Dominique Grubisa continues to flog her asset protection product to the public, claiming “the system” wants to stop her from sharing information they don’t want the public to know, as David Donovan reports.
Grubisa is doing multiple webinars a week for both programs. Perhaps she needs the cash.
Last week, Danny Vrkic, the liquidator of her debt management business, DGI Debt Management Pty Ltd, issued his preliminary report on the company. The report indicated the company had been trading at a loss for the three financial years to 30 June this year and had a net asset shortfall of over $730,000. Net losses over this period exceeded $400,000.
Based on my investigation to date, I am of the opinion there has been a breach of the following statutory provisions. I note the Director has not had the opportunity to dispute my assertions:
- Section 180 — Care and Diligence; and
- Section 588 — Trading while insolvent.
Vrkic also issued his report to creditors into DGI Accounting Pty Ltd, of which he is also the liquidator. That report identifies that on 19 August this year, the Australian Taxation Office issued a directors penalty notice for unpaid PAYG withholding amounts and that Grubisa placed the company into liquidation.
As with DGI Debt Management, Vrkic said he has lodged a report with ASIC stating that in his opinion there was a breach of statutory obligations in relation to care and diligence and trading while insolvent, with the company being insolvent from February 2021. Again, Vrkic notes that Grubisa has not had the opportunity to dispute his assertions.
Meanwhile back at DG Institute headquarters, Grubisa is drumming up business for her programs.
For the asset protection product, Grubisa takes a doomsayer approach. In an email to her database, Grubisa said she had hit a new low and that she thought she had priced in all the downside fear and negativity but may have been overly optimistic.
Grubisa said she was not ‘too proud to admit when I may have got it wrong’.
Now, this is not Grubisa admitting she has misled thousands with her asset protection claims, or that she is misusing personal information as part of her predatory property program. This is just part of a sales pitch to convince more people to sign up for her Master Wealth Control program.
Grubisa is talking about the appearance by James Rickards at her webinar last weekend (promoted as a one-off but to be repeated again this weekend) and his predictions of a massive global liquidity crisis. She asks, how could she have not joined the dots and seen this coming?
It gets quite comical when Grubisa goes on to say she felt a little stressed about things and “tortured [herself] over the weekend trying to find a solution” and tells her audience when or how it all ends. Grubisa has expressed no concern for those she has misled and continues to double down.
All this doomsaying was simply a sales pitch for another webinar on 29 November.
In her Black Friday asset protection presentation, Grubisa pulls the conspiracy card about “the system”, saying:
“So, this doesn’t make me popular, sharing the stuff that the system doesn’t want you to know. And it’s landed me in the middle of a David and Goliath battle.”
She went on to say:
“But with anything that threatens the status quo or the system, it did land me in a whole lot of boiling water.”
Grubisa, presumably David in this perceived battle, says to her audience:
“The people making the laws, do they really know about your situation, your wealth, your finances and are they fully focused on making you the best you can be and holding on to it and being in total control of it? I think not.”
She continues, claiming not to be a conspiracy theorist but what “they” are really wanting is to put you in a bell curve.
We are not sure whether Grubisa has ever studied statistics or any subjects in economics. Grubisa’s other undergraduate degree (apart from law) was Arts.
“I thought it would be like Raiders of the Lost Ark but it wasn’t. It was just looking at old Greek pots and trying to date them and things like that. So I just really hated all of that.”
Perhaps wealth distribution reflecting a bell curve might be no bad thing.
Wealth and income distribution no longer resemble a familiar “bell curve” in which the bulk of the wealth accrues to a large middle class. Instead, the networked economy seems to be producing a “power-curve” distribution, sometimes known as a “winner-take-all” economy.
Economic and social insecurity is widespread.
Grubisa tells her audience that what she will be sharing with them will mean thinking differently “and will feel a little uncomfortable”.
In her webinar, Grubisa continued with the claims she has made for years telling people their worldwide wealth will be protected by signing up for her program and asking whether it would be worth a one-off $35,0000 to be financially secure.
Grubisa’s sales pitch, of course, includes the well-trodden nonsense that by granting a mortgage to a “friendly creditor”, all the equity in assets is protected.
She almost chokes on the words when she asks how much is owed to the trust in a case example, because if there is no money borrowed the answer is, of course, zero. She can’t say that even when it’s correct.
In talking about a theoretical example of a property worth $500,00 with $300,000 owing to a bank as first mortgagee, she speaks about her system [IA emphasis]:
So the caveat says that money is owed to this trust. How much money? How long is a piece of string?
So how much is owed to a mortgagee? Is it $200,000? Is it $300,000? Is it, are there legal costs? Have you not paid the mortgage for three years? Is there a line of credit? At the end of the day, if you ever go to pay out a mortgage, if you sell a property, what happens? You ask the bank: How much do we owe you? Because they have the power to remove that mortgage.
Similar here. There's a caveat on the title. How much is owed to the asset protection trust? In this case, it's all of the equity in the property. This property could double in the next ten years. It could be worth $1,000,000 and the debt could be $300,000. That means the equity is $700,000. That's what's owed to the trust.
Grubisa’s claims are complete and utter twaddle.
The stories we have written have exposed this nonsense such as this story last February, this one last May and this one in March. A Current Affair followed suit to expose cases of blatant fraud where fictitious loans were claimed to exist when there was no debt.
The Financial Review has since also joined in.
When will it end? When will those paid to protect the public from this sort of nonsense step up and do their job?
- Grubisa gets the band back together — well, a duet at least
- Dominique Grubisa — here she goes again
- Something is rotten in the state of NSW — Grubisa be thy name
- NSW Law Society fails to protect public from predatory Grubisa
- Dominique Grubisa — mastermind? No, just a master plagiarist
Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.