The Key Questions

  • Slide1
  • Slide2
  • Slide3
  • full screen slider
  • Slide5
image carousel by v7.4

The Key Question

This major fraud come down to the following question:

“Did a document described as a “Deed” and signed by a well known white-collar criminal lawfully amend the terms of an occupational pension trust established on the 23 December 1913?

The answer to this question is easily established as “No“, however the position of the following agencies is that a well known white-collar criminal has been able to use a fraudulent document to amend the terms of this occupational pension trust (ie to amend the Regulations of the Fund so that widows do not receive a survivorship pension and qualifying male officers only receive a benefit of 20% or less that that provided by earlier Deeds).

The Agencies holding the position that a fraudulent document signed by a white-collar criminal is legally valid are:

  • Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC)
  • Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA)
  • Australian Crime Commission (ACC)
  • Australian Federal Police (APF)

It should also be noted that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the case of fraud.

TheCommonwealth Ombudsman has however confirmed that ASIC should table the original Trust Deed and all instruments that purport to amend the terms of this trust before a Court established under Chapter III of the Australian Constitution so as to obtain a “definitive and binding determination of the terms of the occupational pension trust established on the 23 December 1913 in the State of South Australia.

It is important to note that Australia has no “Serious Fraud Office” whose sole task is to focus on serious cases of white-collar crime, even though all of the above four agencies have jurisdiction to deal with white-collar crime. This allows the above four agencies to deny jurisdiction even when they have jurisdiction to deal with any white-collar crime. Following the Trio Capital Superannuation Fraud a joint task force was established investigate similar case to the Trio Capital Superannuation Fraud.  The joint task force is known as the Heads of Commonwealth Operational Law Enforcement Agencies (HOCOLEA)

Membership of HOCOLEA includes the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission and the Attorney General’s Department.

The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police is the Chair of the Board of the Australian Crime Commission and the Chairman of ASIC also  sits on the Board of the Australian Crime Commission.

The attempted cover-up of this major fraud is covered in more detail here.

The reasons why the “Jarrett Deed“is void and fraudulent can be found here. More information on HOCOLEA can be founder here. More information of the topic of ÄSIC and APRA have a Case to Answer” can be found here.  

Another Important Question

If a trustee is supposed to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the trust then the obvious question is:

“Why have purported “Trustees” not sought advice and directions from the Court as to how how to properly construe the terms of the trust (Regulations of the Fund) when the “Jarrett Deed” is so obviously void and fraudulent?”

The High Court of Australia has emphasised the importance of the need for trustees to seek judicial advice in matters related to the administration of the trust, including the construction of the terms of the trust.

There are a number of “Red Flag” documents apart from the “Jarrett Deed” that would be a concern to any honest trustee that was acting in the best interests of the members and beneficiaries of the fund.

More information on a trustee’s right and duty to seek judicial advice and be found here.

The Compensation Question

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten MP, provided compensation to the victims of the Trio Capital Superannuation Fraud, when he was the Minister responsible for COMPULSORY superannuation in the previous Labor Government, however three Minsters responsible for superannuation in the incumbent Coalition Government have not agreed to pay compensation to victims of a similar superannuation fraud.

As Tom Petri so insightfully observed:”

“It’s not the original scandal that gets the most people into trouble. It is the attempted cover-up.”

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

This tab updated on 20 July 2015