The Senate has been asked to question ASIC over furious land banking investors claiming that the corporate regulator is going to cause them deliberate losses. Jamie McIntyre was invited to speak at the Senate Hearing to share insight into the land banking industry and submitted questions that he feels ASIC needs to answer.
ANR has included the questions, which forms part of the Senate Submission Hearing. ASIC is attempting to appoint provisional liquidators to the 21st Century Group’s land banking projects on Oct 8 in Melbourne’s Federal Court.
Questions ASIC need to answer according to the Senate Submission
- If a regulator is in fact honest, transparent, competent and effective, would it not be appropriate for it to inform an industry that overnight it has decided without notice or parliamentary approval to change the interpretation of the laws. For instance, in this case property options being suddenly deemed as a Financial Services Product requiring an AFSL, entailing such projects to be Managed Investment Schemes?
Should ASIC not provide a grace period allowing industry participants to license such projects or challenge ASIC’s interpretation of it?
- Shouldn’t the ASIC set out to resolve matters in a commercial manner that protects investors’ rights rather than deliberately destroy them?
- a) If individuals or companies are voluntarily cooperating, then why should ASIC be taking aggressive actions as a first resort, especially if matters at worst are over inadvertent breaches?
b) If legal advice states to companies that Property Options are not a financial services product, where and on what website should companies go to find out what ASIC’s interpretation is or does ASIC not disclose such important information?
If it doesn’t disclose it, please explain then how companies in the industry could possibly comply with an unknown not publicly disclosed ASIC interpretation that’s not based on law?
Does compliance now require an industry to read ASIC’s mind if and when it decides to change it overnight?
Is this not a matter of Property Options being a financial services product but a technicality or justification to abuse by ASIC to achieve its ulterior motives?
- Is it appropriate that the ASIC is effectively for hire by any competitor or lobbyists who wish to have their competitors targeted by simply making complaints about a particular company and get ASIC to target it?
- ASIC states it is appointing liquidators to protect investors? Why does ASIC make such a knowingly deceptive claim?
Is it because the corporate regulator knows it would normally get away with lame answers such as this, as most people are naive enough to think ASIC acts with good intentions, which is why they never bother to really question ASIC in depth to see that its statements simply don’t add up?
For instance, ASIC already know that liquidators will only cause massive losses to investors and charge exorbitant fees. In fact ASIC can’t deny this, as it has been running a separate investigation into the liquidation industry.
If ASIC is so certain it will protect investors, will it provide security to the court to ensure that if it’s wrong, the investors get compensated by the Government for the premeditated, deliberate and unnecessary actions caused by ASIC to create deliberate losses to investors?
Why does ASIC falsely claim it also needs to have liquidators appointed to investigate a case where proceeds have gone, especially when ASIC already knows this information and has been voluntarily provided such information- considering ASIC has more than enough powers to get all the info it requires without the need to appoint liquidators?
Therefore, why does ASIC continue to mislead the Senate and public by making such knowingly false statements publicly?
Is it because it knows that at least up until recently no one, neither the media nor the Senate would ensure to see if ASIC’s answers are actual valid?
Why should the matter not be allowed to go to trial first before liquidators are appointed, so they are only appointed if and when it’s proven in court that Property Options- despite no change in law are now a financial services product because ASIC recently decided they are?
Does ASIC compensate companies it targets wrongly?
Does it compensate for the public defamation ASIC cause companies and individuals due to allegations made by them, even when those allegations have no basis in law such as Property Options being deemed as a financial services product?
Is it because ASIC knows there has been no such law change, thus it would actually lose at trial and needs liquidators appointed now so the companies then can’t defend themselves at trial, resulting in ASIC’s victory by default?
Is this not circumnavigating the court’s ability to decide the matter fairly at trial?
Why did ASIC aggressively target a developer company, which offered to acquire two of the sites and covert them to a Managed Investment Scheme and enable investors to be refunded or converted, considering it would have resolved the licensing matter and protected investors?
Was it done as a warning for developers to back off, as ASIC is going to cause losses to investors no matter what so no other alternative solution will be considered?
Is it because ASIC is desperate to ensure investor losses to save face since it has launched an expensive taxpayer funded investigation based on fake stories planted in Fairfax Media (which allegedly some of its employees asked Fairfax to run), so it could deceive its budget department to receive the funding and pursue, not the land banking industry but Jamie McIntyre?
Is it not true ASIC needs investors to lose money in order to justify its actions because if the Senate were to find out that not a single investor has lost any money and all investors had protection secured by real estate and the only way they could lose is by direct and deliberate interference by the ASIC and this in fact is the real reason and the only reason ASIC wants liquidators appointed?
What’s ASIC’s real agenda in this matter?
It’s not about licensing, as the projects were offered to be licensed sometime ago by the 21st Century Group and the offer still stands.
It’s not about protecting investors, as investors already had protection until ASIC started trying to destroy their protection. Moreover, ASIC has prevented the 21st Century Group’s offer to make investor refunds several times.
So the vendetta by ASIC is on McIntyre.
Is it politically motivated or motivated by competing companies who have a lot to lose if land banking was made available to retail investors to share in its enormous profits rather than kept as a domain for the very wealthy?
Or is it simply Fairfax Media using the ASIC to character assassinate McIntyre for its commercial and political purposes?
Why does ASIC think the mainstream media does not investigate ASIC’s motives or actions in this matter and others?
Why does ASIC enjoy such a cosy relationship with Fairfax Media?
Is the cosy relationship one reason why ASIC hasn’t investigated Fairfax Media for losing half a billion dollars of investors’ money in its own failed property projects but rather pursue a Fairfax competitor in McIntyre over false stories? An example of that would be the ones planted in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald claiming $100 million or 2-3 times that amount had been lost, when in fact no losses have occurred in McIntyre’s projects and only $6million had been invested?
Is ASIC prepared to release to the public all its communications between them and Fairfax Media in this matter?
Is it appropriate for ASIC to be contacting banks such as NAB defaming McIntyre and making false and defamatory allegations to destroy his banking relationships?
Is it appropriate behaviour for ASIC employees to be stating at private parties in Melbourne that they’re out to get McIntyre and they could easily set him up?
Is it appropriate behaviour by the ASIC to not allow land projects to settle so it can maximise losses to and investors then try and blame McIntyre for these losses?
McIntyre acquired a site in 2013 in Shepparton Victoria off a failed property development and took over $4.7 million in option liabilities to protect investors.
These are clearly not the actions of an individual wanting to take advantage of investors, is it?
Yet, now ASIC is going to appoint liquidators to this project over $372,000 worth of Options sold to only 17 investors that has been offered to be refunded but ASIC won’t allow it and will now cause losses of over $5 million in this project to innocent investors who had been protected?
Why? Explain how the 10-25 cents in the dollar maximum, which an independent liquidator expert has said they will now get is better than the 100% refund offered?
ASIC is going to appoint liquidators to a project in Tarneit Melbourne that has only three option holders totalling $127,000, rather than allow these option holders to receive a 100% refund?
Why? And how is 0-10 cents in the dollar (as judged by independent liquidator experts) better than the 100% refund offered?
Two other projects had an offer for $4.7 and $4.4 million to sell and be converted to a Managed Investment Scheme.
The sale was on the basis of proceeds, which would consequently be used for refunds for those wanting to and the rest being converted to licensed MIS.
ASIC not only rejected such an offer, but also aggressively pursued this company making such an offer in the Federal Court to make it back down and withdraw their offer.
Was this done because ASIC would rather see investors lose their entire monies than make a deal- simply for their own benefit, as ASIC is desperate to create losses to justify its expensive investigation, get much needed publicity and pursue its agenda to destroy McIntyre?
Can the ASIC state it is and has acted with good intent, has been open honest and transparent with investors, the Senate, the media and the wider public?
Or does the ASIC have things it is desperately wanting to hide from the Senate and others, such as the processes and procedures it is using to effectively game the system and abuse its powers and cover its tracks?
Is ASIC engaged in deceptive conduct and is the ASIC habitually grossly incompetent?
Is ASIC’s culture one of- ‘let’s be seen to be doing our job by getting PR from press releases targeting companies to cover that over the fact we are incompetent at actually doing our job’?
Will the ASIC object to a Royal Commission and Government Audit into its actions?
Will ASIC object to the establishment of an independent body to investigate complaints made against it?
Will ASIC apologise to the investors it screws over continually, including land banking investors for the unnecessary losses it has knowingly and strategically caused?