MARK Darrren Levi has been exposed as the Sydney liquidator alleged to have taken more than $90,000 from a company in receivership to pay his tax.
Levi, who denies the allegations, had until yesterday been protected by a Supreme Court non-publication order.
That order was imposed while he appealed an earlier judgement which had dismissed his application for a stay of a disciplinary hearing before the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (CALDB).
The appeal proceedings, held before Justice John Basten, were dismissed on May 2, 2013 and in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday, Justice Stephen Rothman agreed with ASIC's application to have his order of April 3, 2013, suppressing the Titan Advisory managing director's identity, set aside.
“The court orders the non-publication order issued on April 3, 2013 be vacated,” Justice Rothman said, adding: “the suppression orders are sought in order to ensure the plaintiff has a fair criminal trial, if and when one commences.
“The fact that the criminal trial has not commenced is a factor to be taken into account in this exercise. Nevertheless, as stated in the first judgement, I consider a criminal prosecution likely”, Justice Rothman concluded. (Read today's judgement)
A Sydney-based liquidator is in strife after being accused of pilfering $90,000 to pay his tax.
The official liquidator, whose identity is subject to a non-publication order, recently failed in his application to stay a hearing before the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (CALDB) that could see him stripped of his liquidators registration.
In a Supreme Court of NSW judgement published last week, Justice Stephen Rothman outlined how the accused, while working for Pitt Street insolvency firm Jamieson Louttit & Associates (JL&A), allegedly caused two payments from an account at JL&A to be made to himself to "discharge a tax liability".
The transactions allegedly occurred whilst the accused was working on Biseja Pty Ltd, a property developer to which Jamieson Louttit had been appointed receiver on September 4, 2008.
According to the judgement, the accused claims the payments were authorised by Louttit as part of an agreement the two had.
