Found Deceased Australia - Melissa Caddick, 49, Sydney, NSW, 12 Nov 2020 #7

[SLouTh]

Another new article here .... A small part below...

Melissa Caddick took $260,000 from parents for safekeeping, court told (smh.com.au)

Conwoman Melissa Caddick received more than $1.3 million from her elderly parents, including about $260,000 that they handed over for safekeeping to cover some of their future expenses, the Federal Court has heard.

Appearing remotely in the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday, barrister Sera Mirzabegian, acting for the Grimleys, said her clients were faced with the prospect of moving from the Edgecliff home, where they have lived since March 2017, “in circumstances where they are also grieving the loss of their daughter”.

“Like the investors, they too gave money to Ms Caddick and there is no suggestion whatsoever that they were involved in any of the activity that Ms Caddick was involved in,” Ms Mirzabegian said.

She said the Grimleys were also seeking to make a claim relating to about $260,000 in “safekeeping money” that was “provided by my clients to Ms Caddick and Maliver to hold on their behalf for the purpose of her distributing that money to them in smaller payments for living expenses”.

Ms Mirzabegian said ASIC was seeking to appoint receivers who would be permitted to sell Ms Caddick’s property for the benefit of investors, but there had been no consideration of how the Grimleys’ interests intersected with the interests of investors.

She said Justice Brigitte Markovic, who is presiding over the proceedings, could not be confident that only investor funds were used by Ms Caddick for her personal expenses when there was other money available to her including a “substantial” sum from her clients.

She also raised concerns the receiver would also be allowed to sell property that had not been bought with investor funds, such as jewellery the Grimleys had given their daughter as a gift.

But Farid Assaf, SC, for ASIC, said “we are not seeking to shut anyone out from their rights at all” and the parents’ interests could be protected.

He said this was a “clear case of fraud”, “a coronial inquest is not exactly quick”, and investors were “in a grey area” unless the court took action now to allow them to recover “at least part” of their investments.

“It is in the court’s power to take the first steps to appoint the receivers to unravel that fraud,” he said.

Mr Assaf said Ms Caddick’s company was insolvent and had “virtually no assets apart from some motor vehicles”.

If ASIC’s preferred course was not successful, he predicted a “flurry of litigation” against Ms Caddick’s estate by investors.

BBM

 

[Trooper]

'Melissa Caddick received more than $1.3 million from her elderly parents, including about $260,000 that they handed over for safekeeping to cover some of their future expenses, the Federal Court has heard'

Well... dear me.. handed over for 'safe keeping'... I suspect that admission is going to go a long way to sinking the Grimley's claims.. There are very few rational and legal reasons why a parent would hand over money to the adult child for 'safe keeping'.. very very few, and very very many dodgy reasons why it would be done.

(a) to dodge the pension threshold.

(b) to dodge residual taxes for either Grimley

(c). .. to invest without trace in Melissa's crazy.

(d), , to hide the money from other organisations, such as the ATO, the local council, any creditors, etc.

(e) quite a few more , will continue later.

 

[MsLilly]

I actually feel for her parents.

They've found out their daughter was a fraud, who used them, their lifelong friends , was raided by AFP, daughter goes missing , her foot washes up on a beach months later & now they have to fight for their home. That's alot for anyone to deal with...........

....and what about the investors? They trusted an old friend who stole (in some cases everything) from them, who maintained a friendship all the while.....total betrayal.

The parents, although out of pocket by $1.1m but they have the apartment whereas an investor (detailed in Court) invested $1.3m with nothing to show! Loosing a friend, being betrayed by that friend, and having your life savings stolen by the friend....now THAT IS A LOT TO DEAL WITH!

 

[MsLilly]

'Melissa Caddick received more than $1.3 million from her elderly parents, including about $260,000 that they handed over for safekeeping to cover some of their future expenses, the Federal Court has heard'

Well... dear me.. handed over for 'safe keeping'... I suspect that admission is going to go a long way to sinking the Grimley's claims.. There are very few rational and legal reasons why a parent would hand over money to the adult child for 'safe keeping'.. very very few, and very very many dodgy reasons why it would be done.

(a) to dodge the pension threshold.

(b) to dodge residual taxes for either Grimley

(c). .. to invest without trace in Melissa's crazy.

(d), , to hide the money from other organisations, such as the ATO, the local council, any creditors, etc.

(e) quite a few more , will continue later.

...and why pay some to MC and some to Maliver ....unless it was being hidden!

 

[drsleuth]

....and what about the investors? They trusted an old friend who stole (in some cases everything) from them, who maintained a friendship all the while.....total betrayal.

The parents, although out of pocket by $1.1m but they have the apartment whereas an investor (detailed in Court) invested $1.3m with nothing to show! Loosing a friend, being betrayed by that friend, and having your life savings stolen by the friend....now THAT IS A LOT TO DEAL WITH!

Did I say I didn't feel for the investors at all?..........nope I didn't.

As I've said before , there are no winners in this case.

Melissa betrayed / used everyone & anyone she could IMO

The person I feel for the most is her son

 

[drsleuth]

https://www.news.com.au/national/ns...s/news-story/11f0d87124651f423972fbfc6c13c825


“The amount they gave to Ms Caddick was more than $1.1m … on the express understanding, and we would say a common intention, that those funds would contribute to the purchase of the Edgecliff property and entitled them to … the right to live in it for the rest of their lives.”

Ms Mirzabegian said the Grimleys would oppose any move to pool all of their daughters' and Maliver’s assets together to repay creditors.

She said her clients gave their daughter more than $260,000 in 2017, intended to be returned to them in small instalments for living expenses.

“There was other money available to her and a substantial portion of those funds came from my clients,” Ms Mirzabegian said.

“The situation is much more nuanced and much more complex.”

 

[SouthAussie]

'Melissa Caddick received more than $1.3 million from her elderly parents, including about $260,000 that they handed over for safekeeping to cover some of their future expenses, the Federal Court has heard'

Well... dear me.. handed over for 'safe keeping'... I suspect that admission is going to go a long way to sinking the Grimley's claims.. There are very few rational and legal reasons why a parent would hand over money to the adult child for 'safe keeping'.. very very few, and very very many dodgy reasons why it would be done.

(a) to dodge the pension threshold.

(b) to dodge residual taxes for either Grimley

(c). .. to invest without trace in Melissa's crazy.

(d), , to hide the money from other organisations, such as the ATO, the local council, any creditors, etc.

(e) quite a few more , will continue later.

Yes, it seems doubtful that they would have any claim to the $260,000. Unless there is some kind of written loan agreement for the money (again, seems doubtful). And even if there was a loan agreement, it would just mean that they would be another creditor who might get a portion of that money back.

My guess is that they handed this money over so they could get a full seniors pension. Though, I believe that Centrelink looks at a person's previous 5 (?) years of bank transactions to make sure they are not hiding money ... before they start them on a seniors pension.

 

[Trooper]

Yes, it seems doubtful that they would have any claim to the $260,000. Unless there is some kind of written loan agreement for the money (again, seems doubtful). And even if there was a loan agreement, it would just mean that they would be another creditor who might get a portion of that money back.

My guess is that they handed this money over so they could get a full seniors pension. Though, I believe that Centrelink looks at a person's previous 5 (?) years of bank transactions to make sure they are not hiding money ... before they start them on a seniors pension.

The thing is.. this handing over of money to Melissa, for 'safekeeping' and to 'deal it out over time back to them' has all the hallmarks of money being laundered. ..

I'll go out on a limb and say that it is what it was for. Which makes me get a bit squinty eyed at the parents.. One reason we have banks is for safekeeping of money, and to deal it out to oneself over time.. Melissa was not a banker, nor would she have been offering any interest, or was it Govt Guaranteed should the Bank of Melissa fail.

Which, obviously, it has. That's why the Grimleys are in court asking for special consideration.

I actually don't think they will get anything back at all, really. I'll be surprised, if they do.

From what I can gather, all these claims about what was given to Melissa are verbal claims, not paper trail claims. They say they have receipts for some jewelry, .. that doesn't mean they didn't give it as a gift. They have to prove they gave it to Melissa for 'safekeeping'.

And, perhaps, the son has a greater claim on that stuff... Haven't heard his legal representative give an outline of the son's expectations...

 

[TruthIsStranger]

If my daughter had done this to other people, I would be very ashamed of her, and at myself for having giving birth to her and raised her, seemingly without morals. So ashamed, in fact, that I wouldn't dream of trying to get back money that was obviously being hidden from the government. Looks like the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree does it now? Just like MC had a lot of nerve to do what she did, her parents have a lot of nerve a) trying to get back money that they were obviously hiding in some way, b) trying to be the first ones to get their money back. Their greed is such that they're not even worried about legal repercussions, or the greed outweighs the fear. Seems like the same thing happened with MC--greed outweighed fear. They should be the last people to get back any funds.

 

[Patriciaf]

She was a heartless monster.

The parents playing the old and grieving card when their daughter stole from them and placed them into this position. They are fighting for $1.1m ....what about the other Investors who lost more then $20m .... and some are also in the same age bracket as the parents....and many of the investors have lost their future lifestyle which was stolen by MC.

 

[SouthAussie]

<RSBM>
They should be the last people to get back any funds.

I think it all depends how good their lawyer is. The thing that is uneven about this is that there seems to be no-one arguing against their lawyer's demands. Which, to me, is why the family are getting so much ... as in, the ridiculous amount of investors' money that AK was allotted for living expenses (he seriously should have got zero imo). And his continued living in the house that should have been sold by now.

Once that attorney for the group of investors started kicking up a stink, AK's allotment soon ended.

 

[Trooper]

'Appearing remotely in the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday, barrister Sera Mirzabegian, acting for the Grimleys, said her clients were faced with the prospect of moving from the Edgecliff home, where they have lived since March 2017, “in circumstances where they are also grieving the loss of their daughter”.


This is a very moot point that the Grimleys bring up, via their barrister. They have, in fact, been living in a property which they don't own, their son doesn't own, their daughter did not pay the mortgage off on, and the estate has not paid it since her exit from this life.

All good thing s come to an end... They are not entitled to this apartment, notwithstanding that they have lived in it, but only for a short time, comparitively.. They lived in their home down in the Sutherland Shire for many more years, and had no trouble making the transition to Edgecliff, so they are able to actually move house and survive.

And their grief is justified, but grieving can be done anywhere , really. It doesn't need an Edgecliff apartment, which no one is paying for to do it in.

 

[Patriciaf]

I am sick of this family's sense of entitlement. They lived the high life on stolen investor money and seem to want to continue doing so. They act as though they are the only old people who lost their money. How many of her investors are in that same category and gave her more money than they did? This sense that they are special and owed something is really galling. How about everyone stop the pity party and consider what has happened to other people who were conned by the conwoman. And, please, stop calling her a "business woman"!

 

[SouthAussie]

I am sick of this family's sense of entitlement. They lived the high life on stolen investor money and seem to want to continue doing so. They act as though they are the only old people who lost their money. How many of her investors are in that same category and gave her more money than they did? This sense that they are special and owed something is really galling. How about everyone stop the pity party and consider what has happened to other people who were conned by the conwoman. And, please, stop calling her a "business woman"!

On this forum, Melissa's family are considered victims also.

 

[SouthAussie]

'Appearing remotely in the Federal Court in Sydney on Thursday, barrister Sera Mirzabegian, acting for the Grimleys, said her clients were faced with the prospect of moving from the Edgecliff home, where they have lived since March 2017, “in circumstances where they are also grieving the loss of their daughter”.
<RSBM>

BBM & UBM Just to make a quiet point.

Unfortunately, it seems that the investors may have to spend money on lawyers to fight to get the maximum return that they can achieve.
And that seems quite unbalanced .. because what would be the result of that? Ultimately, less money in their pockets - once they have paid the lawyers.

 

[SLouTh]

The files and affidavits have been updated
ASIC v Caddick - Online file (fedcourt.gov.au)

 

[Patriciaf]

On this forum, Melissa's family are considered victims also.

They are victims, but, so are the other 70+ investors, many of whom are just as old, and they deserve equal respect and sympathy.

 

[SouthAussie]

They are victims, but, so are the other 70+ investors, many of whom are just as old, and they deserve equal respect and sympathy.

No worries. No-one is saying that they don't. And they have received a multitude of attention in the previous 6 threads.

Right now we have been discussing current MSM reporting, as this is a discussion board that is geared around what is reported in MSM.
.

 

[Redrunner]

Caddick’s parents fear losing home: court


“The amount they gave to Ms Caddick was more than $1.1m … on the express understanding, and we would say a common intention, that those funds would contribute to the purchase of the Edgecliff property and entitled them to … the right to live in it for the rest of their lives.”

Ms Mirzabegian said the Grimleys would oppose any move to pool all of their daughters' and Maliver’s assets together to repay creditors.

She said her clients gave their daughter more than $260,000 in 2017, intended to be returned to them in small instalments for living expenses.

“There was other money available to her and a substantial portion of those funds came from my clients,” Ms Mirzabegian said.

“The situation is much more nuanced and much more complex.”

Yes, it is more and more complex as time goes by.

 

[Via Marple]

BBM & UBM Just to make a quiet point.

Unfortunately, it seems that the investors may have to spend money on lawyers to fight to get the maximum return that they can achieve.
And that seems quite unbalanced .. because what would be the result of that? Ultimately, less money in their pockets - once they have paid the lawyers.

Yes it appears this barrister hired by the G's is a top ranked in this field.
Sera Mirzabegian | Eleven Wentworth