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



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

END 

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




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

just before after TOP was granted the "first & only" licenset issued a private

 company to award law degrees: AG Speakman and his LPAB refuse to disclose

 all details in the LPAB Annual Reports.

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. 
END 

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

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

Orders freezing Huang Xiangmo's assets make interesting reading, and raises questions about who knew what when accepting his money 

by Ganesh Sahathevan




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

24. 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.

14. 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.

16. Mr Huang also has substantial real estate holdings.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Huang [2019] FCA 1537 (18 September 2019)

Posted 19th September by Ganesh Sahathevan

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

@TEQSAGov

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

@MonashUni

@RMIT

and

@unimelb

tonight

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