‘Serious': ‘Top-performing' real estate agent suspended
NSW Fair Trading also alleged Josh Tesolin, of Tesolin Consulting, had produced false documents to the watchdog and breached rules of conduct by using 'high pressure sales tactics'.
The regulator announced over the weekend that Mr Tesolin had been suspended immediately for four months, pending possible disciplinary action, for engaging in 'serious and repeated breaches of the Property and Stock Agents Act 2002'.
'The conduct is believed to have occurred while Mr Tesolin and Tesolin Consulting operated under the banner of Ray White (Quakers Hill – Tesolin Group),' it said.
Mr Tesolin, 29, was raised in Sutherland Shire by parents who owned Fantastic Furniture stores.
Before his suspension he was Ray White's top-performing realtor internationally and was crowned the number one residential agent at the Annual REA Excellence Awards in 2021.
He boasted on social media he had earned more than $9 million in commissions this financial year. The Rolex-wearing and Bentley-driving agent's own property portfolio was worth more than $15 million.
As principal of Ray White Quakers Hill he had a focus on properties in Sydney's western suburbs.
In 2023 he employed 30 staff at the branch, including his mother as general manager and his wife as office manager.
Mr Tesolin and Ray White have reportedly terminated their franchise agreement.
When news.com.au contacted Mr Tesolin on Monday, his lawyer said he would not be making any statements to the media.
NSW Fair Trading said David Mansfield of Deloitte had been appointed manager of Tesolin Consulting during the suspension.
Impacted customers were encouraged to direct any enquiries to Deloitte or reach out directly to NSW Fair Trading on 13 32 20.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
17 minutes ago
- ABC News
Fence-cutting trespassers endanger cattle and nearby highway drivers
Farmers in southern Western Australia say trespassers who cut fences to enter private land for hunting and camping are turning livestock into safety hazards, allowing them to escape onto nearby roads. Cattle producer Geoff Pearson said one of his properties, located along a major regional highway, had been targeted for the past three years. "They cut [the fences], we patch them, they cut them, we patch them. If they don't cut the fences we've got situations where they just drive straight over the gates," he said. "We've had instances where cattle have been hit by cars. We've had to compensate the [driver] in write-off situations. "Fortunately no-one has been injured … but we have to fit the bill on that." Mr Pearson, who is also the WAFarmers' livestock section president, said an estimated 200 trespass incidents had cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars. Bridgetown farmer Lawson Harper said cattle escaped onto the South West Highway after pig hunters cut gate locks at his neighbour's property two months ago. Mr Harper said pig hunters also took their hunting dogs and broke onto his property, which "distresses" his cows. "It's just blatant disregard. I'm not sure why it's developed but it seems to be the norm now," he said. Mr Lawson said it was "a matter of time" before someone got hurt as a result of livestock getting out and wandering onto roads. City of Albany ranger Carl Fjastad said there was growing community concern about straying livestock with 88 reports of farm animals on roads in the Great Southern in the past year. He said livestock on roads was a "real hazard to road users", particularly during hours of darkness. Mr Fjastad said a driver was lucky to escape injury after crashing into a stray cow on the road near Redmond, four hours south of Perth, in May this year. The problem is not a new one for local farmers. A decade ago Brunswick dairy and beef farmer Paul Ieraci was out checking his boundaries when he noticed fencing had been cut and vehicles had driven though. "You hit panic mode," he said. Mr Ieraci said a neighbour then called him and said they had "come across some dead cattle" they believed to be his. Mr Ieraci's cattle had escaped through the damaged fence and wandered into bushland filled with heart-leaf poison bush. "I came across the dead cattle, which was quite heartbreaking," he said. Mr Ieraci said he was able to save some, but more than 20 Friesian steers and mated heifers died. "It's not our intent to put our cattle in danger, to have them roaming the roads and highways," he said. Mr Pearson said when people trespassed onto his property he contacted local police and tried to provide as much information as possible. He has since invested in hundreds of cameras around his property to try and deter trespassers or help identify them. Despite there being no easy fix he remained hopeful he will one day get livestock back in his paddock. A WA Police spokesperson said trespassing or causing damage to a person's property was a criminal offence that "can impact on a farmer's livelihood". They said it was difficult to ascertain how widespread the problem was in remote agricultural areas. Anyone with information about suspicious activity around rural properties is urged to contact Crime Stoppers.
ABC News
17 minutes ago
- ABC News
Australia and Vanuatu close to signing Nakamal Agreement worth $500m
Australia and Vanuatu are close to signing an "ambitious" new strategic pact that will see the federal government plough about half a billion dollars into the Pacific island country over the next decade. Vanuatu's Council of Ministers is widely expected to endorse the Nakamal Agreement later today after months of negotiations between the two countries. Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Defence Minister Richard Marles and Pacific Minister Pat Conroy will then join Vanuatu's Prime Minister Jotham Napat and other senior leaders on the island of Tanna tomorrow to give their initial agreement to the pact, ahead of a formal signing next month. Mr Napat's office said in a statement the development and security agreement would "cover a wide range of bilateral issues, including infrastructure planning, economic development, and climate resilience initiatives in light of the devastating December 17 earthquake of 2024". "The partnership between Vanuatu and Australia remains strong, especially as Vanuatu continues its recovery efforts," it said. One Australian government source said Vanuatu had driven "quite a hard bargain", but insisted the pact would boost Vanuatu's development while buttressing Australia's strategic position in the country — which is also being energetically courted by China. Under the pact, Australia is expected to make substantial commitments worth up to $500 million over a decade — or $50 million a year. For example, Australia would provide approximately $120 million to help Vanuatu deliver its plan to build two "large data centres" in both Port Vila and Santo. Australia is also expected to deliver around $100 million in security assistance and budget support worth $55 million, and more than $110 million to help Vanuatu deal with the impacts of climate change. The federal government is also expected to make smaller financial contributions to boosting labour mobility, fostering cultural connections and improving digital connectivity. But several details in the agreement remain under wraps. For example, it is not yet clear whether Australia will offer any concessions to Vanuatu on travel and migration, which is an issue likely to be closely watched by other Pacific nations. Last month Mr Napat declared he would not sign the Nakamal Agreement unless Australia agreed to offer "visa-free" travel to his country, saying the pact had to be "win-win" for both countries. Successive Australian governments have been unwilling to relax visa and travel rules for Pacific nationals, partly due to fears a large proportion would remain in Australia illegally. Relaxing travel restrictions for the Pacific could also be politically contentious. Australian officials have previously raised deep concerns about Vanuatu's contentious "Citizenship By Investment" scheme — sometimes called the Golden Passport program — which critics say has drawn oligarchs and criminals seeking to evade foreign law enforcement. It is not yet clear what commitments Vanuatu has made to Australia on the security front. The Pacific island nations of Tuvalu and Nauru have effectively handed Australia the right to veto security agreements with third nations under sweeping treaties they signed with Canberra in 2023 and 2024 respectively. But Vanuatu has long maintained a fierce commitment to non-alignment — or "friends to all, enemies to none" — and is very unlikely to make a similar commitment to Australia. In 2022, Vanuatu's then-Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau signed a contentious security agreement with Ms Wong that labelled Australia as Vanuatu's "principal security partner" and said both countries would "consult" with each other on any "common security interests." But Mr Kalsakau's cabinet rebelled in the wake of that agreement, accusing the prime minister of going above the heads of his ministers and parliament — and the security agreement was never ratified by either Australia or Vanuatu. The statement from Mr Napat's office suggested the Nakamal Agreement will supersede the 2022 security pact. "It is important to note that a security agreement signed in late 2022 between Australia and the former Government of then Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau was never approved by COM, let alone parliament!" it said. A spokesperson for the Foreign Minister Penny Wong said discussions on the Nakamal Agreement were "progressing" but "there is still work to do on both sides." "We look forward to continuing our constructive conversations on the ground as we work towards reaching an agreement that delivers shared objectives," they said. "Our visit to Vanuatu highlights the respect, shared values, and cultural and religious connections that are the platform for deepening the partnership between our countries." "As we have shown through our Pacific partnerships, Australia is open to ambitious agreements where they advance the prosperity and security of our region."
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
WA government to introduce 'post and boast' laws amid concerns about protests, freedom of speech
Footage posted on social media of two stolen cars hooning around a regional town in Western Australia is the sort of thing that has prompted new legislation set to be debated in state parliament this week. The videos showed children with their faces covered, ramming police cars and bragging about their crimes. Governments around the country initially called on the Commonwealth to pressure social media platforms to crack down on the content, but they are also taking their own action. Last month, the WA government introduced a "post and boast" bill to parliament targeting so-called "crimefluencers" who boast about their offences on social media. Some groups are concerned the proposed law goes too far, is too broad and will have a "chilling effect" on free speech. So what will happen if the bill is passed as it stands? It is an amendment to the Criminal Code, named the "Post and Boast Offence". It would make it an offence to "disseminate material" that depicts a crime with the purpose of boasting or glorifying the criminal behaviour or encouraging others to engage in the same conduct. In essence, the government said it was targeting people who posted crimes on social media "that may humiliate, intimidate or victimise a person, increase the reputation or notoriety of the offender, glorify the conduct, or encourage copycat behaviour". That includes a range of criminal offences — assaults, stealing and robbery, property damage, dangerous or reckless driving, racial harassment and inciting racial hatred, and Nazi symbols and salutes. The legislation makes clear that a person can be prosecuted regardless of whether they have been prosecuted, or convicted of, the offence depicted in their post. The maximum penalty is three years in jail, one year more than the penalty for the same offence in Victoria. Courts will also be able to order the person to "remove, retract, recover, delete, destroy or forfeit to the state" the post in question, punishable by 12 months in jail and a $12,000 fine if they do not comply. The government says the changes aim to prevent further harm and re-traumatisation of victims, meaning there will be exceptions where people are not motivated by malicious intent and are posting for another reason. The list of activities that will not be penalised includes material posted "for a genuine scientific, educational, academic, artistic, literary, satirical or entertainment purpose". A journalist or news publisher reporting news or current affairs will not be prosecuted either. And there will be no penalty if the conduct depicted in the video is fictional or artificially created, if it was posted to denounce or warn against criminal behaviour. There are also specific exceptions for members of a law enforcement agency or intelligence agency. Critics say while the government claims the intent of the laws is to stop criminal behaviour, the legislation's impact will be much broader. They have pointed to legal comment by University of Western Australia Associate Professor of Law Murray Wesson, who concluded the proposed bill had "the potential to infringe the constitutionally protected implied freedom of political communication". "This is due to the extraordinary breadth of the offence, in particular the wide definitions of dissemination [which includes dissemination of material to one other person] and relevant offence [which includes unlawful assemblies and breaches of the peace]," he wrote. Conservation Council WA executive director Matt Roberts was concerned the law could stop peaceful protest, and would be "stifling the voice of the public" on what they wanted from the government. Critics like Mr Roberts argue people who took part in the successful protest movement in 2016 and 2017 to stop the Roe 8 highway extension and prevent the destruction of the Beeliar wetlands, backed by Labor at the time, could have been charged under this new legislation, but the government denies they would have been charged. At the time when Labor was in opposition, people chained themselves to construction machinery and pushed over gates, with police charging some protesters with trespassing, obstruction and refusing to give details to police. "Just for sharing that, people would be criminalised under these laws," Mr Roberts said. WA Greens leader Brad Pettitt labelled said the laws would have "a chilling effect ... on freedom of expression and the right to protest". He said the suffragettes who campaigned for women's right to vote could be imprisoned today under this law, and the Franklin River dam protests in Tasmania during the 1980s would have also been targeted Greens MLC Sophie McNeil said she would be charged over videos she had shared of activists raising attention about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. "Right now you've got members of parliament who could be eligible for three years in jail simply for supporting peaceful, non-violent protest. And that's absolutely outrageous," she said. The legislation does not specifically mention protests as a legitimate defence from prosecution, but WA Premier Roger Cook was adamant protests were not the focus. He said the causes people were protesting against, and the activity of protest, were "absolutely not the focus of these laws". "Highlighting the behaviour or observing that the behaviour has taken place and commenting in relation to the cause will not of itself attract the attention of the post and boast laws," he said. The premier said the law's primary focus was crime, adding: "It's about people who glorify criminal and unlawful behaviour." He said he wanted to ensure people in WA could still protest and express their freedom of speech. The laws will be debated in parliament this week. Labor has the numbers to pass the laws, and the opposition has said it will be supporting the legislation. But opposition legal affairs spokesperson Nick Goiran questioned why only some criminal behaviour was included instead of all crime. He noted the Greens planned to refer the bill to parliament's Legislative Committee and added the opposition would support a three-month inquiry. Dr Pettitt said the Greens would push for a raft of amendments, namely excluding non-violent protest and ensuring it doesn't "criminalise a whole new generation of young people".
