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

[Estelle]

Agree South Aussie
This all irritating, especially Melissa’s funds vs Maliver’s and what can be liquidated to provide returns but as the judge has already said I believe she doesn’t want it all washed together. The accounting of this is all so messy in and out I’m not sure how it will be untangled. What went into her accounts vs business and where did it all go? Are her parents actually investors or just misguided family?

Will it just be fought over until there is nothing left? And why such a fight over what ostensibly seems to be two cars, a shiny necklace, some frocks and the remainder of what is left after the two mortgages less costs divided among many, many people??

What lessons are we supposed to learn from this case? That crime pays otherwise it all goes to the lawyers and liquidators?

 

[Estelle]

I thought she was also open to considering other investors.

Well it seemed to me that the arguments were in favour of the parents.

 

[drsleuth]

Melissa Caddick's childhood friend felt betrayed after handing over life savings to fraudster, court told


Katherine Horn went to preschool and high school with Ms Caddick and lived three doors down from her in the southern Sydney suburb of Lugarno.

In an affidavit to the Federal Court's investigation into her business dealings, Ms Horn described Ms Caddick as a trustworthy, "long-term, close friend" with whom she began investing in 2012.

Ms Horn ultimately paid $579,518.60 to Ms Caddick and only received $15,000 back.

 

[Via Marple]

Melissa Caddick's childhood friend felt betrayed after handing over life savings to fraudster, court told


Katherine Horn went to preschool and high school with Ms Caddick and lived three doors down from her in the southern Sydney suburb of Lugarno.

In an affidavit to the Federal Court's investigation into her business dealings, Ms Horn described Ms Caddick as a trustworthy, "long-term, close friend" with whom she began investing in 2012.

Ms Horn ultimately paid $579,518.60 to Ms Caddick and only received $15,000 back.

One more quote here:

Some of that money ended up in Ms Horn's investment portfolio and she said her mother also transferred $500,000 to Ms Caddick to manage the portfolio.

So, there is at least another elderly parent, who had given MC her savings.

Will she be short changed because she does not have a barrister to argue for her?

 

[Trooper]

Well it seemed to me that the arguments were in favour of the parents.

Melissa Caddick's childhood friend felt betrayed after handing over life savings to fraudster, court told - ABC News

Now we get to the guts of the matter, what we've heard so far is the heart rending story of the parents and brother, for whom a very attractive life style , being ripped out from under their feet , should be designated back to them at the expense of the robbed victims of Melissa.. ..And that is what their barrister is paid to do, to persuade the judge of the merits of his/her client's case, whatever the substance of it may be. The defence, (that is, the Grimley cohort ) has first dibs on laying the case out... now it is the claimaints turn.

I presume the ASIC barrister will trot out about 5o people with stories to tell of how the extraction of their life savings was processed by Melissa, based on old friendships and solid social contacts..

I don't know if this Ms Horn is the same one who persuaded her brothers to invest their life's work as well.. She said in the 60 mins episode that all up , that family in itself had donated $5,000.000.00 to the Bank of Melissa.

These stories are going to go a long way to shading whatever the Grimley's narrative was attempting to convey...

 

[Trooper]

One more quote here:



So, there is at least another elderly parent, who had given MC her savings.

Will she be short changed because she does not have a barrister to argue for her?

The judge will adjudicate rationally , for all the claimaints... Some of the investors formed a conglomerate and instigated a class action, I think there is two or three different groups, all with their own barrister, and eventually, they will join up, it happens quite often , around the 4th or 5th day of trial, when it can be seen rather clearly which way the wind is blowing.. ( You don't have to be a Weatherman to know ..... ) ...

But to underline, everyone is going to be shortchanged, in the most major way in this matter.. Every single person whom Melissa touched, with her fiscal fingers, is going to be shortchanged to the utter maximum degree. No one is going to win anywhere near where they believe they should. And some probably ought to win, but that will make no difference.

 

[Trooper]

My accountant pal says that the ATO will tax all and every cent of Melissa's income unless someone can show that Melissa made any business OUTGO payments.. It seems not, since not one of those 'CommSec' papers she sent out were real, they were all fraudulent., I don't know what the tax on 23 mill will be, no doubt they'll whack it with the highest ratio...

Then the ATO will tax the investors on what they claim they gave to Melissa, then the ATO will tax whatever portion of any piddling amount that can be found and shared out to the investors on an 'Income Yearly Earned' basis. .. that is they 'll be taxed on it as if it were a one off windfall 'earned' in one year.........

 

[Redrunner]

My accountant pal says that the ATO will tax all and every cent of Melissa's income unless someone can show that Melissa made any business OUTGO payments.. It seems not, since not one of those 'CommSec' papers she sent out were real, they were all fraudulent., I don't know what the tax on 23 mill will be, no doubt they'll whack it with the highest ratio...

Then the ATO will tax the investors on what they claim they gave to Melissa, then the ATO will tax whatever portion of any piddling amount that can be found and shared out to the investors on an 'Income Yearly Earned' basis. .. that is they 'll be taxed on it as if it were a one off windfall 'earned' in one year.........

Exactly. Crime does not pay. Being a liquidaor or barristers is quite lucrative. IMO.

 

[stormbird]

New affidavits in the online file: ASIC v Caddick - Online file

 

[stormbird]

One amusing thing in the affidavit of Witness E1:

Witness E1 and Husband had successfully applied for their own Australian Financial Services Licence. One day in a phone call (before allegedly later going on to use the AFSL anyway without their knowledge or authorisation) Melissa asked if they would permit her to operate under their licence. The witness replied, '"Let me talk to [Husband], I will think about it." Witness and Husband had already decided that they didn't want other advisers operating under the licence, so my guess is that Witness E1 was just trying to find a polite way of saying no. Husband found another way of saying it:
Witness E1 (p.7: 38): "After the phone call, I spoke to my husband about the conversation. He said words to the effect, "No bloody way"...


- My paraphrasing from Affidavit of Witness E1 (PDF, 4.2 MB), filed 05 July 2021, in the list at ASIC v Melissa Caddick - Online File
or this link goes direct to the PDF.

 

[Trooper]

Redacted-affidavit-of-Susan-Margaret-Coetzee-sworn-31-March-2021.pdf (fedcourt.gov.au)


How very , very smoothly Melissa operated in getting all these people to shift their superannuation accountancy relationship right on over to Melissa's pal in the firm known as Superannuation Accounting, from whom no one has heard from as yet, .........

There is a glaring, howling, screaming problem that was rectified and made operational the moment these clients placed their business in the combo of Melissa, and Superannuation Accounting......

 

[MsLilly]

Interesting .... the Grimley’s legal representation is on a pro bono basis (stated in the Affidavit of Bruce Gleeson 25/6/21)!

The G’s claim they have paid $90k for renovations of the property and Strata fees ...but I recall Body Corporate fees being listed as a cost in the Budget in AG’s affidavit 8/12/20.... also, if they chose to renovate the property why is it now part of their entitlement?

 

[Trooper]

Interesting .... the Grimley’s legal representation is on a pro bono basis (stated in the Affidavit of Bruce Gleeson 25/6/21)!

The G’s claim they have paid $90k for renovations of the property and Strata fees ...but I recall Body Corporate fees being listed as a cost in the Budget in AG’s affidavit 8/12/20.... also, if they chose to renovate the property why is it now part of their entitlement?

I was surprised to read that, re the pro bono stuff, Bruce Gleeson, you will recall was the original Liquidator, the Receiver, appointed by the court...

I could find no record of their Barrister 's firm being engaged in any pro bono work at all, but I'll take it now that Bruce has said it!.. Maybe he meant they had pro bono up to and until the court case actually started... I think the Grimleys expected the Receiver to dole out the goodies, but that did not eventuate since no one could agree on the one thing. The investor's objected, and wanted the Grimleys out of Edgecliff, and the apt. sold and the mortgage paid up and the remainder added to the pool owed to the investors..

There is nothing like a Sydney scramble for money in the court.

 

[MsLilly]

I was surprised to read that, re the pro bono stuff, Bruce Gleeson, you will recall was the original Liquidator, the Receiver, appointed by the court...

I could find no record of their Barrister 's firm being engaged in any pro bono work at all, but I'll take it now that Bruce has said it!.. Maybe he meant they had pro bono up to and until the court case actually started... I think the Grimleys expected the Receiver to dole out the goodies, but that did not eventuate since no one could agree on the one thing. The investor's objected, and wanted the Grimleys out of Edgecliff, and the apt. sold and the mortgage paid up and the remainder added to the pool owed to the investors..

There is nothing like a Sydney scramble for money in the court.

The Affidavit has the letter from Baker McKenzie that stated they were acting of behalf of the parents on a pro bono basis.

 

[drsleuth]

My head hurts after reading some of these, jeez Louise alot to be said for having a simple life

 

[MsLilly]

My head hurts after reading some of these, jeez Louise alot to be said for having a simple life

Agree....it does make your head hurt...it also makes me feel very sorry for the people whose lives have been ruined

 

[SLouTh]

The Affidavit has the letter from Baker McKenzie that stated they were acting of behalf of the parents on a pro bono basis.

Just because the G's solicitor is "pro-bono" doesn't necessarily mean their Barrister is pro- bono. JMO
However, they must feel they have a good chance of a reasonable amount of $ being returned ....

 

[Trooper]

My head hurts after reading some of these, jeez Louise alot to be said for having a simple life

It has to be said, that Melissa put as much work into her fraud as would have taken to run a kosher financial service. Looking back on some of the stocks she said she had obtained for her clients, they really could have all been multiple millionaires by now, each and every one, and Melissa adored and worshipped to the end of her long and highly successful life..

But no. Some people actually prefer the bent life.

 

[SLouTh]

My accountant pal says that the ATO will tax all and every cent of Melissa's income unless someone can show that Melissa made any business OUTGO payments.. It seems not, since not one of those 'CommSec' papers she sent out were real, they were all fraudulent., I don't know what the tax on 23 mill will be, no doubt they'll whack it with the highest ratio...

Then the ATO will tax the investors on what they claim they gave to Melissa, then the ATO will tax whatever portion of any piddling amount that can be found and shared out to the investors on an 'Income Yearly Earned' basis. .. that is they 'll be taxed on it as if it were a one off windfall 'earned' in one year.........

Back in the first part of the thread, that was subsequently deleted..... there were payments from MC to the ATO listed in the Affidavits ...... some quite large amounts IIRC .....

I remember thinking it odd, but assumed she was "keeping up appearances" with the ATO, so as not to get "caught out" ...
IMO

 

[SLouTh]

I presume the ASIC barrister will trot out about 5o people with stories to tell of how the extraction of their life savings was processed by Melissa, based on old friendships and solid social contacts..

I'm not sure if it is too late for this to occur??? As the latest hearing was scheduled to be the "Final Hearing" before the Judge handed down her ruling on the matter....

I think at least one investor story was given on the first day (by ASIC defense) .... however, the media only touched on it briefly ....