ea) bitps:/idenebleo.sec.gov/TCRExtemaliprintview.xhtml TCR Submitted Successfully - Reference Number: TCR. Tell us about your complaint Please select the option that best describes your complaint Material misstatement or omission in a company’s public filings or financial statements, or a failure to file Provide additional details about your complaint: ‘To whom it may concern, My name is Elliot Sgargetta. I was the recipient of what we estimate 10 be a $1,000,000 offer covered in Submission #2 as published by the Australian Senate Inquiry into Foreign Bribery and Submission 116 at the Australian Joint Parliamentary Inquiry into Engineered Loan Defaults. I owned a home in Kalorama that was mortgaged to National Australia Bank, represented by global law firm Gadens Lawyers. (The Victorian Legal Services’ board thought Gadens were merging with US global law firm Dentons). I was the vendor of that home to a family who, unknown to anyone else, were US citizens called Waldron from a family with a background in Law Enforcement and IT industry in Silicon Valley. Every time the mortgage payout money was proffered with a bank cheque, Gadens wanted extra money, in the region of $16,000 to $30,000, to make fallacious legal problems go away. A dispute over $24,000 ended up in the High Court and | estimate that Bank Sharcholders are about $600,000 worse off at the end of the day. How could a bank manager Melissa Thomas think that it was in the bank’s best interest to push little people around. The “legal problem’ was never curable by handing over the agreed payout amount early and in full. The legal problem was only curable by giving them extra money foF extra legal fees and “extra Ricor interest” (even though the agreed payout was inclusive of legal fees and any extra interest). As I never received a bill for legal fees, I think that could be illegal and unethical in itself (but the Legal Services Board whitewashed things anyway). I queried this extra interest and its rate and the contractual basis, Things felt extortionate to me and the American buyers. Gadens were impervious to me for years. Gadens were UmlFoubled by the Financial Ombudsman Service casting doubt over their independence. Judges Whelan and Santamaria essentially found that Gadens lied in Court. Gadens were untroubled by that. Gadens weren’t worried by transcripts that clearly showed they were perjurious, Gadens tried to bluff past an affidavit from an independent pro bono barrister. Gadens claimed their bank could authorise them to ignore Conflict Rules. Gadens weren't worried by rules that say a barrister cannot run a case he testified in as a witness. Gadens ran roughshod over my understanding of the Over-Arching Obligations to the Court. Gadens were untroubled by enquiries from “60 Minutes”, Australia’ anti bank corruption medi Fairfax Media and the ABC tv reporters. Gadens were untroubled by complaints at the Direc‘or of Public Prosecutions, Victoria Police and the Legal Services Board & Commission. Gadens seemed to get away with things in Court that shocked me and dozens of friends and reporters. Gadens beat me in every Court all the way to the High Cour. They beat me in VCAT. They beat the purchaser's Caveat with ease. They beat another purchaser's Caveat from a lender. Gadens were unbeatable. Judges with shares in the banks failed to disclose their shareholdings and they refused to recuse themselves from cases. (Only one did, at VCAT), In one instance one Judge ~ Justice Osbom declared having close to a %4 million dollars and refused to recuse himself. The Legal Services Board and Commission let them off. The Board’s letter essentially states they can do nothing if Judges’ don’t do anything. «< aco 4hitps://denebleo.sec gow TCRExtemal/printview.xhtm! ‘Then I have judges stating that if it isn’t in the pleadings then they will ignore everything else. Staff at the Legal Services Board & Commission were very upset. I was told they could not take action because of their budget, but they are taking action in other cases the FBI and SEC has about them as Thave been informed and therefore have money to save themselves. After losing my cases over and over, ispered to go to VCAT, the FBI and the US SEC. That was how deeply troubled the Legal Services Board and Commission people were. Who would think to call the FBI!? I thought they were insane. I did anyway. Tam registered With group at the SEC and the SEC might pay a reward if the Banks are fined. They spoke to other people about my case even though the LSBC See for damages they oS SHS oF ne The Sone pe People. (estimate that I am entitled wo over SImill.). Out of the blue, Gadens offered me the $1m hush up deal as outlined in Submission 2 to the Foreign Bribery Inquiry at Parliament. I couldn’t believe it. Everything they said about the FBI must be true, I thought. The offer tooked illegal to me, and it’s legality was the same type of illegality Twas tipped Off to expect. Gadens also insisted that my purchasers from America must sign up to the Deed Jus. as was expected! Why would anyone know that Gadens would insist that the ‘Americans sign a deed to taings they weren't involved in? Here Gadens demanded the very tring was expecting they'd demand. The hush decd was exaey as was informed by people it would be like. Gadens also refused to make changes that every lawyer and barrister told me 10 ask for. Gadens@id the VLSB refiitjd to follow the Open & Honest ideas set at seminars by Mr West and Mr Gi icin and Mr Cordray and on speeches on Facebook about ~ the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Gadens and the VLSB didn't care that their BHP Billiton Director Fiona Bennett and KPMG Directors are liable under the US laws. Every lawyer that spoke to from Queensland to Queen Street, said don’t touch it. Luckily no one did because the FBI “came out of the bushes” and arrested Commonwealth Bank IT Managers, Jon Waldron. ‘The hush offer was unacceptable without making it open and honest and on the record, with the Bank’s full knowledge of Gaden’s conduct, Regrettably, Gadens refused to make the changes and make it their own cash (rather than shareholders money), Suspiciously they tuned down ideas that would not cost the bank a pretty penny. Soon afterwards, Channel 7 News in ‘Australia said a tip off last year caused audits and arrests of bank executives. (I think the tip off was rom the LSBC whistleblowers to the SEC Witnesses). The FBI wanted the Hush Deed. Inquiries were made by - Auditors from Ace Foundation - Auditors from Computer Science Corporation - An MP about an mining tax accountant in Brighton called Arbitrans Accounting (Trevor McTaggart), - Bank Reform people in NSW - 60 Minutes" producer for the ANZ Story that was aired in August this year - Fairfax and ABC. Michael West was very appreciative of information on BHP Billiton bribery when the VLSB's Fiona Bennett was BHP VP for Corporate Services & Hospitality - The FBI “IC” Division's Special Agent Adams in Los ‘Angeles. - The SEC Office of the Director of Corporate Compliance= The SEC's Senjor Counsel Mr MeCréedy - IBAC anti-corruption commission - Victorian Ombudsman Ms Helen Grass, Ms Alisha and Mir Acai (spelling) - Parliamentarians who want the names of Legal 4 Servis Bourd ofiials about the American Exores Case Tey [ost Dlfone betas ofthe “ Reserve Bank of Australia The LSBC told me to go away despite damning evidence despite the FBI arresting people. You would think the LSBC might see a few ethics issues if aa eC SB istleblowers said came true. - The Hush Deed materialised out of thin air - The Hush Deed Was exactly as T was led to believe it would be. - Gadens refused the changes - Soon after the 27 deed was refused, there was pay-back and retaliation, We felt like we tuned down an offer you ‘2.4. can't refuse - There are Parliamentary Inquiries in the News every day. Submission #2 is at the top of the List. - The Parliamentary Inquiry into Engineered Defaults started; - American 20f 10Rico 3 of 10 hutps:!/denebleo.see.gov/TCRExternal/printview.xhtm! SEC-registered Protected Discloser of the VLSBS whistleblowing on the LSBC epee lost hillons (an ook foam to tarnn the Rewer) - The NAB Audit lady in fork, Alice Savenah, is looking at things. - The ANZ, was on 60 Minutes. - You should read the Submissions at the Foreign Bribery Inquiry from Professors, the International Bar Association, the Attorney General + Federal Police, and many others. They want the same {CO" laws that the USA has, - The FBI wanted the Hush Deed - The SEC wanted formation - MPs called. - Bank Reform Now said MPs want the names of the LSBC officials exposed in Parliament, Mr "Howard Headkicker" Bowles, Mr Kevin Power, Mr McGarvie, Mr Mazaris, Ms Toseph, Mr "To-coco” (sounds like), Ms Marshall, Ms Pakula, "Ms Party" (sounds “Tike), Mir Mctaggart, Mr Trodges, Mir Fales MeKenzie, Jones Jones & Jones, are some of the “Tames. The CEO of the Law Society, Ms Gwen Wallace, and the Victorian Ombudsman thinks _ there is corrupt conduct ai the VLSB. Every few months the FBI and SEC want something more. [therefore object io the Legal Senios Bowed & Commission (“LSBC”) using its powers to investigate its own role in the $1m Hush Deed. They owe my family for breaching their privacy laws'too, I have friends and colleagues calling me almost daily still troubled about their faith being destroyed after seeing what occurred to me and my family by Gadens, Financial Ombudsman, the judiciary, Gadens, NAB and the Legal Services Board & Commission. If the Senate Inquiry or the Parliamentary Joint Committee want me to testify at their hearings, I will. I think there is a cover up. The VLSB confused different people, and the VLSB whistleblowers said to report their own "foreign government instrumentality" to the ‘SEC Office of the Whistleblower!!! The VLSB wanted to know what US and Australian politicians might know. The Australian "cross bench senators" like John Madigan and-Senator Xenophon have many investigations into tax evasions underway, (and KMPG are on the Legal Services Board's executive. Are they spying on the political investigations?) E. Sgargetta. ‘Are you having or have you had difficulty in getting access to your funds or securities? Yes Did you suffer 2 loss? Yes Enter amount of loss to nearest dollar without characters (e.g., 15000, not $15,000.00): LAM When did you become aware of the alleged conduct? (mm/dd/yy) 12/01/2015, ‘When did the alleged conduct begin’ (mm/dd/yyyy) 11/01/2014 Ts the alleged conduct ongoing? Yes Has the individual or firm acknowledged the alleged conduct? Yes What is the source of your information? You may select more than one Internal business documents; Have you taken any action regarding your complaint? You may select more than one Complained to law enforcement; Who did you contact and what action did you take? The FBI Special Agent and the whistelblowers said to report Gadens-Dentons to "FCPA.Fraud@usdoj.gov" $$RE: JP.Case - FW: Complaint 2015-0038 & 2015-0041 From: Elliot Sgargetta Date 23/06/2015 10:07 PM _-_1o‘admin (Iso) ce: martin. pakula@parliament.viegov.au SAO Ea $1,000,000 Hush Dee from-co-operating with the FBI al SEC investigation into the Bank and its Sydney law firms \quiries by IBAC, FBI and SEC and Parliamentary Committees and 60 Minutes, Fairfax and ABC reporters ected Dear Commissioner, We refer to your email below. 4.2.2 ~ Subsection (3) is where relevant, A civil complaint may be madle about the conduct of o law practice or an Australian legal practitioner. ‘This complaint pure and simple is in regard to the conduct under this legislation and relevant section against the legal practitioners acting for the NAB. Under 4.2.4 any person may make a complaint. Therefore we refer you to the applicable legislation in order to affirm in writing that the commissioner was unable to resolve this under 4.3.15, ‘Again this was affirmed by VCAT in recent hearing ref. 1180/2014 You need to appreciate the core elements to this complaint are: 4. Barrister Adam Segal gave false evidence in court, where he was directly a party to, This was affirmed. in the appeal judgment determination paragraph : 95. j 2. Barrister Adam Segal acted as counsel for NAB and was the key witness and direct party involved toa critical ground to this case. Breaching ethical standards under the LPA and Wrongs Act. Responsibly he should not have acted as counsel, as his evidence and statements become a matter for determination. See trial judgment paragraph : 104, 3. Affidavit from Adam Segal & Nora Minassian state that their fully constructed deed had the compliance terms set-out from the outset. Yet evidence shows they net only did not provide them to us, but then were contradictory in their evidence on what they were precisely. Please understand these areexperienced and highly trained and qualified lawyers working for a prominent law firm acting for a bank. They do not have the luxury to withhold contract terms, negligently or intentionally mixing them up and ‘not ensuring @ laymen who is signing their banking & finance contracts to having a lawyer review their ‘material, oF better still actually constructed 2 contract that was clear and concise, if not a deliberate and cunning tactic 4. Barrister Adam Segal in opening statement in trial pronounced that their deed was potentially available at 20 March 2013, but then proceeded to submit and argue in clear contradiction to this. 5. Gadens completely constr.cted a deed in relation toa mortgage & finance and gave it toa sole layman to sign without requiring legal review or waiver. A contravention of the LPA and NCCP. 6. behaviour and conduct that was duplicitous and caiculative, Not implementing honest and reasonable measures to ensure their agreement is fulfilled. 7. Providing another deed recently that required us to silence this matter, and sought to protect and include a variety of parties that are not even associated to this matter. This deed actually required legal review by 2 lawyers, ard both rejected the deed and made reasonable amendments to it. Gadens refused to consider any of the changes. These are not matters for the court to determine in our case, these are new and separate matters associated to their misconduct and moral obloguy. We look forward to your written confirmation of what the commissioner did to resolve this and confirmation that the commissioner could not resolve It. Regards, tT CHs9 00M.Thomas - NAB : Giving evidence under oath regarding the $299,000 payment. noe eo 32 anew 10 pea 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Not addressed to the defendant, did you say?---Ye: Right?---And it also wasn’t signed. By whom?---By the - ABNZ Investments were the proposed lend MR SEGAL: Was it signed by anybody?---No, it wasn’t. Has the bank otherwise received the sum of $299,000 from Mr Sgargetta?---No, we haven't. Has there been any tender of that amount by Mr Sgargetta?---No, there hasn't Either by 15 April or since that time?---No, there hasn‘t. Your Honour, I think it may be easier to just tender the bundle of email correspondence. I haven’t gone through all of the emails. I can do so, but if it assists I can either isolate the documents I’ve taken the witness to or simply tender the bundle of emails. HIS HONOUR: Well, it’s a matter for you, Mr Segal. I’m Prepared to accept those to which you've referred, but documents to which no reference has been made and there's no evidence about I will not accept as tendered. MR SEGAL: All right. Then in that case, the first document is at p.147. HIS HONOUR: So you just want to tender these individually, do you? MR SEGAL: I will go through them. If I need to take the witness to any particular part, I will. HIS HONOUR: Yes, okay. MR SEGAL: I can either do that or just identify the pages I've taken the witness to. Perhaps I might just go through the bundle from 147 to 166, but I'1l just make sure that I've seen - - - HIS HONOUR: You just have a look for a moment and decide what -SC#2.4 26/8/13 37 THOMAS XN NABExhibit: EDS4 [S299,000 Payment Confirmation - Court Of Appeal Judgment - 27 May 2014 [Sgargetta and NAB - {Appeal Judgment / Judge Wheelan & Judge Santamaria - 30 July 2014 Whether the appellant performed the obligation to pay NAB $299,000 what occurred ‘on 20 March 2013 would have either constituted conduct equal to performance of 1 2.1(b), or have. unequivocally demonstrated that the appellant was willing and able to perform, as the appellant's counsel submitted. eee eed Translator : Ae handed Ge el pb WVAB Bank » NaB hid See ‘Sgargetta v NAB 2 THE COURT