Federal Court of Australia

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Star Investment Group Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] FCA 1472

ORDERS

Penal Notice

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

“Corporations Act” means Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

“Property” means all real or personal property, assets or interests in property or assets of any kind, within or outside Australia including, by virtue of subsection 1323(2A) of the Corporations Act, any property held otherwise than as sole beneficial owner.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Appointment of Receivers

1.    Adrian Robert Hunter and Jonathon Kingsley Colbran of RSM Australia Partners (Receivers) are appointed, without giving security, as joint and several Receivers and Managers to the Property of the First and Second Defendants and joint and several Receivers to the Property of the Third Defendant for the purposes of:

(a)    identifying, collecting and securing the Property of the Defendants;

(b)    identifying the assets and liabilities of the Defendants;

(c)    identifying any debts owed by the Defendants to investors (individually or by way of the operation of a scheme or investment platform of any kind) as at the date of the appointment of the Receivers and the whereabouts of those funds, including:

(i)    the total value of assets currently held by the Defendants on behalf of investors;

(ii)    the total amount of funds invested;

(iii)    the total amount of funds withdrawn by or paid to investors;

(iv)    any other information necessary to enable assessment of the financial position of the investors relating to their investment held by the Defendants.

(d)    providing an opinion as to the solvency of the First and Second Defendants;

(e)    providing an opinion as to the likely return to investors in the event that the First and Second Defendants were wound up;

(f)    providing an opinion as to whether the First or Second Defendant has kept adequate and accurate financial records;

(g)    identifying any other information necessary to enable the financial position of the Defendants to be assessed;

(h)    providing a report to the Court within 42 days, to the extent possible in relation to the matters referred to in sub-paragraphs 1(a)–(g) of this order;

2.    For the purpose of attaining the objectives for which the Receivers are appointed, the Receivers shall have the following powers:

(a)    the powers set out in sections 420(1), (2)(a), (b), (e), (f), (g), (h), (k), (n), (p), (q), (r), (t) and (u) of the Corporations Act and can exercise those powers in respect of all of the Property of the First and Second Defendants, as if all references in those sections to “property” are taken to be a reference to “Property” as defined above;

(b)    the powers set out in sections 420(1), (2)(a), (b), (e), (f), (g), (k), (n), (p), (q), (r), (t) and (u) of the Corporations Act and can exercise those powers in respect of all of the Property of the Third Defendant, as if:

(i)    the Third Defendant were a corporation; and

(ii)    all references in those sections to “property” are taken to be a reference to “Property” as defined above;

(c)    the power to investigate and report on the matters set out at sub-paragraphs
1(a)–(g) of this order; and

(d)    the power to apply to the Court for directions or further orders.

3.    The Receivers shall, within 42 days of their appointment, or such other time as the Court considers appropriate, provide to the Court and to the Plaintiff a report, including as to the matters set out at sub-paragraphs 1(a)–(g) of this order to the extent that the Receivers have been able to ascertain or form opinions in respect of those matters.

4.    The Receivers’ reasonable costs and expenses be payable from the Property of the Defendants.

Asset preservation orders

5.    Order 7 of the orders made on 15 September 2026 shall not prevent the Receivers from doing anything referred to in that order.

Books and records and other materials

6.    The Defendants shall immediately deliver up to the Receivers all the books, records and other papers including, but not limited to, all files, computer records and data in their possession, custody or control which relate to the Property of the Defendants.

7.    The Plaintiff provide to the Receivers within 7 days of the making of the order:

(a)    a copy of the affidavits filed in these proceedings;

(b)    a copy of all documents produced to the Plaintiff in the course of its investigation into the Defendants as determined appropriate by the Plaintiff, including from:

(i)    the Defendants (and their related entities), and/or its officers, employees, auditors, contractors, agents and lawyers; and

(ii)    the Defendants’ financial institutions and brokers;

(c)    a copy of all transcripts of examinations and interviews conducted in the course of ASIC’s investigation into the Defendants.

Notice of orders to third parties

8.    To the extent necessary, the Plaintiff has leave to give to:

(a)    the relevant authorities (domestic and overseas) that record, control and/or regulate the ownership of real property;

(b)    the relevant authorities (domestic and overseas) that record, control and/or regulate the ownership of motor vehicles;

(c)    the relevant authorities and entities (domestic and overseas) that record, control and/or regulate the ownership of securities;

(d)    any bank, building society or other financial institution (domestic and overseas) at which, to the best of the Plaintiff’s knowledge and belief, the Defendants operate or any of the Defendants operates any account; and

(e)    any other person or entity (domestic and overseas), holding or controlling Property which, to the best of the Plaintiff’s knowledge and belief, belongs to the Defendant (or any of the Defendants), notice of these orders, by delivering a copy of a minute of the orders to that entity or person and/or any person apparently in the employ of that entity or person.

General orders

9.    The matter be referred to the National Operations Registrar for allocation to a docket judge.

10.    The matter be adjourned until a further hearing on a date to be fixed.

11.    There be liberty to any party to apply to the Court on 48 hours’ notice.

12.    There be liberty to the Receivers to apply to the Court on 48 hours’ notice.

13.    Costs be reserved.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ANDERSON J:

Introduction

1    On 15 September 2026, I made interim asset preservation, travel restraint and ancillary orders ex parte (Interim Orders): Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Star Investment Group Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1380 (ASIC v SIGA).

2    At the hearing on 6 October 2026, ASIC applied for:

(a)    the continuation, until further order, of the Interim Orders; and

(b)    orders pursuant to s 1323(1)(h) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) appointing receivers and managers to the property of the first and second defendants, and a receiver to the property of the third defendant.

3    On 6 October 2026, I made the orders sought by ASIC. These are my reasons for doing so.

4    The background facts to this proceeding are set out in detail in ASIC v SIGA at [2]–[28] and I do not propose to repeat those matters as it would serve no purpose. These reasons assume familiarity with that judgment, and I will use the terms defined therein.

5    ASIC relies on:

(a)    affidavits of Gregory Stewart McLeod sworn 10 September 2026 (McLeod Affidavit), 5 October 2026 (Second McLeod Affidavit), and 6 October 2026 (Third McLeod Affidavit);

(b)    the affidavit of Meagan Valerie Avery sworn 22 September 2026 (Avery Affidavit);

(c)    two affidavits of David Keen, each sworn 18 September 2026, pertaining to the attempted service on SIGA (Keen SIGA Affidavit) and service on Ms Khallaf (the former wife of Mr Ahmad) (Keen Khallaf Affidavit);

(d)    the affidavit of Dennis John Domaille sworn 18 September 2026, pertaining to the attempted service on the second defendant, Gondal (Domaille Affidavit); and

(e)    its written submissions dated 14 September 2026 and 5 October 2026.

6    I am satisfied, principally on the evidence deposed to by Mr McLeod in the McLeod Affidavit and the Second McLeod Affidavit, that there remains an unacceptable risk that unless receivers are appointed to the property of SIGA, Gondal and Mr Ahmad:

(a)    the true financial position of each of them including the details of investors in the Scheme will remain unknown; and

(b)    the assets of SIGA and Gondal may be further dissipated, given that substantial assets have already been transferred to Pakistan, and the prospects of recovering those assets, including assets yet to be identified, may be reduced.

7    I am satisfied that service has been effected on the defendants. The Interim Orders included an order for substituted service on Mr Ahmad pursuant to r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). As deposed to by Ms Avery in the Avery Affidavit, substituted service has been effected on Mr Ahmad. Based on the matters deposed to in the Keen SIGA Affidavit, Keen Khallaf Affidavit and Domaille Affidavit in relation to the attempts to effect service on the first and second defendants, by further orders of 22 September 2026, service on SIGA and Gondal is also deemed to have been effected by the sending of the relevant documents to Mr Ahmad by email on 18 September 2026.

8    Notwithstanding service on the defendants and subsequent communications between Mr Ahmad and Mr McLeod on 30 September 2026 (as deposed to in the Second McLeod Affidavit), no Notice of Appearance has been filed by or on behalf of the defendants. The Third McLeod Affidavit also includes a screenshot of a WhatsApp message from Mr Ahmad to Mr McLeod sent on the morning of the hearing, which said, in part, that Mr Ahmad would “be available on link to join the proceedings”, is “looking to higher [sic] a lawyer to formally represent [him] during this week” and would therefore seek to have the hearing adjourned until the end of October. Despite this, there was no appearance from Mr Ahmad at the hearing.

Consideration

9    The affidavits relied upon by ASIC raise a multitude of concerning facts, none of which have been addressed by the defendants. The most concerning are the suspected dissipation of Scheme funds and the failure to properly account for investors’ funds. I have already found in ASIC v SIGA at [29]–[49] that the Court has jurisdiction to make orders under s 1323 of the Act and that it is necessary or desirable to make orders to protect the interests of investors as aggrieved persons. In summary, I found there are reasonable grounds to suspect contraventions by SIGA and Gondal of s 286 of the Act; by Mr Ahmad of ss 180, 181 and 344; and by SIGA of ss 1041E and 1041H of the Act and ss 12DA and 12DB of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) in the promotion of the Notes. I also found that each defendant is, or may become, liable to the investors and that the evidence of the suspected contraventions is compelling.

10    I am satisfied, based on the evidence relied upon by ASIC, that the appointment of receivers and managers is now necessary or desirable. Since I made the Interim Orders on 15 September 2026, the evidence discloses the following further matters which favour the appointment of receivers and managers:

(a)    there remains no director within the jurisdiction to preserve the Property or to account for the Scheme funds. Mr Ahmad left Australia on 5 April 2025, and it appears that he remains overseas. His only contact with ASIC since Ms Avery emailed him the court documents, beyond the communication which I have mentioned at [8], has been by WhatsApp on 30 September 2026. Notwithstanding that Mr Ahmad is aware of the proceedings he has failed to file any Notice of Appearance or respond to the serious concerns raised by ASIC;

(b)    enforcement by the secured lenders is imminent. The Yallourn Property is subject to registered mortgages in favour of Stacks Managed Investments Ltd and RTS Super Pty Ltd. The last payment was made on 19 August 2026. Both mortgagees have issued default notices to Gondal expiring in mid-October 2026. The first mortgagee intends to list and sell the Yallourn Property if the loans are not repaid. Without a receiver there is no independent person to protect the equity in, and the proceeds of, the Yallourn Property for the investors;

(c)    the Yallourn Property remains unsold and on the market with no real interest, notwithstanding that it has been listed since April 2026 (as deposed to by Mr McLeod on information and belief in the Second McLeod Affidavit based on a conversation between Ms Avery and Jim Demetrios of Stockdale & Leggo);

(d)    the companies’ known bank accounts have been closed, financial records have not been produced, and both companies may be insolvent. Approximately $4.6 million was transferred directly to overseas accounts, and a further approximately $2.9 million was sent through Sydney Forex to Pakistan, including approximately $2.8 million to an account in Mr Ahmad’s name with the Meezan Bank, and those funds remain to be traced; and

(e)    investor harm is continuing. Since ASIC published a media release on 18 September 2026, it has received emails from 25 SIGA investors, a SIGA creditor and four Gondal land purchasers, confirming that monthly returns ceased from about February 2026 and that capital has not been repaid.

11    I am satisfied that a receiver is necessary both to guard against the dissipation of the Property and to create an opportunity for the true financial position of SIGA and Gondal, and the whereabouts of the Scheme funds, to be ascertained and reported to the Court: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Secure Investments Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 639 at [27(c)], [27(e)] (Derrington J), Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Carey (No 14) (2007) 158 FCR 92; [2007] FCA 310 at [33] (French J). The appointment of a receiver is the most intrusive of the orders available under s 1323 of the Act and is not to be made lightly: Secure Investments at [28], Carey (No 14) at [43]. But proof of fraud is not a precondition, and where misappropriation is suspected the appointment is the more readily made: Secure Investments at [28]. The suspected misapplication of investor funds, the movement of money to Pakistan, the absence of any director in Australia, and the imminent mortgagee sale together make the appointment necessary or at least highly desirable.

12    As against Mr Ahmad I am satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to appoint a receiver over his property under s 1323(1)(h)(i) of the Act. That is because Mr Ahmad is the sole director, shareholder and secretary of SIGA and Gondal and the directing mind of the Scheme. Substantial Scheme funds were paid to accounts in his own name, including approximately $2.8 million to an account with the Meezan Bank in Pakistan. He has not dealt candidly with ASIC. By s 1323(2A), his property includes property that he holds otherwise than as sole beneficial owner. The power under s 1323(1)(h)(i) of the Act to appoint a receiver extends to his property whether within or outside Australia. His absence overseas and his continued refusal to engage make the appointment of an independent receiver an effective means of identifying, securing and tracing that property: ASIC v SIGA at [35], citing Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Huang (2021) 273 CLR 429; [2021] HCA 43 at [23]–[26], [30]–[31] (Gageler, Keane, Gordon and Gleeson JJ).

13    ASIC seeks orders that the receivers be given the powers of a receiver under s 420 of the Act. I am satisfied that is appropriate, as those powers are required to enable the receivers to identify, take possession of, secure and preserve the property of each defendant, the books and records of SIGA and Gondal to ascertain the assets, liabilities and financial affairs of each defendant and the whereabouts of the Scheme funds and, if the receivers see fit, and subject to the Court’s supervision, to deal with and realise the Yallourn Property. I am also satisfied that the orders sought by ASIC are framed so as to permit, and not prevent, a bona fide sale of the Yallourn Property, with the net proceeds to be preserved for the persons ultimately entitled to them.

14    ASIC also seeks orders that the receivers be required to report to the Court on the financial position and affairs of the defendants and the conduct of the receivership within 42 days of their appointment. I am satisfied that such an order should be made in this case. A reporting obligation of this kind is a conventional and important incident of a receivership appointed under s 1323 of the Act. The appointment of receivers is made to aid ASIC’s continuing investigation into the defendants, including the ascertainment of the true financial position of the defendants and the whereabouts of the Scheme funds. The receivers’ report will inform the further conduct of the proceeding and the protection of the investors’ interests.

15    I accept ASIC’s submission that the travel restraint and passport orders made against Mr Ahmad under s 1323(1)(j) and (k) of the Act should be continued. Although ASIC acknowledges that it appears Mr Ahmad is presently overseas, meaning the orders are of limited immediate utility, I am satisfied that they are framed to take effect upon his return to Australia, and his presence is important to the Investigation.

Disposition

16    For these reasons I made the orders sought by ASIC appointing receivers and managers to the property of SIGA and Gondal and a receiver to the property of Mr Ahmad and continuing the Interim Orders in the terms proposed by ASIC.

Associate:

Dated:    7 October 2026