Not surprisingly, liquidator Peter Krejci has encountered stiff resistance as he battles to obtain books and records seized during a raid on a small Sydney law firm and an associated accountancy practice last month.
The raid was undertaken by representatives from Bridges Lawyers, the firm engaged to act as an independent lawyer after Krejci obtained Anton Pillar orders to search the premises of McEvoy Legal.
Anton Pillar orders are described by the Judicial Commission of New South Wales as “A species of discovery of the most extreme kind” lying “at the limit of a court’s civil jurisdiction”.
In the normal course, independent lawyers are appointed by the court to give effect to the orders and given the resistance Krejci has already encountered prising open the affairs of what the Federal Court has heard is a scheme for tax avoidance, it’s no surprise he won the court’s okay.
But winning a judicial imprimatur didn’t mean his opponents were going to let Krejci get his hands on the material without a fight.
After Bridges and the IT experts it had engaged went through McEvoy’s offices identifying, copying and seizing, McEvoy Legal challenged Krejci’s right to examine it, claiming legal professional privilege (which it probably is) and, more dramatically, privilege on the basis of self-incrimination.
This element of the proceedings has yet to be resolved meaning Bridges’ Dominic Calabria and Ben Dibden can’t yet release the books and records Krejci’s after until the court delivers a determination on the claims.
For those unfamiliar with the firm, McEvoy Legal occupies premises in the same office building on McEvoy Street Alexandria as what was until recently known as Accolade Advisory, an accounting and consulting business run by self-described litigation consultant and convicted tax fraud Sam Peter Cassaniti.
While iNO makes no suggestion of wrongdoing, Cassaniti who in 2004 was sentenced to two and a half years gaol on 22 tax-related charges is a key target of the investigations Krejci’s undertaking with funding from the ATO.
iNO reported late last year on Cassaniti’s unsuccessful bid to have examination summonses set aside on the basis that they had been obtained for an improper purpose, that being to allow Krejci to grill Cassaniti and other examinees about their personal tax affairs as opposed to the examinable affairs of the companies to which Krejci’s been appointed.
Cassaniti was also unsuccessful last month in opposing Krejci’s application for orders appointing him liquidator of a raft of other related companies linked to the investigation.
Currently there are 26 defendants in the Federal Court proceedings commenced by Krejci, who hopes to commence public examinations later this month.
Among them is Fraser Holdings NSW Pty Ltd, a labour hire company that’s been in liquidation since December 2023 when it was wound up via creditors voluntary resolution.
Hall Chadwick’s Richard Albarran and Kathleen Vouris were appointed liquidators on December 20, 2023 after receiving a referral from Watson Webb, the solicitors acting for Cassaniti in the current proceedings brought by Krejci.
The director of Fraser Holdings NSW is a Mr Teddy Panella, who ASIC records show is currently director of 63 companies, including most of the corporate defendants in Krejci’s proceedings.
Albarran and Vouris’s DIRRI mentions meeting a representative of Accolade Advisory, which is recorded as the company’s accountant.
Accolade has since changed its name to Capital Financial Advisory Pty Ltd, a company to which Krejci was appointed liquidator last month.
In the Federal Court yesterday Justice Cameron Moore heard that Krejci’s investigations had uncovered some 58 bank accounts to which Cassaniti is a signatory.
According to freezing orders made last month against Panella, Cassaniti and a Ms Thi Linh Trinh, thawing their assets will require the payment into the court of sums in excess of $6 million. The matter returns to the Federal Court today.
Further reading:
Not often an Australian Legal Practitioner will seek privilege on the basis of self incrimination. No doubt he or she will be able to identify any relevant document and the precise offence to which it will or may relate. This is the same as would arise in respect of claims for legal professional privilege or client legal privilege. The former may of course bring into question the professional conduct and may result in loss of other privileges due to the asserted impropriety.