Dear Australian Securities and Investment Commission,
I am seeking information pursuant to the Freedom of Information act 1982.

The information I seek is in regards to ASIC’s findings in their investigation of the placing of
3D Group PTY LTD
&
3D Industries PTY LTD into voluntary administration and the role of the Administrator, Domenic Calabretta of Mackay Goodwin
Suite 2, Level 8, 10 Bridge Street, Sydney, NSW 2000.

After the 24/12/2014 appointment of Mr Calabretta (of Mackay Goodwin) as administrator of 3D Group & 3D Industries, he took control of both companies Westpac bank accounts and closed both of them and started a new account at the Macquarie Bank for both companies in administration.
3D Groups Westpac account was closed by Mr Calabretta with a total of $280,499.43
3D Industries account was closed by Mr Calabretta with a total of $4,939.00
On the 22/01/2015 The Administrator opened the account at the Macquarie bank with a total of $248,504.15.
Note, these figures were supplied to me in the form of copies of the company's bank account statements by the administrator and were confirmed by Westpac Banking Corporation Limited.

On the 30/01/2015 Mackay Goodwin released Administrator reports for both 3D Group & 3D Industries (in administration) pursuant to Section 439A (4) (a) of the corporations act 2001.

The report for 3D Industries,
section 6.3.1 Cash at Bank
“The RATA provided to this office identified cash at bank in the sum of $4,966.”

The report for 3D Group,
section 6.3.1 Cash at Bank
“The RATA provided to this office identified cash at bank in the sum of $248,533”.
The 3D Group report in section 6.3.1 goes on to say
“On 13 January 2015, I received a response from the Westpac Banking Corporation Limited indicating that the company operated a bank account which had a balance of $248,504,15. Those funds were forwarded to my office are now under my control having been placed into the administration bank account”.

The question is, What happened to the missing money?

Yours faithfully
Jason Simpson

Dear Patricia Hu, Thank you for providing me with an answer.
This could've been avoided if the administrator had given the correct information or answered my question regarding this money.

I would like to point out the administration was still dishonest, prejudicial, oppressive to more than one creditor and employee therefore unlawful. Admitted creditors and employees were never paid and a lot of shares were stolen. My next request may focus on ASIC's investigation and the conclusion to point toward information sheet 151 as an excuse to not do the job of enforcement according to the ASIC act.
Our government, the judiciary and even ASIC call "administrators" "the gate keepers", yet ASIC ignores serious breaches of theft and illegal phoenix activity and points to info sheet 151.
While ASIC investigates then rubber stamps these unlawful acts, it can be seen as nothing other than the bent cop on the beat!
The ASIC Act requires us to: enforce and give effect to the law as well as administer the law effectively and with minimal procedural requirements. The ASIC act does not say ASIC can ignore serious crimes, it actually says words to indicate the opposite.

ASIC investigated my claims for 13 months as well as 6 months investigating why the first investigation was taking so long, in the mean time on the 19th of April 2016, announced a $127.2 million reform package to better protect Australian consumers by strengthening the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and then ASIC claim to have finite resources.
ASIC has allowed the theft of over 1 million dollars in shares and many mum and dad investors, employees and creditors in getting ripped off.

The courts have found that administrator guilty of dishonesty and being unlawfully appointed.
It was ASIC who were interested in bringing those 2 court matters before a judge, it was people who were ripped off by this administrator. ASIC have proof of repeat offending, obtaining a financial advantage by deception and well as false statements, unlawful use and abuse of the corporate form, unlawful appointment in the case of 3dg/3di.The admin simply had no lawful excuse to start spending the companies money before paying employees. He has even less of a lawful excuse for denying the employee entitlements with the excuse of it was the person who was in charge of the creditor's trust fund who denied the employee entitlements. The person in charge of the creditor's trust fund was the designer of the illegal Phoenix scheme.
A creditors trust fund with 100 cents in the dollar makes a mockery of the abuse that AIC is prepared to over look.
ASIC has no excuse to not act! As a matter of fact, ASIC has an obligation to act when considering the contents of info sheets 151 and 212.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Simpson