Accused of fraud: Channel 7 exec's assets frozen

Cases

Accused of fraud: Channel 7 exec's assets frozen

The NSW Supreme Court has frozen the assets of a Channel 7 executive accused of serious and ongoing fraud. Meanwhile a Victorian Court has ordered prison terms for two superannuation fund employees who gave false and misleading information to the Heydon Royal Commission on union corruption.

WantToReadMore

Get unlimited access to all of our content.

The NSW Supreme Court has frozen the assets of a Channel 7 executive accused of serious and ongoing fraud.

Meanwhile a Victorian Court has ordered prison terms for two superannuation fund employees who gave false and misleading information to the Heydon Royal Commission on union corruption.

Asset preservation order


The NSW Supreme Court (Justice Kune) found it appeared there had been a serious and ongoing fraud involving a Channel 7 executive.

On or about 4 April 2016 Seven became aware of a number of suspicious purchase requisitions (unrelated to these proceedings). This resulted in an investigation being initiated.

That investigation revealed payments going back over a number of years on invoices not related to work that had in fact been ordered by Seven.

In the course of assisting with the investigation, the Seven executive admitted to falsifying invoices and arranging and approving their payment. He has further confirmed that those false invoices were issued by, and payments were made to, two associated companies.

Significantly, Mr F has also apparently admitted that his assets include $1 million in a superannuation fund and $2.5 million in cash and shares.

To prevent the dispersion of assets a preservation order was made to apply to the executive, his wife and two associated companies.

Seven Network (Operations) Limited v Fitzgerald [2016] NSWSC 420 (11 April 2016)

False and misleading evidence – suspended sentences


The Vic County Court has ordered prison terms for two superannuation fund employees who were found to have given false and misleading evidence to the Heydon Royal Commission on union corruption.

The court ordered the first defendant be released upon entering a recognisance to be of good behaviour in the sum of $2000 for a period of two years. The second defendant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and released upon entering a recognisance in the sum of $1800 to be of good behaviour for a period of 22 months.

CBUS has dismissed both women; and one was still unemployed at the time of the hearing.

DPP v B and Z[2016] VCC 317 (18 March 2016) 

See also: Was the union Royal Commission really worth it? 

Post details