A judge found out that a law professional impersonating a wealth guru conned homeowners by offering fake courses promising to safeguard their assets.
Students were assured by Dominique Grubisa that the DG Institute’s programs were designed with their financial well-being—not that of their creditors—in consideration.
Between 2017 and 2022, the entrepreneur worked on the Real Estate Rescue (RER) and Master Wealth Control (MWC) programs’ delivery, sales, and promotion.
At the time, there were approximately 3700 students enrolled in both of these programs.
In December 2022, the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) filed a lawsuit against Grubisa and the DG Institute for marketing deceptive products that violated consumer laws.
Judge Ian Jackson acknowledged the veracity of the evidence presented by the ACCC against Grubisa on Tuesday at the Federal Court’s judgment hearing.
Judge Jackson stated that he was certain Grubisa knew her activities were “misleading and deceptive” since she conceptualized, drafted, and carried out the well-organized programs herself.
Homeowners in distress were informed that the RER program would enable them to keep a portion of the equity in their homes in the event of a sale, but many were confronted with unfulfilled expectations.
It was promised to students enrolled in the MWC course that they could shield their real estate assets from banks.
The course packages that were available at the time included bonuses including reading material and films, an online portal with resource access, and workshops that took place over one to three days in person as well as virtually.
Students’ fees ranged from $4500 to $9200, depending on the program they chose and their preferred means of payment.
Grubisa herself conducted most of the live and pre-recorded seminars for the programs between 2017 and 2022.
Given that Ms. Grubisa had both a bachelor’s and master’s degree in law, Justice Jackson declared that he was “comfortably satisfied that Ms. Grubisa did have actual knowledge of that obvious flaw.”
The judge acknowledged Ms. Grubisa’s prior professional expertise as an attorney and barrister, even if he had not “formed a high opinion of her legal competence.”
“Ms. Grubisa must have known that the representations she was making were not true,” he continued.
Justice Jackson stated that it is improbable that a loan backed by an equitable mortgage would ever equal the worth of a client’s assets, “if ever.”
“That obvious flaw is a matter of common sense, which would be readily appreciated by anyone with elementary legal knowledge,” he remarked.
The ACCC welcomed the court’s findings.
“This case is another reminder that businesses must ensure statements they make when promoting products or services to consumers are accurate and not misleading,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver declared in a statement.
The matter will resume in court on April 23.
- Published By Team Australia News
