Found Deceased Australia - Melissa Caddick, 49, Sydney, NSW, 12 Nov 2020 #6

[OwlHeart]

A few days ago, a (paywalled) article went up about John Ibrahim popping around to look at Melissa's house, two Fridays ago.
The journos who were waiting outside saw him. He 'greeted' the reporters. (He lives just around the corner.)
The article has been pulled down now - I just looked for it again - but I had copied the content anyway.

The only thing that I can find is a couple of google previews of it, and it is under a different title now. The title reflects what is in the link where the bit about John Ibrahim used to be.

View attachment 287355 View attachment 287356

The actual article also posted a pic of Melissa and AK, and a separate pic of Ibrahim.

Just thought maybe one or two people might be interested to hear that.

I saw that a few nights ago and was eagerly awaiting a new thread to appear so I could talk about it with the group, I've only just now found this one and I'm probably not going to post much, for various reasons.

 

[minime9]

If you look back to post #169 ... I tried to explain that the owner (in this case, Melissa) gets to negative gear it on her tax return.

Even if the parents have contributed towards the deposit?

Also is it really negative gearing when the owner is paying 100% of the mortgage?

 

[SLouTh]

That’s Dover Heights but I’m referring to Edgecliffe

I should explained my comment better.... What I should of said was:
If AG wasn't claiming a legitimate 1% in Dover Heights, and his name is on the title deeds of that property, then I don't believe he would attempt to claim "rent" on Edgecliffe...

I also hope MC's parents can get the money from the sale of their family home back ....

 

[SouthAussie]

Also is it really negative gearing when the owner is paying 100% of the mortgage?

Yes. The rent is not the mortgage. When less rent is received, and the mortgage payment made by the owner is more, that creates negative gearing.

 

[JLZ]

I should explained my comment better.... What I should of said was:
If AG wasn't claiming a legitimate 1% in Dover Heights, and his name is on the title deeds of that property, then I don't believe he would attempt to claim "rent" on Edgecliffe...

I also hope MC's parents can get the money from the sale of their family home back ....

Indeed, to all appearance he's behaving decently now that he understands the situation better.

 

[Gibbo214]

They didn’t get the pension they received a $4000 allowance from Melissa plus Melissa paid the mortgage and landlord insurance.

Even with that money they could have and probably did get a part pension.

 

[JLZ]

Yes. The rent is not the mortgage. When less rent is received, and the mortgage payment made by the owner is more, that creates negative gearing.

I think . . . not the whole mortgage payment but the interest component plus any other expenses connected with managing the property. Then the loss can be balanced against gains from other enterprises, reducing taxable income and hence tax payable.

 

[SLouTh]

Even if the parents have contributed towards the deposit?

Also is it really negative gearing when the owner is paying 100% of the mortgage?

If I understand your point correctly .... and with all due respect.....
You are trying to raise the point, that if MC was claiming negative gearing on the Edgecliffe Property, then this too was a fraudulent activity ...???? Another one to add to the list of fraudulent activities??

However, we have no way of knowing at this stage, what has been claimed in her tax return ..... so we don't really know.... unless someone has the figures??

 

[minime9]

Yes. The rent is not the mortgage. When less rent is received, and the mortgage payment made by the owner is more, that creates negative gearing.

Let me rephrase.

*Parents have paid a deposit towards property they live in
*MC takes mortgage out
*Investment loan is taken out
*MC pays ALL of the parents expenses. Rent / Mortgage, bills everything
*Tenants actually put deposit on property
*MC the landlord pays the mortgage & only “rent” she has received was from AG between 2017-2020 for 150k

IMO I don’t think AG should be able to claim that money back for the Edgecliffe property. It’s also debatable as to whether it’s really an investment property

 

[SouthAussie]

I think . . . not the whole mortgage payment but the interest component plus any other expenses connected with managing the property. Then the loss can be balanced against gains from other enterprises, reducing taxable income and hence tax payable.

Yes. Exactly. And if Melissa had an interest only mortgage (as many do on investment properties) then it would be the whole mortgage payment, because the payment would be interest only.

 

[SLouTh]

only “rent” she has received was from AG between 2017-2020 for 150k

We don't know what this "rent" money was actually for????? It may not have been for the Edgecliffe Property at all???
AG did use the Dover Heights residence as the address for one of his businesses.... it could have been for that???
Or it could have been called "rent" and was actually money for something else entirely ..... ??
JMO

 

[minime9]

If I understand your point correctly .... and with all due respect.....
You are trying to raise the point, that if MC was claiming negative gearing on the Edgecliffe Property, then this too was a fraudulent activity ...???? Another one to add to the list of fraudulent activities??

However, we have no way of knowing at this stage, what has been claimed in her tax return ..... so we don't really know.... unless someone has the figures??

I’m willing to take a punt that she’s negative geared the property & is claiming from the ATO.

I’d also dispute that those 2 “rent payments” that AG paid should be allowed to be claimed under negative gearing as there’s only 2 of those payments. That’s not paying rent on a regular basis, that’s paying a lump sum off your mortgage.

Also I now have mixed feelings on the parents.

 

[JLZ]

Let me rephrase.

*Parents have paid a deposit towards property they live in
*MC takes mortgage out
*Investment loan is taken out
*MC pays ALL of the parents expenses. Rent / Mortgage, bills everything
*Tenants actually put deposit on property
*MC the landlord pays the mortgage & only “rent” she has received was from AG between 2017-2020 for 150k

IMO I don’t think AG should be able to claim that money back for the Edgecliffe property. It’s also debatable as to whether it’s really an investment property

My understanding is . . .

Parents pay Melissa a large sum of money.
Melissa buys the property in her own name, taking out a mortgage on the property in the process. Parents have no equity in this property regardless of what they thought their large payment was for.
Melissa pays parents an allowance.
Parents pay Melissa rent.

 

[minime9]

Apologies if this has been discussed previously but this caught my attention & I thought it was worth looking into.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...and-the-missing-millions-20201225-p56q5b.html

Basically the bit I’m interested in is AG making 2 payments to MC & recording the payments as rent.
“What neither Mr Grimley nor his friend knew that afternoon was that both of them were victims of Melissa Caddick’s astonishing deception. They would soon find out she had stolen many millions of dollars from those closest to her.

Ms Caddick’s financial records, which were tendered in court, show Mr Grimley paid sums of $114,000 and $23,650 into his sister’s accounts. The payments are recorded as rent. Mr Grimley had been working as a consultant in Singapore in recent years but had returned to Australia earlier this year to have a medical procedure. Because of COVID-19 he was unable to return and was staying with his parents at an Edgecliff penthouse Ms Caddick bought for $2.55 million in 2016.”

Would be interested to know when these payments were made? Also was purely to pay rent, for tax minimisation purposes or something else?

So he’s paid almost 140k towards rent to MC from his bank account and the payments were recorded as rent.

 

[minime9]

My understanding is . . .

Parents pay Melissa a large sum of money.
Melissa buys the property in her own name, taking out a mortgage on the property in the process. Parents have no equity in this property regardless of what they thought their large payment was for.
Melissa pays parents an allowance.
Parents pay Melissa rent.

No the parents aren’t paying rent and even if they were it’s just shuffling money between them as Melissa is paying them an allowance

 

[minime9]

So he’s paid almost 140k towards rent to MC from his bank account and the payments were recorded as rent.

I should add the “rent” was paid in 2 large payments

 

[SLouTh]

I should add the “rent” was paid in 2 large payments

And ASIC froze AG's accounts too .......
So they must have been suspicious about something?????

 

[SouthAussie]

I should add the “rent” was paid in 2 large payments

You may not like it, but it is allowed. I have a client who pays rent once a year. The whole year at once. It is a legit rent payment of the correct amount. It is his choice to do that. And the landlord/owner loves it.

The ATO does not check for monthly, fortnightly, or weekly payments, or care. They are only interested in the annual records.

 

[minime9]

And ASIC froze AG's accounts too .......
So they must have been suspicious about something?????

I believe they froze the joint account they had for the Dover Heights property but yes that was frozen

 

[JLZ]

No the parents aren’t paying rent and even if they were it’s just shuffling money between them as Melissa is paying them an allowance

You may be right about the parents not paying rent. But how do you know? The records show at least one payment from BG in the amount of $5,582.74. I don't think it matters if it's money shuffling. For example if your employer pays you wages and then you buy a product from the employer in the exact amount of the wages, that doesn't mean you haven't earned an income.