Tuesday 25 October 2011

Senator Williams/ Senator Williams

What is Senator Williams hiding and who is he protecting???????
Why is he failing to expose the evidence of systemic misconduct and breaches of the bankruptcy Act at ITSA??????

Senator Williams/ Senator Williams

Who is Senator Williams protecting?????
Senator William has been given hundreds of complaints about ITSA and failed to act. IS Senator Williams protecting corruption at ITSA??? Is  Senator Williams corrupt????

Senator Williams /What is he hiding and who is he protecting????

What is the SCAM being run by Senator John Williams. What has be got to hide????? It is obviously something big!!!!!!!                      Is Senator Williams a sociopath???????                                               
He obviously loves center stage but what is he really hiding????????/
Senator Williams knows what is occurring at the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia and continues to conceal it. Is Senator Williams actually corrupt??? Is this what we will learn about him in the future???                                                                                        
Why is he failing to expose systemic breaches of the bankruptcy Act and misconduct at ITSA that he is aware of ???? Who is he protecting?????????? Senator Williams conduct must be questioned!!!

Sunday 23 October 2011

BANKRUPTCY REGULATIONS/Mark Findlay

Mark Findlay is writing false reports  for Bankruptcy Regulations......... You donkey Mark... you can't use section 134(3) to justify breaches and misconduct.......... Did the Principal Legal Officer at ITSA ask him to do this????????? .......keep the scam going you fool..................

Cheryl Cullen/misconduct at ITSA

Cheryl Cullen... don't waste your time applying for Giulia Inga's vacant position............ you have no hope in HELL of getting this position once I have finished with you.......... You stupid donkey you told me Itsa has the discretion to mislead me...
Are you a F.....g retard???????????

Commonwealth Ombudsman scam/Kent Purvis

Commonwealth Ombudsman scam/Kent Pervis

Kent Pervis from the Commonwealth Ombudsman,you stupid idiot ITSA attempted to assist a bankrupt breach the Bankruptcy Act. Itsa used section 134(3) to to try an assist the Bankrupt when evidence was obtained that he was hiding an inheritance. He was not referred to BFI you Dumb F..k. in April 2008 as he should have according to S19 of the bankruptcy Act. Itsa withheld evidence from me in February 2009 when the Bankrupt gave a statement in writing to ITSA admitting he was again hiding his inheritance. STUPID... I put it all in writing with evidence.
This practice is systemic using S134(3) You Dumb F..K
You continue to coverup this practice.
Kiss my ARSE... are you retarded??
Tell Alison larkins she has not a hope in bloody hell of getting the position vacated by Allan Asher once she has been referred to the APS Commissioner.
You are doing a bloody good job for the Government covering up gross and systemic misconduct and breaches in Commonwealth Departments

0

Comments

Saturday 22 October 2011

Julie Padgett NSW Manager BFI


 JULIE PADGETT/NSW BFI Manager ITSA

  So now you can read about yourself and the scam at ITSA... Remember you idiot, I have all my evidence in writing.
Did you think all my conversations with you were just polite ... you stupid fool........... I was told to get the necessary evidence on you by the solicitors.

Section 19 of the Bankruptcy Act says
     (i)  referring to the Inspector-General or to relevant law enforcement authorities any evidence of an offence by the bankrupt against this Act;

Refer to  Inspector Generals Practice statement 14
Failure to refer is a breach of the Bankruptcy Act.
I don't give a F..K  that the principal Legal Officer Mathew Osborne is telling you to breach it using S134(3) This only refers to property you arrogant donkey!!!!




misconduct at ITSA: misconduct at ITSA

    19 Sep 2011 ... misconduct at ITSA That's why there are so few referred for prosecution..... good on Ya Julie Padgett.... you know how to assist bankrupts! ... misconductatitsa.blogspot.com/2011/09/misconduct-at-itsa_19.html - Cached - Similar




itsa.itsa: September 2011

    30 Sep 2011 ... misconduct at ITSA. So Julie Padgett Manager BFI does not refer Bankrupts to Enforcement because Mattew Osborne told her she can breach the ... itsaitsa.blogspot.com/2011_09_01_archive.html - Cached - Similar




http://twitter.com/fiona_up/

    Choo Julie Padgett, Cheryl Cullen, Adam Toma, Giulia Inga, Mathew Osbourne ... order so the story of abuse and misconduct at ITSA.. about 1 hour ago via web ... twitter.com/fiona_up/ - Cached - Similar





itsa.itsa: Itsa Scam

    14 Sep 2011 ... What is the scam going on at ITSA by Julie Padgett??? Posted by bankruptcy coverup by ombudsman at 17:02 · Email This BlogThis! ... itsaitsa.blogspot.com/2011/09/itsa-scam_8981.html - Cached - Similar

itsa.itsa: Itsa Scam

    14 Sep 2011 ... Itsa Scam. Why is the Commonwealth Ombudsman covering up the Scam at Itsa by Mark Findlay and Julie Padgett?? Posted by bankruptcy coverup ...
    itsaitsa.blogspot.com/2011/09/itsa-scam.html - Cached - Similar

Scam by Adam Toma/ITSA

Why isAdam Toma National Manager Enforcement and Regulations continuing to cover up gross misconduct and breaches of the Bankruptcy Act at ITSA??? Is he also  failing to expose corruption at ITSA also ????
Suck it all up Adam, you stupid idiot ... you have already put too much in writing......
Do you also justify corruption with section 134(3)?????
Table 40: Complaints
Shows complaints lodged with ITSA about registered trustees, the Official Trustee and registered debt agreement administrators.

RT
OT
RDAA
TOTAL
Complaints received
299
44
91
434
Complaints investigated
156
23
60
239
Complaints not investigated
143
21
31
195
Complaints justified
31
4
9
44


What else is this idiot from ITSA hiding??????????

Friday 21 October 2011

Commonwealth Ombudsman/Commonwealth Ombudsman Scam

Alison Larkins is unfit to act in Allan Ashers vacated position.........

Commonwealth Ombudsman/Commonwealth Ombudsman Scam

Why is the Commonwealth Ombudsman covering up and concealing the misconduct and breaches of the Bankruptcy Act at ITSA.... Alison Larkins is wasting her time applying for Allan Asher's position.... she will never be considered once she is referred to the APS commissioner!!!!!!!!!!

Thursday 20 October 2011

misconduct at ITSA/Cheryl Cullen

Does Cheryl Cullen hope to get Giulia Inga'sJob???
Doesn't she know she needs to go to Jenny Craig and stop wearing those joggers to work..... really I don't thinks she jogs to work I think she just  rolls... 

ITSA is not going to give her the position when the Commonwealth Ombudsman is investigating  her misconduct... Good luck  Cheryl  you need it

Sunday 16 October 2011

Bankruptcy Regulation/bankruptcy Regulations/Bankruptcy Regulations

What Crap!!!! Section 134(3) of the bankruptcy Act is being misused.
Section 134(3) does not give a trustee discretion to breach the entire Bankruptcy Act.

Instigation to misuse this section of the Bankruptcy Act was by Mathew Osbourne Principal Legal Officer at ITSA. Veronique Ingram Inspector General is also aware of  this.

He can do nothing about me naming him because I have the evidence. I also  have the evidence on Adam Toma and Mark Findlay

Table 40: Complaints
Shows complaints lodged with ITSA about registered trustees, the Official Trustee and registered debt agreement administrators.

RT
OT
RDAA
TOTAL
Complaints received
299
44
91
434
Complaints investigated
156
23
60
239
Complaints not investigated
143
21
31
195
Complaints justified
31
4
9
44





Note: RT = Registered trustees; OT = Official Trustee; RDAA = registered debt agreement administrators.


What Crap!!!!

Thursday 13 October 2011

Bankruptcy Regulations/Mark Findlay

 The idiots at ITSA Mark Findlay Adam Toma and Mathew Osborne are using S134(3) to breach the Duties of a trustee.....
   (3)  Subject to this Act, the trustee may use his or her own discretion in the administration of the estate
Section 134(3) refers to property only...... and does not give discretion on Section 19 DUTIES OF A TRUSTEE, It also does not give ITSA discretion on the Australian Public Service Act.............

Good on ya donkeys at ITSA............ Take me to court if  you think I do not have the evidence in writing..... Matthew Osborne ... thanks for the phone call .. it was very enlightening you stupid fool....

BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 19

Duties etc. of trustee
             (1)  The duties of the trustee of the estate of a bankrupt include the following:
                     (a)  notifying the bankrupt's creditors of the bankruptcy;
                     (b)  determining whether the estate includes property that can be realised to pay a dividend to creditors;
                     (c)  reporting to creditors within 3 months of the date of the bankruptcy on the likelihood of creditors receiving a dividend before the end of the bankruptcy;
                     (d)  giving information about the administration of the estate to a creditor who reasonably requests it;
                     (e)  determining whether the bankrupt has made a transfer of property that is void against the trustee;
                      (f)  taking appropriate steps to recover property for the benefit of the estate;
                     (g)  taking whatever action is practicable to try to ensure that the bankrupt discharges all of the bankrupt's duties under this Act;
                     (h)  considering whether the bankrupt has committed an offence against this Act;
                      (i)  referring to the Inspector-General or to relevant law enforcement authorities any evidence of an offence by the bankrupt against this Act;
                      (j)  administering the estate as efficiently as possible by avoiding unnecessary expense;
                     (k)  exercising powers and performing functions in a commercially sound way.
             (2)  Where a person who became a bankrupt on a creditor's petition is unable to prepare a proper statement of affairs, the trustee may employ, at the expense of the estate, a qualified person to assist in the preparation of the statement.

Wednesday 12 October 2011

Senator Scott Ryan

Senator Scott Ryan believes misconduct and breaches of the Bankruptcy Act at the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia  is acceptable.....

Bankruptcy Relations/Commonwealth Ombudsman

The Commonwealth Ombudsman believes misconduct at ITSA is acceptable and encourages it!

Commonwealth Ombudsman scam

Margaret Chinnery and Kent Pervis from the Commonwealth Ombudsman.... you idiots.... you are breaching section 15 of the Ombudsmans Act.... Read the Act again you fools.......... a copy of the fact sheet is printed here......

Tuesday 11 October 2011

bankruptcy Regulations/Bankruptcy Regulations

How is the scam at ITSA going????? Matthew Osborne , Adam Toma & Mark Findlay..... you stupid idiots ... you can't use section 134(3) to breach the entire Bankruptcy Act... you stupid donkeys..... you all know I have the evidence on you in writing................... I can't wait to get some more threats from Adam Toma.............. you cant open your mouths because I have the evidence............... suck it up everyone at ITSA...

Sunday 9 October 2011

Commonwealth Ombudsman/Commonwealth Ombudsman Scam

The Commonwealth Ombudsman is breaching the Ombudsman's Act.
The idiot running the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Allison Larkins  has been made aware that ITSA is using S134(3) to breach the Bankruptcy Act and justify misconduct at ITSA.
This is is SYSTEMIC
The idiots at the Commonwealth Ombudsman have been given evidence of this.
Allan Asher is to be referred to the APS Commissioner  for this.
Australia has  a Commonwealth Ombudsman who is a Donkey.
Read this Allan Asher you stupid IDIOT.............................
Fact Sheet 2
December 2009
Section 15 of the
Most complaints to the Ombudsman can be resolved informally, and without the need to reach a firm view on whether an agency’s conduct was defective. This reflects the emphasis of our work on achieving remedies for complainants, and improving agency complaint-handling processes and public administration generally.
Instances nevertheless arise in which administrative deficiency should be recorded and notified to an agency. This helps draw attention to problems in agency decision making and processes, and feeds into the systemic work of the Ombudsman’s office.
The purpose of a finding of administrative deficiency is not to reprimand the agency concerned. The individual findings are not separately published in the same way that reports under s 15 are usually published. Rather, the individual findings are aggregated as part of the statistics that are published each year in the Ombudsman’s annual report. This provides agencies and the public with a statistical profile of the complaints received each year by the Ombudsman’s office and the office’s view of how those complaints were resolved. They also provide the Ombudsman’s office with a guide to possible systemic issues that warrant further consideration.
The term ‘administrative deficiency’ is not
Ombudsman Act 1976 (Ombudsman Act) lists the grounds on which the Ombudsman can formally make a report to an agency, and ultimately to the Prime Minister and Parliament. Only a small number of reports are made each year to agencies, and more rarely to the Prime Minister or Parliament. defined—or even specifically referred to—in the Ombudsman Act. It is a phrase used by the Ombudsman’s office when referring to agency action that is assessed as being ‘deficient’ for a reason specified explicitly or implicitly ins 15 of the Act. Other Ombudsman offices use similar reporting terms, such as ‘agency defect’, ‘adverse finding’, ‘complaint sustained’ or ‘maladministration’.Categories of administrative deficiencyThe Ombudsman’s office applies 15 categories of administrative deficiency that fall into two groups: administrative deficiency in an individual case, and administrative deficiency in the agency or system of government.
There is overlap between those categories, and some agency errors can fall into more than one category. An error is recorded only once in the most appropriate category, unless an investigation exposes multiple weaknesses in an agency’s administration.
Not every minor administrative error is recorded as administrative deficiency. The prime focus of the Ombudsman’s office is upon whether an error was inexcusable, caused disadvantage to a member of the public, or reveals a weakness in agency administration that should be addressed.
Administrative deficiency in an individual caseUnreasonable delay An agency took too long without good cause to make a decision or take an action Examples: unreasonable delay in processing a person’s application, responding to an enquiry or implementing a decision; failing to comply with FOI statutory time limits in handling a person’s FOI request; failing to meet time frames published in the agency’s service charter in responding to a person’s request.Inadequate advice, explanation or reasons A reasonable person could not easily understand the advice, explanation or reasons given by an agency, either directly to the person or in an agency publication Examples: giving a person incomplete, incorrect, misleading or confusing oral or written advice; refusing to provide a written explanation for a decision; providing a statement of reasons that contains an error or contradiction or does not deal with a critical issue in the decision. Procedural deficiencyThe procedure adopted by an agency in an individual case was flawed Examples: not recording oral advice given to a person on an important issue; not answering a person’s request for information or advice; inefficient handling of a person’s application or enquiry; not consulting appropriately with a person before making a decision; failing to keep a person advised of progress on a matter; failing to advise a person of an agency requirement; failing to implement a decision, or to implement a decision correctly; failing to deal adequately with a person’s complaint; inadequate internal review of a disputed decision.Human or factual errorThe integrity of an agency process was impaired by an avoidable error or mistake by an officer Examples: entering incorrect information on a person’s file; misreading or misunderstanding the facts or data in making a decision; basing a decision on faulty information; inadequate assessment of evidence submitted by a person; losing or misfiling a person’s application or documents; giving the wrong application form to a person; sending personal information to the wrong address.Legal error An agency made a probable legal error that could lead to its decision or action being set aside as unlawful by a court on a ground listed in s 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, or on some other basis Examples: misconstruing or misapplying legislation; making a decision without a proper delegation; not giving a person prior notice of adverse action against them (ie, breaching natural justice); basing a decision on an irrelevant consideration, or failing to consider a relevant matter as required by legislation; breaching the terms of a contract; conflict of interest in a tendering process. Unprofessional behaviour by an officer The standards of professional behaviour expected of officials in dealing with the public were not observedExamples; rudeness, discourtesy or unhelpful or disrespectful behaviour in dealing with a member of the public; failing to honour a promise or commitment given to a person; imprudent disclosure of confidential or private information to an unauthorised recipient. Breach of duty/misconduct by an officer Evidence of misconduct or unprofessional behaviour by an officer is serious enough to warrant referral by the Ombudsman to an agency head under s 8(10) of the Ombudsman ActExamples: dishonesty; harassment; serious conflict of interest; improper use of official information or agency property; other activity in breach of the APS Code of Conduct (see Public Service Act 1999 s 13). Unreasonable, harsh or discriminatory action or decision The decision or action of an agency seriously flouted the principles of good administration Examples: the agency decision or action was irrational, capricious, excessive, inequitable, contrary to reason or good sense, or in breach of the sex, race or disability standards in anti-discrimination legislation; a decision maker disregarded the severe impact that a discretionary decision could have on a person; a person was treated inconsistently and less favourably than others, without explanation or justification; a change in agency rules was applied retrospectively to deny a person a benefit.Administrative deficiency in the agency or system of governmentLegislation: unreasonable or harsh impact or unintended consequence A complaint has highlighted a legislative anomaly that the Ombudsman should draw to the government’s attentionExamples: complex legislation has an unexpected or unexplained operation that disadvantages a person or class of persons; legislation has a disadvantageous impact on one class of persons as against another, without apparent justification; legislation imposes a condition or requirement for accessing a benefit or concession that is harsh or Administrative deficiencyFact Sheet 2 — page 2difficult to meet; an apparent error or oversight in legislation disadvantages a person or class of people. Government or agency policy: unreasonable or harsh impact A complaint has highlighted a defect in government or agency policy or an executive scheme Examples: a grant scheme administered by an agency is poorly drafted and unreasonably disadvantages some people; the rules of entitlement in an executive scheme, or the administrative requirements for lodging an application, are discriminatory, unfair, unnecessarily onerous or difficult to meet; an arbitrary cut-off date is imposed for lodging applications; the agency rules on selecting people for audits can operate unreasonably.Flawed agency processes or systemsA complaint has highlighted an inherent or systemic weakness in agency processes or systemsExamples: there is a programming error in the agency’s automated system; the agency website is dysfunctional; a public access counter is not open during business hours; the agency contact number is incorrect or not answered; misleading or inconsistent guidance is given in agency publications or on the agency website; agency template letters are incorrect; there is no agency system for complaint handling.Resource deficiency in agency A complaint has highlighted a resource deficiency in an agency that impairs the agency’s ability to discharge its statutory functions or meet its policy commitments to the publicExamples: an agency cannot process applications, respond to enquiries or finalise internal reviews within a reasonable timeframe; there is an unacceptable backlog in the agency in investigating and resolving complaints to the agency. Inadequate knowledge/training of agency staff An administrative deficiency in a particular case occurred more through a systemic weakness in staff skills than through the lack of competence of the individual decision maker or contact officer Examples: staff are not properly trained to understand or apply legislation administered by the agency; repeated data entry or retrieval errors by staff indicate skill weaknesses; the manuals or guidelines provided to staff are inadequate or poorly drafted. Australian Government programs: deficiency arising from their interaction The programs administered either within an agency or by two or more Australian Government agencies are not as integrated or coordinated as they could be Examples: unreasonable delay occurs in making decisions that require input from multiple agencies; the complaint handling procedures of multiple agencies that jointly administer a program are poorly integrated; blockages occur between agencies in exchanging information that is required for decisions to be made; different information is required by two or more agencies to substantiate a similar issue; an agency provides incorrect advice about the rules or requirements of another agency.Commonwealth/State responsibilities: cross-jurisdictional difficulties The programs administered by Australian Government and State agencies are not as integrated or coordinated as they could be, and an Australian Government agency is partly at fault Examples; an Australian Government agency relied uncritically on a questionable medical or other assessment by a State officer; an Australian Government agency delegated responsibility for undertaking an activity to a State agency, without adequate care and oversight; there was inadequate preparation for undertaking a joint Commonwealth-State regulatory task; Australian Government and State agencies have not concluded a memorandum of understanding for discharging a joint function.Recording administrative deficiencyThe practice followed in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office is that a finding of administrative deficiency can only be recorded after investigation and with the approval of a Senior Assistant Ombudsman, Deputy Ombudsman or the Ombudsman.
The intention to record administrative deficiency is always notified to an agency, sometimes by letter, but also by email when there is a less formal style of investigation. An explanation is given
Administrative deficiencyFact Sheet 2 — page 3Phone: 1300 362 072 (local call fee only— higher rate from mobile phones)Fax: 02 6249 7829Email: ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.auWeb: www.ombudsman.gov.auPostal: GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601The Ombudsman has offices in:
AdelaideAlice SpringsBrisbaneCanberraDarwinHobartMelbournePerthSydneyThe Ombudsman has taken reasonable action to ensure that the information contained in this publication is accurate and adequately comprehensive for the purpose for which it was created. The Ombudsman is not responsible for any damage or loss claimed to arise from any error or omission in this information.as to why it is intended to record a finding of administrative deficiency. The amount of detail in the explanation will vary depending on the seriousness, significance and contentiousness of the case.
If an agency disagrees with a proposed recording of administrative deficiency, the matter is considered further by the relevant Senior Assistant Ombudsman or, if necessary, a Deputy Ombudsman or the Ombudsman. The decision to record administrative deficiency rests with the Ombudsman’s office, and ultimately the Ombudsman, and does not require the concurrence of an agency. The Ombudsman is not inclined to engage in a protracted or adversarial process to reach consensus on whether such a finding is appropriate.
The categories of administrative deficiency cover a broad spectrum. Some are of a more serious nature—for example, breach of duty/misconduct by an officer; legislation that is unreasonable or has a harsh impact or unintended consequence. A process that is suitably rigorous is followed before a finding of that kind is made.
Some other categories cover less serious errors or oversights in agency administration that warrant being recorded either as a guide to administrative improvement or to acknowledge the problem that led to a person complaining to the Ombudsman.
Recording administrative deficiency focuses on the past conduct of an agency—not on the agency’s response to the investigation. Even though an agency has readily admitted that an error occurred and has acted promptly to correct the error, it may still be appropriate to identify the deficiency in the agency’s processes, as highlighted by the complaint to the Ombudsman’s office.
As a general rule the Ombudsman’s office only makes a single recording of administrative deficiency in respect of any one complaint. If an error can be recorded under more than one heading—for example, unreasonable delay may stem from a resource deficiency in an agency—the most suitable heading will be chosen. Occasions nevertheless arise in which there are multiple separate errors in an agency’s processes, and it is appropriate to record more than one finding—for example, a lost document, and misinterpretation of legislation.
Government service providersThe Ombudsman’s jurisdiction extends to the actions of government service providers. The actions of a service provider can lead to administrative deficiency being recorded against an agency. This involves additional considerations, such as whether the agency was aware of the problem and took steps to resolve it, or reasonably should have been aware of the potential for the problem to arise.Administrative deficiencyFact Sheet 2 — page 4More information?If you would like copies of other Commonwealth Ombudsman fact sheets, more information about the work of the Ombudsman’s office, or a more detailed briefing for agency staff, please contact the Director Public Affairs.

Administrative deficiency

Saturday 8 October 2011

Insolvency Trustee Service Australia/Veronique Ingram

Veronique Ingram is covering up and concealing systemic misconduct at ITSA........ You can't use section 134(3) to justify Misconduct and breaches of the bankruptcy Act. This does not give any discretion on breaching the Bankruptcy  and APS Act you stupid idiot.... This refers only to property , Veronique you donkey......................

Wednesday 5 October 2011

BANKRUPTCY REGULATIONS

If you want to go Bankrupt and have money to hide go and see ITSA. They are so incompetent you will have no problem getting away with it.

BANKRUPTCY REGULATIONS

Why is the Donkey Mark Findlay from Bankruptcy Regulations using section 134(3) to breach the Entire Bankruptcy Act???? And why is he protecting Senior Management from any discipline????
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

Tuesday 4 October 2011

SENATOR RYAN

 Nathan from Senator Ryan's office, go and complain to somebody who cares.
Senator Ryan is from the Finance and Public Administration Committee. He has been given evidence of the gross misconduct at the Insolvency Trustee Service.
Why does Nathan not shut his mouth and start looking at my evidence.
What would Senator Ryan have to gain from failing to expose such misconduct and breaches of the Bankruptcy Act at ITSA??????
Again shut your mouth Nathan I do not care!!!!!!

SENATOR WILLIAMS

Why is Senator Williams protecting gross misconduct of the Bankruptcy Act at the INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE  SERVICE AUSTRALIA and what does he have to gain from this???????????