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.

END









 

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
SIC:
Increase in liability following Audit:
2013
$10,863,286
$4,894,867.05
$2,447,433
$1,535,944.20
$8,878,244.25
2014
$124,413,338
$57,862,280.25
$28,931,140
$13,984,713.58
$100,778,133.83
2015
$38,132,677
$18,472,535.95
$9,236,267
$3,150,416.91
$30,859,219.86
TOTAL
$173,409,301
$81,229,683.25
$40,614,840
$18,671,074.69
$140,515,597.94
“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.

Huang Xiangmo is not ranting & raving,and he is not stupid: Claims of persecution by Australian "deep state" obviously not aimed at politicians, civil servants the likely targets (and not just the ATO)

by Ganesh Sahathevan


The South China Morning Post has reported that "Chinese billionaire Huang Xiangmo claims persecution by ‘dark forces of Australia’s deep state’".

Huang has already demanded that the politicians who he funded return his donations, so the "deep state" comment is probably not aimed at them. He has named the ATO and ASIO, but he has not stopped there.He has gone on to  accuse "deep state" players, and this is quite likely a reference to any number of  Australian federal and state civil servants he has had to deal with over the years. 

Australian civil servants both state and federal have been shown to have gotten themselves involved in the whole matter of Chinese interference in Australian politics. 


Some seem determined to ingratiate themselves with the Communist Party Of China, others in promoting the interests of their political maters.Whatever their motives, the veil of secrecy that protects them needs to be removed; meanwhile it does look as if Huang Xiangmo is threatening to do exactly that.

END 




Sunday, October 13, 2019

Communist Party Of China interference: What of the civil servants? TEQSA,LPAB dealings with Zhu Minshen requires stripping away of civil service secrecy,civil servants must be investigated like politicians

by Ganesh Sahathevan



#TEQSA is proud to be celebrating the Mid-Autumn Festival and 70th Chinese National Day, with #students and #scholars from

and
tonight

Image
5:40 PM · Sep 24, 2019 from Melbourne Town Hall

▲ party scene
Ms. Emily Goode, Representative of Mr. Anthony McClaran, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Institute of Higher Education Quality Management and Standards (TEQSA) attended this celebration of the Communist Party Of China's China 70 celebrations

China's  interference: LPAB, TEQSA and universities show that Australia's civil servants warrant  further scrutiny ;public service secrecy cannot be a shield against decisions made in China's interests

While much of the public scrutiny of China's interference in Australia's affairs has concerned politicians, elected representatives and to a lesser extent the universities little if any attention has been paid to Australian civil servants who have proven not immune to China's charms.

The usual civil servant's appearance of impartiality has been set aside, for example, by TEQSA and its senior officers who participated in the recent China 70 (70th Chinese National Day) celebrations organised by the Communist Party Of China.


TEQSA and its chairman Nick Saunders have refused to explain why any of the above was appropriate, especially given the fact that TEQSA has not been known to celebrate any other foreign country's national day in this way.


TEQSA,along with the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board have also been responsible for favouring Zhu Minshen, who has been closely linked to the Communist Party Of China, with the first and only license issued a non-university to grant LLB degrees that qualify holders for admission to practise law in NSW, and Australia.


The LPAB has as a consequence also granted Zhu powers under the Legal Profession Admission Rules to effectively determine that anyone who opposes him or his views, including his views of China, is denied admission to practise law in Australia.


The LPAB, and the AG NSW Mark Speakman who oversees the LPAB have recently renewed Zhu's liceneses and resisted all attempts at having them disclose the details of the approvals provided Zhu.There is evidence that Speakman has tabled in the NSW Parliament LPAB annual reports that have not disclosed fully the circumstances surrounding the unique and singular treatment accorded Zhu.


Under the circumstances the secrecy allowed the civil service so that it might fearlessly provide frank and impartial advice to the government of the day ought to be stripped away. 

TEQSA and the LPAB are of course not alone.Other examples include the civil servants responsible for approving the sale of the Port Of Darwin to Landbridge of China,and those who approved the sale of defence contractor John Holland to China Communications Construction Company. 

END
See also

China-HK protest on Australian campuses but not at Minshen Zhu controlled campuses-Are legal profession admission rules being used (again ) to suppress complaints and protests

Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Her Excellency Gov Beazley has a duty to ensure her government's books accurately reflect Her Excellency's words, acts, legal rights and liabilities (especially when the claims are made by a stat body chaired by the Lt Gov, the CJ NSW Tom Bathurst)

by Ganesh Sahathevan

R-L: Susan (Bastick) Carter Director, Law Extension Committee (LEC) at University of Sydney with Her Excellency the Honourable Margaret Beazley AO QC Governor of New South Wales and Siew McKeogh, Executive Officer of the LPAB. The LPAB oversees the LEC's Diploma in Law as it does the College Of Law. These associations have resulted in a wagon fort like protection of one another, to the point where statutory reporting obligations are being ignored, to the detriment of students and the legal profession in NSW.


\


The article below ,published by The Australian, has been in the public domain since January this year.It has not  the refuted and commented on in any way by the NSW Legal Professions Admission Board, which is chaired by the Chief Justice NSW Tom Bathurst, who is also the Lieutenant Governor.

The information includes reference to what the LPAB has described as defamation of the Her Excellency, Governor Margaret Beazley who was the relevant time President Of the Court Of Appeal NSW. LPAB documents state that the Governor was defamed by this writer by his publication of the Gulen movements well documented influence peddling here and overseas, among members of the judiciary who have included Her Excellency.

While the LPAB and Her Excellency are entitled to their view, that view needs to be clearly articulated in the LAPB's annual reports, which have already been shown to be deficient with regards entities under its purview.

The issue has also drawn the attention of successive ambassadors from Turkey.

END










Bizarre claims used to deny lawyer certificate
BEN BUTLER, EXCLUSIVE
812 words
17 January 2019
AUSTLN
Australian
14
English
© 2019 News Limited. All rights reserved.
The body overseen by Chief Justice Tom Bathurst responsible for deciding who can practise law in NSW relied on a wildly defamatory Malaysian blog depicting ABC journalists, former British prime minister Tony Blair, financier George Soros and others as part of a global conspiracy when deciding to deny a would-be solicitor a certificate to practise.
Chief Justice Bathurst and Legal Practitioner Admission Board executive officer Louise Pritchard declined to answer The Australian’s questions about how the article came into the board’s hands and why its members felt the conspiracy-laden material could be relied upon as part of a decision to deny Sydney man Ganesh Sahathevan admission as a lawyer. Nor would either say which of the 10 members of the LPAB, three of whom are serving NSW Supreme Court judges, was on the deciding panel.
Ms Pritchard has left her role at the LPAB since The Australian began making inquiries in September. The article, published in December 2017 on website The Third Force, accuses Mr Sahathevan of engaging in a conspiracy to attack then Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak.
Mahathir Mohamad, who returned as prime minister after toppling Mr Najib in elections held last May, is also smeared as a participant in the globe-spanning conspiracy.
Mr Najib was under pressure at the time over the country’s sovereign wealth fund, 1MDB, which the US Department of Justice says has been looted of billions of dollars that was spent on property, art, jewels and the Leonardo DiCaprio film, The Wolf of Wall Street.
Malaysian authorities have charged Mr Najib with dozens of corruption offences that could attract decades in jail over his role in the 1MDB scandal, which allegedly included the flow of about $US1 billion through his personal bank account.
The article’s author, Malaysian political operative and Najib loyalist Raggie Jessy, also accused Rewcastle-Brown, Stein and Besser of receiving money, totalling millions of dollars, to participate in a Four Corners program exposing the 1MDB scandal that aired on the ABC in March 2016.
There is no suggestion any of Mr Jessy’s bizarre allegations are true. However, the LPAB cited the piece when denying Mr Sahathevan admission as a lawyer in an undated and unsigned set of reasons sent to him on August 3 last year.
It used the article as evidence in a passage dealing with legal conflicts between Mr Sahathevan, who has largely worked in the past as a journalist, his former employer, Malaysia’s Sun Media Group, and the company’s owner, tycoon Vincent Tan.
In that context, the board said the Third Force article reported “that Mr Sahathevan was investigated for blackmail, extortion, bribery and defamation”. While the article claims that blackmail, extortion, bribery and defamation “are but some of the transgressions many from around the world attribute” to Mr Sahathevan, The Australian was unable to find any reference in it to an investigation into him on these grounds.
It is unclear why the board felt the need to rely on the article, as it also made adverse findings about Mr Sahathevan’s character based on a series of other allegations including that he used “threatening and intimidating” language in emails to the College of Law and the NSW Attorney General and did not disclose his sacking from a previous job to the board.
Mr Sahathevan has denied the allegations in correspondence with the board. The board also cited evidence that one of Mr Sahathevan’s blogs on Malaysian politics was banned by the Najib regime as indicating his poor character.
In an email to Chief Justice Bathurst, sent on August 30, Rewcastle-Brown said her site, Sarawak Report, which exposed much of the 1MDB scandal, was banned by the Malaysian government.
“I along with other critics of the 1MDB scandal (which includes Mr Sahathevan) became the target of immense state-backed vilification, intimidation and online defamation campaigns on behalf of the Malaysian government,” she said.
She said the board’s use of the Third Force article against Mr Sahathevan displayed “a troubling level of misjudgment and poor quality research, giving a strong impression that someone seeking to find reasons to disqualify this candidate simply went through the internet looking for ‘dirt’ against him”.
“The Third Force has consistently been by far the most outlandish, libellous, vicious and frankly ludicrous of all the publications that were commissioned as part of former prime minister Najib Razak’s self-proclaimed ‘cyber army’ which he paid (and continues to pay) to defame his perceived enemies and critics,” she said.
Besser, who now works in the ABC’s London bureau, told The Australian: “It’s clearly nonsense and comes from the darkest corners of some pretty wild Malaysian conspiracy theorists.”Mr Sahathevan’s application is to be reconsidered at an LPAB meeting next month.
News Ltd.

Document AUSTLN0020190116ef1h00033