Why does the Principal Legal Officer Mathew Osborne iinstruct Senior staff at ITSA to breach the Bankruptcy Act knowing that Adam Toma National Manager Enforcement and Regulation will cover this up?
Mark Findlay.. you were made aware that I had been intentionally misled and Tibor Karolyi and Julie Padget did not refer the Bankrupt to Enforcement for investigation breaching the Bankruptcy Act and ignoring the Inspector Generals practice statement 14. You covered this all up!
Are you stupid?
You are aware it is a breach of the APS Act for ITSA to mislead me. You have tried to justify any misconduct using section 134(3) This refers to property, you donkey. You cannot use it to justify misconduct.
I have already spoken to Mathew Osborne who confirmed to me that breaches of the Bankruptcy Act are acceptable and ITSA has the discretion to do this. He would know you would cover up for him.
Are you an idiot. It was not by chance that I wanted you to put so much in writing. You wrote a report that contradicts the facts . How funny you caught yourself out. I asked that you write a report that I had been misled. You already confirmed this in previous emails prior to writing this report.
Look stupid... section 134(3) does not give ITSA discretion to breach the entire Act.
Are you sure you do not want to change the following report
Subject: David Cooper
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:38:54 +1000
From: Mark.Findlay@itsa.gov.au
To: fionabrown01@hotmail.com
Dear Ms Brown,
I have now inspected the file.
It is helpful in addressing your various complaints about alleged incompetence to consider the duties of a trustee in bankruptcy that may be relevant in the administration of a matter in which the trustee is without funds:
The trustee's duties include at subparagraphs of subsection 19(1):
(j) administering the estate as efficiently as possible by avoiding unnecessary expense;
(k) exercising powers and performing functions in a commercially sound way.
Further to this, subsection 134(3) states;
(3) Subject to this Act, the trustee may use his or her own discretion in the administration of the estate.
In exercising powers and performing functions in a commercially sound way, the trustee is obliged to consider the risks, costs and benefits of taking action. Given the limited debts in the estate and the fact that no creditors were prepared to advance funds to the trustee when initially invited to do so, I do not consider that the trustee (and in particular, Mr Karolyi acting on behalf of the Official Trustee) has acted negligently.
I do not intend reporting to you on the competency of Mr Karolyi.That is a matter internal to ITSA. My role in regulation is to investigate complaints regarding possible serious breaches of duties by trustees, misconduct and the like.
From my inspection of the file, I am satisfied that where decisions have been made that you did not agree with (such as allowing the bankrupt to travel overseas & not advertising the fact of the bankruptvy in a newspaper), those decisions have been made after careful consideration of applicable law. Whilst there have been delays in replying to correspondence, these have been the subject of an earlier in investigation by Mr Pitt.
The Official Trustee did enter an ojection to discharge (albeit at your urging) & that objection remains in place.
There is no evidence of loss to the estate by anything that Mr Karolyi has done or not done.
Mr Karolyi did correspond with the bankrupt's sister early in the administration & seek payment of funds to annul the bankruptcy. She declined claiming there were no funds available.
Mr Karolyi has not yet again written to the sister in Israel recently but has assured me that he will do so by next week. I will suggest to him that he seek a proper accounting from the sister for the funds transferred in 2002.
Mr Karolyi has been in close liaison with ITSA's Enforcement staff regarding a possible prosecution at various times during the bankruptcy and there is no evidence of neglect in this regard.
My overall impression is that whilst there has been a few examples of tardiness in the administration such as delays in responding to you & a delay in reporting to creditors initially, the matter has been administered reasonably taking into account the duties at subparagraphs .19(1)(j) and (k) mentioned above. Indeed the Official Trustee has expended much time on this matter when because of a lack of funding from creditors, the relatively low level of debts & the fact any property that may exist is thought to be overseas, there isnt a real prospect of recovery without the cooperation of the bankrupt's sister.
Yours sincerely
Mark Findlay
Business Manager
Regulation & Enforcement
Central Region
ITSA Sydney
/GPO Box 548
Sydney NSW 2001
Business Manager
Regulation & Enforcement
Central Region
ITSA Sydney
/GPO Box 548
Sydney NSW 2001
No comments:
Post a Comment