Ex-AFL umpire Troy Pannell admits selling racehorse after assets were frozen
Pannell, who until recently was on the run from police with several warrants out for his arrest, is being pursued by his former employer, SeaRoad Shipping, after being accused of ripping the company off in a decade-long embezzlement saga.
SeaRoad took civil action in the Supreme Court late last year alleging Pannell had defrauded the business via a fake-invoice scheme.
The scheme allegedly involved Pannell generating invoices to pay a company named Independent Container Surveyors & Assessors Pty Ltd, of which Pannell was sole shareholder and director, to repair damaged shipping containers. SeaRoad alleges no work was done to repair the containers.
Documents filed in the Supreme Court detail that Pannell has been accused of sending as many as 10,000 false invoices of about $800 for repairs to shipping containers
On Friday, he faced the Supreme Court and pleaded guilty to contempt of court charges, including
failure to comply with his obligation to make asset disclosure affidavits pursuant to a freezing order and selling shares in a racehorse, Aimee's Jewel, to a friend, Maree Wilke, while a freezing order was imposed.
In early May freezing orders were also placed on Wilke's assets.
Pannell, who represented himself, said during the hearing that he did not have $8.7 million in assets.
The court also heard Pannell paid Wilke $10,000 to pay for her legal fees following the sale of the thoroughbred horse. He initially told the court he made the sale before freezing orders were imposed in December last year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
2 hours ago
- Perth Now
Wallabies look for another golden moment in Melbourne
With the Tom Richards Cup on the line, the Wallabies will be counting on the golden army turning out in Melbourne, where rugby union carved out its own slice of history in the AFL-mad town 24 years ago. In 2001 Australian rugby's governing body was stung into action by the red sea of Lions supporters, who flooded the opening Test in Brisbane, leaving the Wallabies feeling like they were at Cardiff Arms Park rather than the Gabba. And they played like it, with the 1999 World Cup champions crashing down to earth with a 29-13 thud. "I was sitting there looking for glimpses of gold because it was a sea of red and then they started singing ... so on and off the field, we got absolutely smashed, which was a massive wake-up call and the media gave it to us with both barrels and said we'd let Australia down," former ARU boss John O'Neill told AAP. "We decided we really had to make sure the series was really competitive, at least 1-1 after Melbourne, and we had to make sure Wallabies supporters were seen and heard." With only a week before game two, Australian rugby set about "golding" the Docklands stadium, and ironically it was paid for in British pounds. A British tour operator had bought tickets that were meant to be sold in Australia, which the ARU looked to cancel due to the breach of contract. Brian Thorburn, then general manager of commercial operations, told AAP he smartly re-sold the tickets back to the operator at a higher price. "We basically said to the agent, 'Well, we've got sympathy for the 300 people you've sold to, but the facts are that you've got them cheap and outside the contract, so we'll sell them back to you at double the price'," Thorburn recalled. "The profit we made essentially paid for all of the gold at both the Melbourne Test and the Sydney Test, so it was quite ironic that a British travel agent paid for all the gold." The ARU's marketing team brain-stormed ways to make the Melbourne venue feel like home for the Wallabies - even trialling golden goal posts with kicker Matt Burke, before it was decided they were too distracting. "We put 'Go Wallabies' placards on every seat in the lower bowl and we had 10,000 very flimsy gold scarves, which was all we could secure with three days' notice," Thorburn said. "We ensured every square inch of available signage was gold - we had a catch-cry of 'Be Bold, Wear Gold', and it was really a turning point." While they achieved their gold rush aesthetic, not everyone was happy - in particular the AFL, which was the ground's tenant, now owner. "We got these mylar cannons and they blasted as the teams ran on and as we scored any try, and the result was gold glitter coming all over the crowd and on top of Poms drinking their beer," Thorburn said. "The CEO of the stadium, Ian Collins, gave me grief for years because they were still getting glitter out of the grass two or three years later because it was so small." The AFL could also be suitably miffed by the size of the crowd at the stadium for the second Test, with 56,605 squeezed into a venue that had a capacity of 56,347 - with the AFL's biggest ever crowd 54,444, set in 2009 at a St Kilda-Geelong match. Rugby's 2001 attendance record stood until the second 2013 Lions match, when 56,771 fans crammed in. With Australia winning the second Test 35-14 before wrapping up the series, O'Neill said the night changed the way the Wallabies were supported. "For probably a good 10 years, the Wallabies were Australia's team, and at sporting events around the world you'd see Wallaby jerseys scattered everywhere," he said. "It was a real turning point in the manifestation of 'be proud, be loud', and long may that continue."
Perth Now
3 hours ago
- Perth Now
Four men guilty of murdering refugee in drug robbery
Four men have been found guilty of the bashing murder of an Albanian refugee during the robbery of a cannabis crop. The men had faced a retrial after the High Court overturned their convictions in the death of Urim Gjabri at his suburban rental property in Adelaide in 2018. In the South Australian Supreme Court on Wednesday, Justice Julie McIntyre found Benjamin John Mitchell, Alfred Claude Rigney, Matt Bernard Tenhoopen and Aaron Donald Carver guilty of murder. Mr Gjabri was discovered by a friend at his Para Vista home in a pool of dried blood. The 46-year-old had been hit over the head at least once and possibly twice, and according to forensic evidence initially survived the attack. Evidence suggested he had lived for at least another 35 minutes and possibly up to 24 hours. On the crown case, each of the accused were party to a plan to commit a home invasion or robbery because they went to Mr Gjabri's home and emerged with his cannabis crop. The court was told that police found the DNA of two of the accused inside the dead man's house. They also found the DNA of a third defendant on the steering wheel of Mr Gjabri's car. However, the prosecution could not say who actually killed the victim or how many blows he suffered. The men were previously found guilty in 2020 and were each sentenced to at least 20 years' jail. At the first trial, it was argued that as part of an extended joint criminal enterprise, each of the accused had foreseen that one of them might have perpetrated an intentional act of violence. In such circumstances, the trial judge directed the jury that the prosecution could establish a pathway to murder. However, the High Court quashed their convictions in 2023 after finding that such provisions could not be relied on and therefore the jury had not been properly instructed. Justice McIntyre remanded the men in custody and ordered pre-sentencing reports. They will return to court in August to start the sentencing process.
ABC News
9 hours ago
- ABC News
Legal experts cast doubt on Donald Trump's defamation case against Rupert Murdoch over alleged Epstein letter
US law experts say Donald Trump faces significant hurdles in his $10 billion case against Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal over reports he sent a birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein with a sexually suggestive drawing. The lawsuit, filed in the Florida Supreme Court, claims the Wall Street Journal "failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter and failed to explain how this letter was obtained". But experts say defamation cases, brought forward by public figures, are notoriously hard to prove in the US, and they rarely make it to a jury. The paper has said it was prepared to "vigorously" defend its journalism. If the case does go to trial, Mr Trump may be forced to provide information about the nature of his relationship with the convicted paedophile and billionaire, and the Journal may be asked to show how it obtained the letter or proved its existence. So, how likely is it Mr Trump will get his day in court? Winning or settling a defamation case in the US can be difficult, mostly due to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It is even more difficult for a public figure like Donald Trump to win a defamation lawsuit, said Harry Melkonian, a media lawyer and honorary associate at the United States Studies Centre. "It is extremely difficult and intentionally made so for public figures to bring defamation claims in the US," he said. "By definition, the US president is the most public of public figures." Shawn Trier, a constitutional law expert at Australian National University, agreed. "A case in the early 1960s during the civil rights movement found that even if you have factual information that's incorrect, unless you prove a term called actual malice — that you knew it was wrong or didn't care — it would be really hard for that to be proven," he said. Actual malice is knowledge that the material published was false, or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. "In the case of the Wall Street Journal, it would literally have to be the case that they knew the letter was false or knew it didn't exist or they had a really good reason to suspect it was forged but ignored it," Dr Tier said. Dr Melkonian said the Supreme Court set this standard for public figures to prevent self-censorship by the media. "They also felt that public figures are pretty well equipped to respond publicly to undo any harm, and Trump can get on TV any night and say this story is false, they made it up," he said. "So when you combine all those things, it makes for an extremely difficult case, and quite honestly, I've read the complaint and I think they will have difficulties even getting this complaint to court." In Australia, defamation law is "relatively straightforward", Dr Melkonian said. If a publisher prints something that a person says isn't true, the publisher must prove on the balance of probabilities that it is. But American law is the opposite, Dr Melkonian said; the public figure has to prove the story is false. "Trump has to prove they either knew it was false or they harboured serious doubts and did it anyway," Dr Melkonian said. "And he has to prove that by an exaggerated standard of proof." But US courts rarely find that actual malice exists, and there has only been one case, which was between Time Magazine and the Israeli defence minister in 1984. Court documents show that Mr Trump will argue that such a letter did not exist and the two journalists who wrote the story "possessed information and had access to information that showed their statements were false." It does not say, however, what that information was. "The mere fact that he told them 'it's false' before they printed it isn't enough because if that was, you could stop anything from being printed," Dr Melkonian said. From the legal documents, it appears Mr Trump will also argue that the circulation of the story created further damage to his reputation. "And given the timing of the defendants' article, which shows their malicious intent behind it, the overwhelming financial and reputational harm suffered by President Trump will continue to multiply," the court documents said. But Dr Melkonian said, "he's already said it's false, and he certainly has made more publicity saying it's false than the Wall Street Journal got with the article." Dr Melkonian said public figures sometimes took steps like Mr Trump's to "make it clear to the public that they believe the article is a falsehood". "Donald Trump has gotten a lot of publicity out of filing this case, and that may be the vindication that he wants now the public knows he is taking it to court to prove he didn't do it," he said. A $10 billion award would be the largest finding of defamation damages in history, dwarfing already-massive cases in recent US proceedings. These include a $1.5 billion judgement against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and Fox News's settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million. "It's unlikely he has a legal case against the Wall Street Journal, but it probably helped him politically," Dr Trier said. "He likes to do this a lot, to say 'look how I've been treated, it's so bad I'm suing.'" The Wall Street Journal has indicated it will defend itself. "We have full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit," a spokesperson for publisher Dow Jones said in a statement. Yesterday, the White House removed the Wall Street Journal from the pool of reporters covering Trump's upcoming weekend trip to Scotland. "As the appeals court confirmed, the Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to various US media outlets. "Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the 13 outlets on board. Every news organisation in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump, and the White House has taken significant steps to include as many voices as possible." While the Murdoch-owned media company has the power to fight such a case, many do not. "It could have an insidious effect on journalism and free speech," Dr Trier said. "There should be early dismissals [in defamation cases like these], but there are still costs, and smaller organisations that get threats like this are more likely to back down. "It raises a lot of concerns, and Trump has been very unique in using his office to carry out these retributions against the media."
