Thursday, October 31, 2019

Singapore will plant more trees to battle climate change; but Singapore has yet to model tree falls that have caused fatalities ,despite having the data to do so.

by Ganesh Sahathevan

click to enlarge

For each tree pictured on the PRIME interface, NParks stores additional 

information about its size, species, health, and trimming history

Singapore's Straits Times has reported:
Singapore's plans to tackle climate change will include nature-based solutions such as restoring its mangrove areas and planting thousands of trees, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli said yesterday.
While it has mentioned engineering options before, this is the first time the Government has officially said that nature-based solutions to deal with climate change are on the cards.
Mr Masagos underscored the seriousness of the threat posed by climate change, calling it an existential challenge that nations could not afford to ignore. "Otherwise, citizens will take their cause to the streets and reason will fail to rule," he said, in his strongest comments on the subject to date.

However, Singapore is also known for trees that fall and kill, especially given its tropical storms .Climate change theory states that storms will become more frequent and intense as the Earth heats up,so one can expect more trees to be uprooted and cause even more fatalities
Storms will happen and trees will fall ,  but Singapore is probably the only country in the world that has the data required to determine where each and every tree will fall as a result of wind and soil erosion (caused by wind, water and displacement: Singapore, you see has actually catalogued every tree in a massive GIS database of some half a  million trees. 
With that type of data it is then quite easy to forecast where trees might fall, and act accordingly.This is a simple and relatively cheap exercise which has not been undertaken. Meanwhile, as with most of the climate change debate, the emphasis in Singapore has been on grand plans costing hundreds of billions that will , in the style of Marvel super heroes, save Singapore and the world.

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Amen Lee is part of Top Education Group's Controlling Shareholder Group: Fresh questions for NSW LPAB,AG Speakman ,and NSW Libs over issuance of Top's LLB license and political donations ; Peter Hall's position at ICAC increasingly untenable

by Ganesh Sahathevan

ICAC Chief Commissioner Peter Hall will head an inquiry that involves NSW Labor.

In his current inquiry into Chinese donations to the Labor Party ,ICAC Commissioner Peter
Hall QC(picture above) seems reluctant to go anywhere near the matter of Zhu Minshen and his Top Group,whose
donations to the NSW Liberal Party may have consequences for Hall's former colleagues at the NSW Bar and Bench who manage the Legal Profession Admission Board, the body that has provided Zhu the status of a law school vice chancellor.

While Liberal Party donor Zhu Minshen has been, this far, the focus of attention with regards Top Education Group and its license to issue LLB degrees, f Dr Amen Lee, former Executive Chairman of the Australia China Trade, Economic and Cultural Association's (ACETCA), appears to have had an equal even if less prominent role in the matter.

In August this year Amen Lee told ICAC:

"If I do attend these (fundraising) events they are paid for by Top Education or ACETCA. I have not and would not attend as an individual," Dr Lee said. Top Education is a company of which Dr Lee said he was a director and shareholder.

Top's 2019 Annual Report includes these disclosures: 

 The Company made history as it founded the very first Law School within a private higher education institute when both TEQSA and NSW LPAB officially accredited its degree program in Law.

Members of the Controlling Shareholders Group are parties acting in concert and on 13 October 2017, they entered into a confirmation deed to, among others, confirm that they have been acting together with an aim to achieving decisions at general meetings of the Company on a unanimous basis. Members of the Controlling Shareholders Group are the founding Shareholders or have invested in the Company at an early stage. Dr. Zhu and Mr. (Amen) Lee are the members of the Controlling Shareholders Group. As at 30 June 2019, all the members of the Controlling Shareholders Group together controlled 855,468,000 Shares. Under the SFO, each of Dr. Zhu and Mr. Lee is deemed to be interested in the Shares beneficially owned by the other members of the Controlling Shareholders Group.

As at 30 June 2019 Zhu controlled 38.16% of Top's shares, while  Amen Lee controlled 33.46%. 

The above suggests that there is some overlap between Top Group and ACETCA.
All of the above raises many questions as to who else supported Top's introduction into state and federal political ,and legal circles.

The LPAB and the AG Mark Speakman have refused to answer any questions about the license issued Top Group. In addition ICAC chairman Peter Hall has refused to call Minshen Zhu as a witness to the ongoing inquiry into Chinese political donations, despite Amen Lee's testimony. Hall would be required to call Zhu, and those responsible within the LPAB, which is chaired by the Chief Justice of NSW Tom Bathurst, and overseen by the AG, MArk Speakman. 
Hall's position is as chairman of the ongoing inquiry and of ICAC seems increasingly untenable. He should resign.

Monday, October 28, 2019

Good of Guan Eng to warn Malaysians of the "deep state who undermines the administration and cohesiveness of PH" but what of the the faceless ones within the MOF from the 1MDB linked KPMG and other consultancies ?

by Ganesh Sahathevan

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng.
FreeMalaysia Today has reported, quoting Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng:

“We must remain vigilant against those who openly wish to replace PH by undemocratic means or by those in ‘deep state’ who undermines the administration and cohesiveness of PH,“ he said and reiterated the party’s support for Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the transition plan which would see PKR president Anwar Ibrahim take over the reins at an unspecified date.

Meanwhile the issues raised in the story below remain unanswered:

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Malaysia's Minister For Finance appoints KPMG partner as "Special Officer",despite KPMG's contribution to 1MDB's losses

by Ganesh Sahathevan

ooi title
ooi2Kok Seng is the Partner-in-Charge for KPMG Northern Region.  He has extensive audit, accounting and consulting experience both in Malaysia and Washington, D.C., USA. His experience is not limited to audit assignments but also covers the various corporate exercises which include corporate advisory on initial public offerings, cross border acquisitions, special issues and share valuation.
He currently sits in the Penang State Shared Services and Outsourcing and Creative Multimedia Content Council.

KPMG's _proudly boast on their website:

Special officer to the finance minister, Dato’ Ooi Kok Seng, who was also present, had mentioned that the government had not yet received the funds from a one-off special dividend from Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) of RM30 billion which will be used for tax refunds announced during Budget 2019. “At the moment the funds are not in as it is only a few days past the new year. However, [the public] should not worry as the finance minister has given the assurance that full refunds will be made through the special dividend,” he said.

Dato’ Ooi Kok Seng is KPMG Head (North).He seems to have won the favour of the Penang Government and the DAP, despite KPMG's 1MDB history.This excerpt from the DAP website is indicative of their relationship:

The Penang state government has chosen the internationally renowned accounting firm, KPMG and its senior partner Chartered Accountant Ooi Kok Seng, for the verification exercise and to formulate the template and presented to the public. As an independent audit firm, KPMG is required to uphold the highest standards of professional standards ensuring that it complies with the principles of objectivity, independence and no conflict of interest before undertaking any task.

KPMG's contribution to 1MDB's losses has been well documented by this writer and by Sawarak Report (see stories below).

This conflict adds to that concerning PwC, Goldman Sach's auditor for some 37 years, who have nevertheless been appointed to oversee 1MDB.


Don't Ask Us! - KPMG Global's Astonishing Response on 1MDB

Don't Ask Us! - KPMG Global's Astonishing Response on 1MDB

1MDB is not anything to do with us - Global Chief of KPMG, John Ve
1MDB is not anything to do with us – Global Chief of KPMG, John Veihmeyer
For weeks the mantra of the chairman of 1MDB’s governing Advisory Board (Malaysia’s Prime Minister) has been that the management of the fund has been ‘cleared’, because the accounts were ‘forensically’ audited by international accountancy firms of global standing.
The firms who have given 1MDB clean bills of health have been the Malaysia branches of the accountancy giants Deloitte and KPMG.
Malaysia's top team at KPMG - no accountability to HQ?
Malaysia’s top team at KPMG – no accountability to HQ?
However, last week Sarawak Report demonstrated evidence pointing to a series of sharp practices on the part of KPMG during the audit process for the year ending March 2010.
These enabled 1MDB to conceal the loss of USD$700 million, which was the sum siphoned out of its joint venture with the little known oil company PetroSaudi.
Following this expose, the Sydney-based Malaysian investigative financial journalist, Ganesh Sahathevan, directly challenged the Global Chairman of the company, John Veihmeyer, to give his response to the allegations.
Sahathevan asked whether KPMG Global had been aware of any of the transactions relating to 1MDB outlined in the expose?  He added that:
“much of what has been reported was in the public domain since at least 2014, and hence there is also the question of why the Global Board took no action despite that fact?”
KPMG's international image - a massive global firm
KPMG’s international image – a massive global firm
The rapid response Sahathevan received from KPMG merits reading in full, because it puts paid to any assumptions that a local branch of this ‘global network’ of accountancy firms can be relied upon to maintain any sort of acceptable standard laid down by a central authority.
The General Counsel (top lawyer) for Mr Veihmeyer states that the corporate headquarters has no involvement in the matter, because the KPMG network represents nothing more than a ‘Swiss Cooperative’ of happy Helvetic brand sharers.
In short, he explains, no one at HQ is responsible for what their fellow franchise holders get up to. They are just there to help and advise when required.
Dear Mr Sahathevan
I refer to your email below addressed to Mr John Veihmeyer, Global Chairman, KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International).
I am the General Counsel of KPMG International and am responding on behalf of Mr Veihmeyer.
KPMG International is a Swiss Cooperative. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to bind or obligate any member firm.
KPMG International does not have any relationship with, or connection to, 1MDB”.
Yours faithfully
Tom Wethered
Malaysians and others, who had assumed that accreditation by KPMG represented some form of guarantee of high standards; quality control; centralised monitoring and disciplinary process to ensure high standards of accountancy practice must therefore stand disappointed.
According to KPMG’s top legal eagle, theirs is a form of franchise that has its cake and eats it at the same time.
Name bearers get to carry the brand, but without any form of accountability whatsoever:
“nor does KPMG International have any such authority to bind or obligate any member firm” [Tom Wethered]

Franchise without accountability?

If a Malaysian were to find dog meat in his McDonald’s burger in KL, he would expect to receive some response from the company HQ from under its golden arches in California – and doubtless he would.
By contrast, if KPMG Malaysia assists in the cover-up of a billion dollar heist of public money, it turns out that their global HQ in Amsterdam merely refers you to the cantons of Switzerland and their company’s new corporate structure, which is accountability free.

Having their cake and eating it 

Mr Wethered’s response that “KPMG International does not have any relationship with, or connection to, 1MDB”  represents a stark contrast, however, with the firm’s own publicity material.
The KPMG website and numerous articles make reference instead to the guarantee of quality that their brand lends to its affiliates across the world.
KPMG’s own website, under the banner line “Acting With Integrity”, declares:
“KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing Audit, Tax and Advisory services. We have more than 155,000 outstanding professionals working together to deliver value in 155 countries worldwide.”
On the other hand, scrutiny of this KPMG website soon makes plain that behind the fine words and sentiments there is indeed what appears to be a significant dearth of actual governance in this corporate structure:


We are constantly striving to uphold the highest professional standards, provide sound advice and rigorously maintain our independence….
The KPMG Global website concedes that its Head Officers provide policies, even regulations. But, there is no mention of enforcement.
The Global Board is the principal governance and oversight body. The key responsibilities of the Board include approving long-term strategy, protecting and enhancing the KPMG brand, and approving policies and regulations
There is no single line of accountability within the organisation.


Internationally, the affairs of KPMG are the responsibility of several bodies.

Aspirations, but can they be enforced?
Aspirations, but can they be enforced?
The controls that would lead the third party readers of its audit reports to feel comforted that quality control is enforced, appear to be missing, as indicated by the letter sent by KMPG’s top counsel.
Although there is a deluge of information about the values and quality that this network of affiliated firms is “striving to achieve”, there seems to be a lack of clear accountability within the structure of the organisation.
Without accountability and enforcement structures the high values and claims of integrity that pack out KPMG’s corporate messaging are surely effectively meaningless?
What better example than this latest abdication of responsibility over the scandal of 1MDB?

KPMG’s Positive PR

The legal counsel of KPMG seems therefore to be entirely correct in his statement that the global headquarters can wash its hands entirely of this little fracas over in Malaysia.
Star Interview with former Global Head Michael Andrew presented a very different state of affairs.
Star Interview with former Global Head Michael Andrew presented a very different state of affairs.
Yet, as Mr Sahathevan and others suggest, this is not the public face of the company.
Certainly, the ‘Swiss Cooperative’s’ corporate PR does not accurately represent this state of affairs and basic lack of governance.
Take for example the recent ‘Up Close And Personal’ article by Malaysia’s Star Newspaper about the role of the recently retired Global Chairman of KPMG.
In his interview Mr Andrew told the Star that clients in KL had the right to expect the same level of service as in Europe.
He also said that the company upheld its “duty to the broader community”:
KPMG’s brand, Andrew says, is all about being independent and objective because the firm and its employees has a public interest of responsibility to the broader community.
“We have to ensure that we uphold the governance standards in every country for our multi-national clients. They expect the same standards in Kuala Lumpur as they do in Johannesburg, Frankfurt or New York,” he says.
He adds that corporate governance defines the KPMG brand. “If we don’t meet the governance standards, then people won’t have confidence in our business. Integrity is at the heart of everything we do.
“This is ensuring that we understand that our duty is to the broader community than just to any particular client or particular transaction. Because if we do some work, which turns out to be incorrect, it’ll affect our global brand,” he says.
Every three months, KPMG employees are required to sign a declaration to maintain their independence around their audit clients. [The Star Online 10th Aug 2013]
However, despite that commitment to the broader community, in the case of 1MDB the public was never informed about the siphoning of $700 million in public funds out of the fund, thanks to KPMG Malaysia’s accountancy practices.
And now it turns out that KPMG Global regards itself as having no responsibility at all in the matter.
Were it to be more widely recognised that KPMG Global exerts so little quality control over its branches, the reputation on which this ‘cooperative’ relies might very well lose a lot of its lustre.

Husband & wife concern "China Matters" would not be taken seriously in Asia, but in Australia it has high level government support- Australian policy makers have clearly not heard of Lee Kuan Yew's Suzhou Experience

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Late Lee Kuan Yew inspecting the construction of the Suzhou Industrial Park

Australia's Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen has proudly declared on his website:

Today I’m leaving on a 4 day trip to Beijing, China to discuss a range of economic matters.

Over the course if the trip I am meeting with a range of academics, China policy specialists and representatives from global international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund.

This includes meetings with Jia Qingguo, Professor and Dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University and Dr Chu Shulong, a US-China relations policy expert.

I will also participate in a Roundtable on China’s international outlook, hosted by Dr Wang Huiyao, Founder and President of Centre for China and Globalization, the largest independent global think tank in China,

The trip is sponsored by the public policy initiative “China Matters” and I will be accompanied by the founding director and Chief Executive Officer of China Matters, Linda Jakobson.

China Matters appears to be a family affair. Its website is registered in the name of one Chris Lintz (see record below) who states on his Linkedin profile:

Currently assisting my wife Linda Jakobson with her public policy initiative China Matters Ltd. Please see for more details.

Specialties: China representative office management and establishment of representative offices in China. Fluent in Chinese (Mandarin). Extensive knowledge of China's machinery industry and oil & gas industries; industrial standards in China for the machinery industry, oil & gas industry and power sector (including nuclear).

Ms Jakobson's views on business with China are in the usual "must do more to trade with China, and must understand China better to ensure Australian commercial prosperity".

Some examples:

......Australians are missing opportunities because of reluctance to invest in China. Despite the fact that the consequences of China’s economic transformation have been apparent for a decade, Australia’s economic relationship with China continues to be largely transactional (resources or food products are shipped to China). Xi Jinping’s reforms merely reinforced goals set by his predecessor: to make growth consumption-driven rather than investment-led and reliant on the services sector rather than manufacturing. The overwhelming majority of Australia’s GDP derives from the services sector, but services only comprise about 20% of Australia’s exports

These views would be treated with derision by most Asian businessmen(many of them ethnic Chinese from Malaysia, Singapore)who have been venturing into China since at least the mid-90s. Their experiences have not been happy, and many would not today consider that they are "missing opportunities because of reluctance to invest in China'". Lee Kuan Yew's Suzhou Industrial Park was one of the most high profile examples of why any business would prefer to forego these "opportunities".

It is strange that the likes of Chris Bowen and other policy makers would rather ignore LKY's experience and choose instead the guidance of  consultants like "China Matters" when it should be obvious that profit seeking businessmen gambling their own money are likely to have better intelligence of these missed "opportunities".



Registry Domain ID: D407400000001230022-AU 
Registrar WHOIS Server: 
Registrar URL: 
Last Modified: 2018-09-04T23:12:41Z 
Registrar Name: TPP Wholesale Pty Ltd 
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: 
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: 
Reseller Name: 
Status: serverRenewProhibited 
Registrant Contact ID: LACH1374 
Registrant Contact Name: Chris Lanzit 
Registrant Contact Email: 
Tech Contact ID: LACH1374 
Tech Contact Name: Chris Lanzit 
Tech Contact Email: 
DNSSEC: unsigned 
Eligibility Type: Charity 
Eligibility ID: ABN 19601328018 

>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2019-10-28T09:12:07Z <<< 

Sunday, October 27, 2019

Vincent Tan's Berjaya Media, defended by NSW AG Speakman in financial strife, faces delisting :Echoes of Tan's Carlovers ,which Speakman insists was wronged despite NSW Supreme Court decisions

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Troy Grant MP
NSW AG Mark Speakman SC is considered a
future premier of NSW,

The Malaysian financial daily The Edge has reported over the weekend:

Berjaya Media Bhd has failed to find a white knight to regularise its financials, resulting in the suspension of the trading of its securities starting next Tuesday (Nov 5).
In an exchange filing today, the group, which publishes theSun newspaper, said it could be delisted subsequently on Nov 7, unless an appeal against the delisting is submitted before the date of suspension.
“Berjaya Media has failed to [enter] into a definitive agreement with a proposed white knight by Oct 20, 2019, as stipulated in Bursa Securities’ letter dated June 25, 2019 and the company's application for a further extension of time to enter into the definitive agreement and to submit its regularisation plan to the relevant authorities for approval had been rejected by Bursa Securities,” read the filing.
The group, in which tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan holds a 38.9% stake, will continue to exist as an unlisted entity upon the delisting, and that it will still be able to continue its operations and business, as well as proceed with its corporate restructuring and rewarding of its shareholders, according to the announcement.
Shares in Berjaya Media, which lapsed into PN17 status in June 2017,  were not traded today. The stock was last done at 20.5 sen on Oct 23, for a market capitalisation of RM48.19 million.
As reported earlier on this blog (see story below) NSW AG Mark Speakam SC and his officers at the LPAB, which is chaired by the Chief Justice Of NSW Tom Bathurst,  havw determined, more than 15 years later, that the landmark decision of the NSW Supreme Court NSW in the matter of Carlovers Carwash & Ors v Sahathevan that the decision was not about the rights of journalists but was rather a condemnation of this writer's work in investigating the business interests of the Malaysian businessman Vincent Tan Chee Yioun.
As reported below,  Speakman and his LPAB's defence of  Tan remains unexplained despite Tan's colourful history of interfering with Malaysia's judicial system.
Berjaya Media's  financial problems add to the questions surrounding  Speakman and his colleagues determination to defend Tan's Band his business interests, including Berjaya Media.
Speakman and his colleagues  have  chosen to associate themselves with some of South East Asia's more colourful businessmen and in doing so they have gone so far as undermine the two NSW Supreme Court decisions in the Carlovers matter


Tuesday, October 15, 2019

NSW AG Mark Speakman and his LPAB's defence of Malaysian businessman Vincent Tan remains unexplained despite Tan's colourful history of interfering with Malaysia's judicial system

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Troy Grant MP

NSW Libs received donations of $44,275 from TOP Education Grosup 

Earlier this year this writer explained how the AG NSW Mark Speakman and his officers at the LPAB, which is chaired by the Chief Justice Of NSW, Tom Bathurst, undermined the protection provided journalists, whistle blowers and sources by the Carlovers v Sahathevan ,Bond v Barry  decisions. 

The Carlovers' decision and the surrounding facts which were put before the NSW Supreme Court, which included this writer's highly publicised sacking from The Sun in Malaysia, included one of Malaysia's most colourful businessman, one Vincent Tan Chee Yiuon,who owned The Sun.

Tan has a history of judicial interference, which is even more widely publicised. In 1998 his interference with the judiciary led to the current Attorney General of Malaysia, Tommy Thomas being found in contempt of court. 

in 2008 Tan's interference with the judiciary, via his lawyer VK Lingam, became the subject  matter of a Royal Commission into judicial corruption. 

All of the above and more are matters of public record, but ignored by Speakman who seems intent on drawing ever closer to Asian businessmen of Chinese origin. 

Thursday, October 24, 2019

Would Huang Xiangmo be the only Chinese political donor with undeclared foreign income- Recipients (and their civil service supporters) should also be investigated if the ATO is serious about pursuing undeclared foreign income

by Ganesh Sahathevan
Chinese businessman Huang Xiangmo is living in exile in Hong Kong. Picture: Renee Nowytarger

Chinese businessman Huang Xiangmo is living in exile in Hong Kong. Picture: Renee Nowytarger

The Guardian and others have reported :
Chinese billionaire Huang Xiangmo has been ordered to declare all of his assets – everywhere in the world – to the federal court as the Australian tax office continues to pursue him over an alleged $140m tax bill.
In court on Thursday, Justice Jayne Jagot ordered Huang – exiled from Australia after his permanent residency was torn up by the government last year –disclose all of his assets, both in Australia and worldwide, by 11 November.

The decision by the ATO to pursue Huang's worldwide income, while technically correct, is rather strange for the ATO has not been known, in the past , to pursue the overseas assets of migrants like Huang who have accumulated assets in their home countries. Many would have been granted permanent residence on the strength  of that  wealth.Expecting that they would  declare the income from all their holdings outside Australia  would be as unrealistic as expecting them to  liquidate and transfer all their assets to Australia.  Put in another way, enforcing the law would be beyond the ATO's resources.

Be that all as it may,  if the ATO is in fact going to pursue worldwide income then all others with assets overseas, including  most if not all Chinese businessmen resident in Australia who have donated to the Liberals, Labor and any other political .party would also be targets.
Tracing their assets could be as  simple as interrogating the recipients, and the civil servants who have been involved in providing approvals to any of the Chinese donors concerned.
Interrogation plus an audit of the financial records of all of the above is likely to reveal the ultimate source of funds, and help determine if the source was foreign and from income that has not been declared.

Huang should not be singled out.



by Ganesh Sahathevan

Political donor wants his money back
PHOTO: Huang Xiangmo, second from left, wants his political donations back. (Supplied: Yuhu website)

The following have been extracted from Katzman J's Orders freezing 
Huang Xiamao's assets in Australia. This writer is not interested in Huang's tax liability but rather the arrangements Huang used to house his assets and his capacity to access cash.

It is important to note that Huang and his wife became residents for tax purposes in 2013.Under Australian tax law tax residents are liable to pay tax on their worldwide income. Given that, see how volatile Huang's taxable income has been between 2013 and 2015.

Then note that Huang had the capacity to move "tens of millions" in cash in and out of Australia, and in doing so keep in mind that taxable income need not equal cash; indeed it  seldom is in the case of large and complex business enterprise.

See also the references to loans from a family trust, and note the value of known assets in Hong Kong.

More information is required about the sources of Huang's cashflows  and this writer should be grateful for anyone who can add any information via the comment section or via direct message.

Having said that, it is hard to see how all recipients of Huang's money failed to make relevant enquiries about his source of funds.It does appear as if all concerned were happy to accept that he was, in his words, an ATM.

From the reasons for the decision: 

Changran  Huang , also known as  Huang  Xiangmo, and Jiefang  Huang  are husband and wife. For several years they lived in Australia and, since 1 February 2013, they were tax residents of Australia. On 4 December 2018 Mr  Huang  left Australia bound for the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Income Year:
Amended Taxable Income
Shortfall amount of income tax assessed
Shortfall Penalties
Increase in liability following Audit:
“SIC” is an acronym for shortfall interest charges

  1. AUSTRAC records show that between January 2016 and August 2019 Mr  Huang  transferred tens of millions of dollars into and out of Australia. That evidence shows a substantial excess of monies going out compared to monies coming in. It also shows that the amount of money transferred out of Australia since December 2018 exceeds the amount coming in by $46,749,253, nearly twice as much as the previous year.
  1. The records of the Huang Family Trust show that as at 30 June 2018 loans owing to the Huang Family Trust exceeded $165 million. While the last recorded creditor is named only as “unitholder”, the previous recorded creditor in an amount of over $108 million, is named as Mr Huang. Information acquired during the course of the audit indicates that that debt was not repaid. The loans appear to have been made to some of those Australian companies and trusts. The financial statements for the Austrump Family Trust, for example, record a loan from Mr Huang of nearly $12 million.
  1. Mr Huang also has substantial real estate holdings.
  2. On 31 March 2007 he acquired a property in Hong Kong with an estimated value of HKD25,861,500 (approximately AUD3,711,311). On 18 September 2015 he purchased a unit in Chatswood, NSW with an estimated value of $3,428,258. On 14 April 2016 he purchased a house in Chatswood, NSW with an estimated value of $3,275,128. As far as the evidence shows, none of these properties is subject to a mortgage.
  3. According to his last income tax return lodged with the ATO on 13 December 2018 he last resided in Australia at a property in Bay Street Mosman, NSW (the Mosman property). The Mosman property was purchased in the name of Mrs Huang for the sum of $12,800,000. Settlement took place on 29 January 2013. It is unencumbered.
  4. In addition to the Mosman property, Mrs Huang is also the owner of a property in Hong Kong which she purchased in about December 2018 for the amount of HKD520,000,000 (approximately AUD96,000,000). This, too, is apparently unencumbered.