HawkInsight

  • Contact Us
  • App
  • English

Australian court backs ACCC in Master Wealth Control lawsuit

The Federal Court ruled that Master Wealth Control, trading as DG Institute, had breached the Australian Consumer Law.

澳法院在 Master Wealth Control 的诉讼中支持 ACCC

The Federal Court has found, in a lawsuit brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), that Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd (trading as DG Institute) has contravened the Australian Consumer Law, with its sole director, Dominque Grubisa, being knowingly involved in the misconduct.

DG Institute has been found to have made false or misleading representations to consumers between April 2017 and November 2022 in promoting and selling two educational courses named Real Estate Rescue (RER) and Master Wealth Control (MWC). During this period, over 3,000 students enrolled in these courses, paying fees ranging from $4,500 to $9,200 each.

The Court found that Grubisa knowingly participated in DG Institute's contraventions, making video statements in promotional and course materials, and drafting, reviewing, editing, and/or approving the content of these materials. The Court also found that Grubisa knew that her statements about these two programs were in fact false and misleading.

Specifically, the Court found the following statements about the programs to be false or misleading:

  • That if a mortgagee repossesses a property, the homeowner will lose any surplus assets in the property because "banks don't give change." In fact, mortgagees are only entitled to the amount owed to them, plus any reasonable repossession costs.
  • That students of the MWC program could use transaction documents provided by the DG Academy to establish a specific trust called the "Vestey Trust," thereby fully protecting all their assets from creditors. In reality, the provided transaction documents did not offer the promised protection from creditor interference.
  • That the "Vestey Trust" system promoted by the DG Institute had been tested by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in the "Sharrment" case and found to be effective, which was not the case.

A hearing for relief sought by the ACCC (including penalties) will be held at a later date, to issue orders against Grubisa, including injunctions, penalties, consumer compensation, costs, and disqualification from managing companies.

Disclaimer: The views in this article are from the original author and do not represent the views or position of Hawk Insight. The content of the article is for reference, communication and learning only, and does not constitute investment advice. If it involves copyright issues, please contact us for deletion.