6 hours ago
3
Grubisa voluntarily lodged a petition to become bankrupt earlier this year. National Personal Insolvency Index records accessed on Friday show she is an undischarged bankrupt.
The private eye
In its decision this month, NCAT found Grubisa engaged a private investigator in 2019 to look into another lawyer to obtain information about potential litigation against her or her companies.
Grubisa “authorised the deliberate deception of another solicitor”, hoping to obtain “privileged material about a proposed class action” and details relating to that lawyer’s clients, the tribunal said.
NCAT found the deception extended to Grubisa offering to help a paralegal create a false invoice to allow the investigator, using a fake name, to pose as one of her former customers. Her actions amounted to professional misconduct, the tribunal said.
Trawling court lists for ‘vulnerable people’
The Law Society of NSW is not the only regulator that has taken an interest in Grubisa’s dealings.
The Privacy Commissioner said in a decision in November last year that DG Institute had unlawfully interfered with the privacy of individuals by trawling court lists, among other public sources, to find information about “distressed properties” to share with participants in its “Elite Mentoring Program”.
Dominique Grubisa selling her get-wealthy schemes.Credit:
“Some of the educational courses offered by … [DG Institute] encouraged and guided its participants to find ‘distressed properties’, in circumstances where a property owner might be incentivised to sell their property below market value as result of divorce, bankruptcy or a deceased estate,” the decision said.
The information was consolidated into “leads lists” given to participants, who were charged a fee of between $25,000 and $30,000 for the program. In a statement last year the commissioner said it amounted to “scraping data to target vulnerable people”.
Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind said DG Institute did not collect the information by fair means.
The commissioner made similar findings in November 2024 against a related company, Property Lovers Pty Limited. The sole director of that company was Kevin Grubisa, who was referred to in Federal Court proceedings in August last year as Grubisa’s ex-husband.
Greens senator David Shoebridge raised concerns about Property Lovers in Senate estimates in February this year.
“Are you aware that their updated privacy policy still refers to collecting personal information for what is called ‘assisting distressed home owners’ and that they’re hosting a video … which refers to identifying distressed properties from court lists, with those properties then appearing on the platform?” Shoebridge asked the privacy commissioner.
“I’m putting those two things together because it seems, notwithstanding your determination, which I commend you for, they’re still engaging in predatory conduct. What’s happening with Property Lovers?”
The commissioner replied: “Yes, we have grave concerns about compliance with the determination. I have sighted those things that you’ve just referred to, including the video.
“We have been in correspondence with the relevant parties about their compliance with the determination.”
‘Deliberate and dishonest’
The consumer watchdog and the corporate regulator have also had Grubisa in their sights.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) pursued Grubisa and the company behind the DG Institute in the Federal Court for making false and misleading claims in videos spruiking two wealth seminar programs.
Federal Court Justice Ian Jackman found in the ACCC’s favour in April last year.
He found Grubisa engaged in deliberate and dishonest conduct that contravened Australian consumer law, including by claiming an “impenetrable” trust structure she promoted would provide complete protection from creditors coming after her customers’ assets.
Jackman was satisfied Grubisa “had actual knowledge of the false and misleading nature” of that claim, even though he said he had “not formed a high opinion of Ms Grubisa’s legal competence”.
Grubisa had boasted in one video promoting the trust structure: “Your lawyer and accountant, with the greatest of respect, won’t be able to do this. They just won’t have this intellectual property.”
In July last year Jackman ordered DG Institute to offer a refund to more than 2000 customers who paid a combined $14.7 million in course fees for the “Master Wealth Control” program between April 2017 and August 2022.
Jackman also ordered DG to pay a $5 million penalty, and Grubisa to pay a $1 million penalty, for contravening consumer law, and disqualified Grubisa from managing corporations for five years.
Her appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court failed, and the High Court refused to grant special leave to appeal.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
