NDIS auditor's shocking past as a convicted fraudster is exposed
An auditor who inspects NDIS providers on behalf of the disability watchdog has been exposed as a convicted fraudster.
Lisa Scully narrowly avoided jail time for her offences when she was convicted in 2016.
Since then she has been working as a 'lead auditor' of NDIS companies, for a certification body approved by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission.
Daily Mail Australia does not suggest Ms Scully has engaged in any wrongdoing in that time.
Prior to her appointment, Ms Scully was caught fraudulently approving invoices while working as a manager at Newcastle City Council, north of Sydney.
She was also caught accepting gifts including a coffee machine and an oven from a software company which was given a contract with the council.
Ms Scully pleaded guilty to being an agent giving false document to a principal, being an agent corruptly receiving benefit and dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception.
At the time of her offences, it was reported Ms Scully was in charge of overhauling the council's garbage system and was responsible for 140 staff.
A Newcastle Local Court heard Ms Scully allegedly accepted kickbacks after she fraudulently awarded a software company a tender for a new GPS tracking system for garbage trucks, according to The Daily Telegraph.
The court also heard that the software company had offered Ms Scully 'anything she wanted' and that she approved $36,000 worth of fake invoices.
The fake invoices were from the software company and were used so that Ms Scully could buy kitchen goods and electronic devices for herself.
Ms Scully was sentenced to a 20-month intensive correction order - a type of imprisonment sentence that is served in the community rather than in jail.
In January 2019, Ms Scully re-entered the workforce as a community, corporate support consultant at We Care overseeing NDIS audits, according to her LinkedIn page.
She describes herself as a 'lead auditor in NDIS, ISO and Australian Services Excellence Standards Compliance'.
Ms Scully's current role is as a 'Lead Auditor' at Global Compliance Certification.
The company, which is approved by the NDIS Commission, handles audits of various companies to certify they comply with the NDIS Practice Standards.
Managing Director at Global Compliance Certification Mousa Sharifi described Ms Scully as an 'amazing' auditor.
Mr Sharifi said Ms Scully was forthcoming with her prior convictions, had passed a police and working with children's check and was also recommended by three referees.
'We did our due diligence, and in the capacity of an NDIS auditor they have nothing to do with financials,' Mr Sharifi told the Daily Telegraph.
Mr Sharifi added it was not the company's job to punish people for things that they had done, as that was a responsibility reserved for the justice system.
Ms Scully is also the director of Allegro Associates, which is a company that audits and pre-audits for the NDIS Commission.
'My work focuses on audit readiness (NDIS, ISO, Australian Service Excellence Standards), policy and governance systems, organisational reviews, and strategic project delivery,' Ms Scully wrote on LinkedIn.
'With over 800 audit days completed and a background spanning executive leadership, quality systems, and service development, I bring practical, results-driven support to providers navigating compliance, growth, or service transformation.'
The NDIS Commission does not directly employ auditors. Instead, an auditor is hired through independently certified auditing bodies.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
TONY HETHERINGTON: When is a bank not a bank?
Tony Hetherington is Financial Mail on Sunday's ace investigator, fighting readers corners, revealing the truth that lies behind closed doors and winning victories for those who have been left out-of-pocket. Find out how to contact him below. D.L. writes: I have an account with Suits Me, an internet bank authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority. But my account has been hacked – someone called the bank and transferred £4,200 to themselves, leaving me very little to live on and pay my bills. Tony Hetherington replies: You spent more than six hours on the phone to Suits Me, and when you finally reached the 'disputes team' you were told because you did not transfer the £4,200 the transaction required an investigation, which might take months. Suits Me said your money went to an account at Revolut, as instructed by the mystery caller. This left you with barely any money to support yourself and your 11-year-old child. You called the police, but they referred you to Action Fraud – which means it is unlikely there will be any police enquiries. I contacted Suits Me, which is based in a modernised cattle shed at a farm in Knutsford, Cheshire, and I supplied your signed authority to discuss the loss of your money. The company's boss Matthew Sanders refused to honour this. He said: 'Unfortunately, we cannot comment on individual accounts or disputes as I am sure you would expect.' He said his firm has 'rigorous' security procedures, adding: 'At Suits Me, we pride ourselves on our customer service and security.' You may disagree, of course. You assured me: 'I have two-factor authentication on my phone app and emails, and my phone has not been out of my sight.' You have not shared the account details with anyone, and they are not even written down. I tried again with Mr Sanders, but got a brief response that 'it is our strict policy not to debate individual customers' circumstances in the media'. So while every big bank is happy to respond when the customer allows it, Suits Me regards an invitation to comment as a 'debate'! But it did send you a lengthy letter. Banks operate a voluntary scam-victim refund scheme called the Contingent Reimbursement Model Code, they said – but Suits Me has not signed up to it. There is a separate scheme operated by the UK Payment Systems Regulator – but guess what, Suits Me works in partnership with a Gibraltar business so falls outside this refund programme, too. The company rejected your complaint, but offered you £35 for the time wasted on hold when you rang. It said if you were not happy, you could complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). This puzzled me because I was pretty sure that Suits Me was not covered by the FOS, so I questioned Mr Sanders and he admitted: 'The letter sent to Mr L contained an error in that it said he can raise a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. This is not correct.' If you were unhappy, you should complain to a company called IDT Financial Services in Gibraltar. I did, and IDT explained it is a regulated issuer of Visa and Mastercard cards, and Suits Me is its distributor. You could file a complaint in Gibraltar, it said. Then two days ago, and without issuing any comment, Suits Me put the missing £4,200 back into your account. You were stunned, but delighted and relieved! The big question remains: how it is possible to operate a quasi-bank which sidesteps the ombudsman, is outside the compensation scheme and dismisses questions as a mere 'debate'. Why does the Government allow it? So what is Suits Me... and how does it work? 'Looking for a bank account? Suits Me offers personal accounts for everyone.' This is the bold statement on the company's website. But Suits Me is not a bank. Who says so? Its own boss says so. Matthew Sanders told me: 'Suits Me is not a bank. It is a distributor of e-money.' And if you search long enough on its website, it explains: 'An e-money account, like the personal account offered by Suits Me, is an account that stores money in electronic form which can be used to make payments.' Open an account and you can set up direct debits, pay bills and have a debit card. What you don't get is an overdraft or credit. And you also don't get plain speaking from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Suits Me appears in the FCA's public register of authorised firms, with the advice that 'you may be able to complain about this firm to the Financial Ombudsman Service', and 'you may be able to claim compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme'. But the FCA says bluntly that the compensation scheme 'will not be able to consider a claim against this firm if it fails'. And whether the FOS will intervene 'depends on the activity'. The FCA answers leave customers to take the risks. Who would sign up with a bank that isn't a bank? Suits Me offers accounts in three minutes, with gamblers and debtors welcome. All asylum seekers need 'is a selfie for ID and a card issued by the Home Office'. If you believe you are the victim of financial wrongdoing, write to Tony Hetherington at Financial Mail, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY or email Because of the high volume of enquiries, personal replies cannot be given. Please send only copies of original documents, which we regret cannot be returned.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Tabcorp ‘clearly emboldened' by government inaction on gambling ads, David Pocock says
Tabcorp's plan to lure more gamblers into pubs and hotels through inducements shows the wagering industry has been emboldened by government inaction on gambling ads, according to a crossbench senator, a public health expert and campaigners. Tabcorp's increased use of promotions and special offers is just one part of its broader plan to reinvigorate its betting presence in pubs and hotels, which became dated as the company overwhelmingly focused on the booming online industry. In addition to an ongoing trial of in-play betting at venues in New South Wales, Tabcorp plans to invest in significant renovations to its gaming rooms inside pub and clubs. To offset those costs, it plans to no longer offer a commission to venues that generate less than $10,000 in bets a week. The proposal has triggered a fight with the powerful lobby group for pubs, the Australian Hotels Association, which believes it would unfairly punish about 650 smaller venues already struggling to stay afloat. Tabcorp argues it is a modest hit of about $160 a week and that inducements and renovations will help venues reach the $10,000 threshold. The strategic use of promotions that can only be claimed in pubs and clubs has concerned some long-term critics of the gambling industry, who believe these offers lead to increased harm. Regulators in NSW and Victoria have also said they were watching closely. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email A federal parliamentary inquiry, led by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy, called for inducements to be banned. The inquiry's June 2023 report focused on online gambling but warned the promotions encouraged riskier bets, higher losses, and undermined harm minimisation messages. Tabcorp's promotions, which reportedly include happy hours and special offers to get people inside pubs, have been described by the company as a rebalancing of its overall inducement offering, with focus shifting away from online betting. The independent ACT senator David Pocock said the Albanese government's failure to formally respond to the Murphy review and ban inducements had 'clearly emboldened the sector'. 'Research shows inducements have contributed enormously to children and young people believing that gambling is a risk-free and normal part of enjoying sport, which is the exact association we should be working to break,' Pocock said. Pocock said Tabcorp's plan to use inducements to help boost profits was 'unsurprising when you consider the government has so little urgency in implementing the 31 recommendations of the Murphy Review'. Martin Thomas, the chief executive of the Alliance for Gambling Reform, also believed the federal government's hesitancy to restrict gambling ads and inducements had emboldened the sector. 'Australia's infamous title as the biggest gambling losers in the world will only get worse without action, as reflected in these latest moves by Tabcorp,' Thomas said. 'The federal government has a golden opportunity to implement all 31 recommendations of the Murphy Review but the report so far has gathered dust for more than two years.' Samantha Thomas, a professor of public health at Deakin University who has conducted research on the impact of inducements, said they are an 'influential form of marketing because they create a perception that the gambling company is giving you something and that gambling has less risk or no risk attached to it'. 'The lack of significant regulator action on inducements only benefits the gambling industry and their ability to extract more and more money from the community.' A spokesperson for the communications minister, Annika Wells, said 'the Albanese government has undertaken some of the most significant gambling harm reduction measures in Australian history'. 'We know there is more to do, and we will continue with this work,' the spokesperson said. In response to criticism of its inducement proposal, a Tabcorp spokesperson said it was 'the most regulated wagering company in Australia'. 'As the state wagering licensee, we work more closely than any other operator with regulators and governments on compliance and harm minimisation,' the spokesperson said. 'Our retail staff undergo compulsory compliance training to identify potential problem gambling behaviour and how to safely intervene.' The Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, which regulates Tabcorp, said it would be briefed on the proposal in coming weeks. 'The VGCCC will and does intervene where gambling operators fail to comply with their obligations, including in relation to gambling harm,' a spokesperson said. A Liquor & Gaming NSW spokesperson said 'the promotion of gambling, including inducements to gamble, is subject to strict regulatory controls aimed at minimising gambling harm'.
Daily Mail
9 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Property inspector hit with shock warning after exposing huge number of defects in 'luxury' four-bedroom home in posh suburb
A building inspector was left stunned after receiving a letter from lawyers banning him from visiting a property that he had surveyed for its new purchaser. Dressed all in black and armed with a body camera, the ' TikTok Inspector' meticulously zooms in on every flaw at the homes he surveys, explaining the issues. It's the public-facing side of 43-year-old Zeher Khalil's Melbourne-based business, Site Inspections, which offers forensic assessments of buildings. With a diploma in construction, Mr Khalil said he has used over a decade of experience in the industry to help hold companies and developers to account. 'We want to reveal who these guys are ASAP,' he told Daily Mail Australia on Thursday. On May 20, Mr Khalil appeared to have met his match when law firm Thomson Greer banned him on behalf of their client from a 'luxury' four-bedroom home in a well-heeled suburb of Melbourne. Mr Khalil had visited the property at the request of the purchaser before they finalised payments. 'The homeowners (were looking at) the cosmetic things and I was like, "Yes, but you have a bigger problem here",' he said. 'The cladding's falling apart. The roof is stuffed. It's one of the worst, this job. 'I went on the roof (and) I'm like, "man, this is so bad and there's other units for sale. I gotta alert people about it".' In Site Inspections' report, seen by this publication, Mr Khalil found 48 details in the home that were 'non-compliant' and listed 82 defects. He posted a five-minute video on TikTok walking viewers through some of the most pressing issues. This included a banister outside the property that wobbled, alleged signs of leaking in the house and loose window frames and cladding. Throughout, viewers could hear Mr Khalil's exclamations of 'oh my goodness' and 'look at this mess'. 'I put it there on purpose to warn people because it's not about us getting the work, just watch what you're buying,' he said. Thomson Greer issued Mr Khalil with a letter two weeks later claiming 'unlawful entry and property damage', which he posted on his TikTok account. 'Your actions constitute trespass and unauthorised interference with our client's property, both of which are actionable under law,' it read. 'Given your above conduct we advise that you are hereby prohibited from entering the Development Property Site in any capacity.' If he wants to return to the property, Mr Khalil was told he would have to be granted express written permission from the relevant owner. But he seemed unfazed by the turn of events, claiming it was a sign the group didn't want him to check their other properties. 'We got heaps worse. We get letters from these bigger builders,' he said. 'They're like, "Remove (a video). We're going to sue you for defamation. We're losing contracts".' Mr Khalil said he won't remove videos but has threatened companies with the suggestion he will offer free inspections to anyone using the firm and publish videos of them if legal cases are launched. In the case of the Melbourne property, the inspector said he posted the lawyers' letter to warn people about the company and the house. Daily Mail Australia has contacted Thomson Greer for comment from their client. Mr Khalil said the purchaser, who paid him to survey the property, is holding off finalising payments for the house until Site Inspections' issues are addressed. 'I think he's not gonna settle until they fix the items,' he said.
