying business class ... but there were financial issues there.”
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...r/news-story/40f1398bea83269138863afbab78c990

On March 21 this year, the company’s accountant filed paperwork recording Mr Ristevski had replaced his wife as director on February 23. Ms Ristevski remains the shareholder. Mr Ristevski certified the information in the form was “true and complete”.[/B]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s/news-story/b1b9688adeee6dbd340e17d35eec2de6

The Ristevski family was plagued with financial burdens and their Bella Bleu clothing boutique in Broadmeadows, in Melbourne’s north, closed down in February.

The Australian reported a caveat was lodged over their home by real estate group Vicinity and financial company Perpetual, meaning they can’t sell it or transfer it into another name.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/k...ths-before-disappearance-20160830-gr4beu.html

I know nothing about business, shareholders, directors all above my head.
Had a read of this as basic as it is.

The cost of small business company directors' ignorance
You may be risking your entire wealth if you're a company director for a friend or family member.
http://www.smh.com.au/small-busines...pany-directors-ignorance-20170126-gtyyun.html

"If the wife has been appointed as director, but the husband runs the SME day-to-day, the wife cannot later claim that she was not aware of what was happening and that she therefore shouldn't be liable for breaching her duties as a director." ..................

She said this ensured that publicly available information about a private company was correct to help people make informed decisions.
"For example, they may choose not to deal with a company with certain directors or certain main shareholders," Hogben said.

Maybe BR was always running the show (finances) Karen just concentrating on the designs and sales.

True, complete and correct could be the underlying issue ...imo

 

[SouthAussie]

Karen's friend who started the GoFundMe page for Sarah mentioned that Sarah and family members had no idea about the fund being started and hoped that Sarah wouldn't be embarrassed, as she was only trying to help her financially by doing so.

I thought that a specific reason had to be given to start a GoFundMe page ie..family losing everything in house fire...a child suffering terminal illness needing expensive medical treatment that parents cannot afford...farmers having to walk off their properties due to years of drought etc.etc?

One fund I know of was started so a mother could fly to Bali and see her son who (along with his pregnant girlfriend) had just brutally murdered his girlfriend's mother, stuffed her body in a suitcase, and tried to flee the country. Needless to say, it did not raise much money and she took her page down within a week.

People are reluctant to donate to a fund when the beneficiary is supporting a (potential) murderer.

The organiser of Sarah's GoFundMe page may have had the best intentions, but it wasn't a particularly smart move at this point in time. imo

 

[SouthAussie]

On March 21 this year, the company’s accountant filed paperwork recording Mr Ristevski had replaced his wife as director on February 23. Ms Ristevski remains the shareholder. Mr Ristevski certified the information in the form was “true and complete”.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s/news-story/b1b9688adeee6dbd340e17d35eec2de6

RSBM
BBM

You may be liable for debts incurred by the company at a time when the company itself is unable to pay those debts, as and when they fall due. This is because one of the fundamental duties of a director of any company is to ensure that the company does not trade while it is insolvent.

A company is insolvent if it cannot pay its debts when they become due. Common signs of insolvency include:

- low operating profits or cash flow from the business
- problems paying trade suppliers and other creditors on time
- trade suppliers refusing to extend your business further credit
- problems with meeting loan repayments on time or difficulty keeping within overdraft limits
- legal action taken, or threatened, by trade suppliers or other creditors over money owed to them.

http://asic.gov.au/for-business/you...s/directors-liabilities-when-things-go-wrong/

A caveat is considered to be "legal action taken or threatened by a creditor".
Bella Bleu was still trading, albeit only at its 2nd location.
And it sounds like the 2nd location was potentially insolvent, too - with possible low operating profits or cash flow.

.

 

[Puggle]

On March 21 this year, the company’s accountant filed paperwork recording Mr Ristevski had replaced his wife as director on February 23. Ms Ristevski remains the shareholder. Mr Ristevski certified the information in the form was “true and complete”.[/B]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s/news-story/b1b9688adeee6dbd340e17d35eec2de6

The Ristevski family was plagued with financial burdens and their Bella Bleu clothing boutique in Broadmeadows, in Melbourne’s north, closed down in February.

The Australian reported a caveat was lodged over their home by real estate group Vicinity and financial company Perpetual, meaning they can’t sell it or transfer it into another name.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/k...ths-before-disappearance-20160830-gr4beu.html

I know nothing about business, shareholders, directors all above my head.
Had a read of this as basic as it is.

The cost of small business company directors' ignorance
You may be risking your entire wealth if you're a company director for a friend or family member.
http://www.smh.com.au/small-busines...pany-directors-ignorance-20170126-gtyyun.html

"If the wife has been appointed as director, but the husband runs the SME day-to-day, the wife cannot later claim that she was not aware of what was happening and that she therefore shouldn't be liable for breaching her duties as a director." ..................

She said this ensured that publicly available information about a private company was correct to help people make informed decisions.
"For example, they may choose not to deal with a company with certain directors or certain main shareholders," Hogben said.

Maybe BR was always running the show (finances) Karen just concentrating on the designs and sales.

True, complete and correct could be the underlying issue ...imo

Yeah Im not savvy on this whole business stuff either.

Is the director of a company responsible for debts of the company?

Maybe like last time they faced difficulty with the jean company.... where he transferred the title of the house to Karen.... maybe he took over as director as a smart move again to protect Karen from being liable.

Seems as though whatever the disagreement with Broadmeadows shopping management ..... was resolved by the end of February anyway ..... so no existing caveat??

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/a-...i/news-story/114d6958f6ca1b4f6079839367de184a

 

[Puggle]

RSBM
BBM

You may be liable for debts incurred by the company at a time when the company itself is unable to pay those debts, as and when they fall due. This is because one of the fundamental duties of a director of any company is to ensure that the company does not trade while it is insolvent.

A company is insolvent if it cannot pay its debts when they become due. Common signs of insolvency include:

- low operating profits or cash flow from the business
- problems paying trade suppliers and other creditors on time
- trade suppliers refusing to extend your business further credit
- problems with meeting loan repayments on time or difficulty keeping within overdraft limits
- legal action taken, or threatened, by trade suppliers or other creditors over money owed to them.

http://asic.gov.au/for-business/you...s/directors-liabilities-when-things-go-wrong/

A caveat is considered legal action taken or threatened by a creditor.

Thanks SouthAussie.....seems you were typing the answer at the same gime as I was typing the question.

 

[Puggle]

The other thing ..... the media did exaggerate their debt issues.

The company that closed with 600K debt ..... it wasn't soley Karen's and Borce's.

It was a family business... I Remember reading Borce lost 299K and Karen lost 30K of investment ..... the rest of that money was other family members.

 

[Puggle]

That was 16years ago...

And even though the Warrant Brands companies have now folded .... how much profit did they make in all the years they had been trading before they closed?

 

[SouthAussie]

Thanks SouthAussie.....seems you were typing the answer at the same gime as I was typing the question.

Yes. Short answer is - you can't keep trading if you can't meet your bills and your cash flow is low. That is the Director's (Borce) responsibility. Stop trading. You are not allowed to go further and further into the hole, at the expense of the people who supply you the shop, the merchandise, the staffing requirements, the electricity, the phone, the water, the cleaning services ....

 

[SouthAussie]

The other thing ..... the media did exaggerate their debt issues.

The company that closed with 600K debt ..... it wasn't soley Karen's and Borce's.

It was a family business... I Remember reading Borce lost 299K and Karen lost 30K of investment ..... the rest of that money was other family members.

The Ristevskis were personally hit hard by the collapse. Mr Ristevski lost a $290,000 loan he had made to the business while members of his extended family lost $55,000 in loans. Mrs Ristevski was owed $30,000.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...t/news-story/7b0d23acfbce06c11b31e022a7b7161e

That left $225,000 owed to non-family members. The article went on to say that no-one got their money back.


So Karen maintains another company, trading as Bella Bleu. Then Borce takes over as Director, after a comfortable period of time. I'm not even sure if that is legal, when your previous company went under because it was insolvent, and none of the debt was repaid - and you didn't file for bankruptcy.

 

[inkpink]

The Ristevskis were personally hit hard by the collapse. Mr Ristevski lost a $290,000 loan he had made to the business while members of his extended family lost $55,000 in loans. Mrs Ristevski was owed $30,000.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...t/news-story/7b0d23acfbce06c11b31e022a7b7161e

That left $225,000 owed to non-family members. The article went on to say that no-one got their money back.


So Karen maintains another company, trading as Bella Bleu. Then Borce takes over as Director, after a comfortable period of time. I'm not even sure if that is legal, when your previous company went under because it was insolvent, and none of the debt was repaid - and you didn't file for bankruptcy.

I thought you had to go into bankruptcy which would then mean you have to wait 7 years to be able to start up another business or be the director of a company. If you don't file for bankruptcy then you will forever owe the debt and people can keep coming after you unless an agreement is made. I think!

 

[SouthAussie]

I thought you had to go into bankruptcy which would then mean you have to wait 7 years to be able to start up another business or be the director of a company. If you don't file for bankruptcy then you will forever owe the debt and people can keep coming after you unless an agreement is made. I think!

Yes, and yet The Australian didn't find any filing for bankruptcy. And no further paperwork suggesting the debt had been 'forgiven' or negotiated.

A liquidator was appointed to wind up the business in November 2000 and subsequent accounts filed with ASIC make no mention of creditors receiving any return.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...t/news-story/7b0d23acfbce06c11b31e022a7b7161e


I wonder if The Australian is insinuating that fraud may have been committed?