Gladys Liu

Federal MP Gladys Liu refuses to answer questions regarding her $2.1 million court judgment windfall

Federal MP Gladys Liu, whose lawyers were in the High Court of Australia today (18/9/19) to defend the electoral fraud allegations, is refusing to answer questions regarding the $2.1 million court judgment in her company’s favour in 2016. Liu owned a company that mysteriously didn’t have an ABN but somehow a finance company was ordered by the Federal Court to pay her $2.1 million.

The questions I emailed Gladys Liu were a follow-up to my last article titled: “Suspected spy federal MP Gladys Liu to front High Court of Australia next week accused of electoral fraud” where I wrote about Gladys Liu’s company Australian Access Capital Company Pty Ltd which she failed to declare on her parliamentary declaration of interests until mid-August 2019. Gladys Liu also applied to have the company deregistered on the 1st of August 2019 which is about the same time media started to probe her business affairs and associations.

The $2.1 million was awarded to Gladys Liu in January 2016 and is discussed at paragraph 9 in the judgment Australian Access Capital Company Pty Ltd v Orio Mortgage Finance Company Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 534 (16 May 2016).

Gladys Liu originally claimed approximately $1.8 million, which was $1.3 million plus interest of $486,000, which is the figure I used when I emailed her questions as per below and in my previous article. The judge awarded Liu $1.3 million plus interest of $807,000. Further interest was to be awarded as well and a sum from Spiros Psevdos “in an amount to be assessed” in favour of Ms Liu was meant to be paid but I cannot find any further judgments on the matter. I suspect the matter never went any further because Spiros Psevdos, who was the third defendant and owner of the finance companies that Liu sued, went bankrupt in 2016.

The judgment is unclear why the money was owed to Gladys Liu but to me, it looks like that Gladys Liu loaned at least $1.3 million to the finance companies owned by Spiros Psevdos and he never repaid the money, so she took legal action. But where did Gladys Liu’s company get $1.3 million cash to loan to another company?

Did Gladys Liu ever get paid and if so what for? As per the below email she is not saying but as I wrote in the last article “The company sounds like a slush fund / money laundering front to me which might explain why she cancelled the ABN in 2008.”

Below is the email that I sent to Gladys Liu on Monday (16/9/19) at 13.42pm:

Sent: 16 September 2019 13:42
Subject: Media request – KCA – Shane Dowling

Dear Ms Liu

I am a journalist and I have a few questions for an article in relation to your company Australian Access Capital Company Pty Ltd.

  1. You registered the company in 2008 but you also cancelled your ABN for the company in 2008. Why did you do that?
  2. In 2016 you were awarded approximately $1.8 million, by consent, in a legal dispute against Orio Mortgage Finance Company Pty Ltd, Orio Holdings Pty Ltd and Spiros Psevdos. Why were you awarded the $1.8 million? How did they come to owe you the $1.8 million?
  3. Did you receive the $1.8 million given Spiros Psevdos was declared bankrupt in 2016?
  4. What did Australian Access Capital Company Pty Ltd actually do as a business?
  5. Was Australian Access Capital Company Pty Ltd used to funnel political donations? Was it a Slush fund of some type?
  6. Why did you fail to declare the company on your parliamentary declaration of interests until mid-August 2019?
  7. Why did you make an application to ASIC to deregister the company on the 1st of August 2019?

Can you please respond by 6pm today so I can publish.


Shane Dowling

Kangaroo Court of Australia

I received the standard automatically generated email reply at 16.16pm the same day from Gladys Liu’s office saying they get a lot of emails and they would reply when they can.

High Court of Australia – sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns

A lawyer representing Gladys Liu and federal treasurer Josh Frydenberg, Philip Solomon QC, was in the High Court of Australia in Melbourne today which sat as the Court of Disputed Returns for directions in relation to the electoral fraud case against them regarding their individual seats they won at the last election. (Click here to read more)

The matter relates to misleading signs written in Chinese at polling booths at the last federal election. The High Court’s Justice Michelle Gordon sent the matter to the Federal Court of Australia for hearing “so it could be dealt with more efficiently. She said the lower court would be better placed to handle issues over access to information.” (Click here to read more)

The Australian reported today:

Justice Michelle Gordon outlined four key questions at the heart of the dispute — that the conduct was “illegal”; that it occurred with the knowledge or authorisation of the two candidates; that it was likely to have affected the results in each seat and that it would be just for a declaration of invalidity to be made.

The judge, sitting in Melbourne, was critical of the lack of response provided by the Treasurer and Ms Liu to date, which she said was “unsatisfactory”. (Click here to read more) Which in effect means that Josh Frydenberg and Gladys Liu are already ducking and weaving on the issue as they know they are in a lot of trouble.

As far as the dodgy signs / election fraud is concerned Gladys Liu would be in the most trouble as her winning margin she was a lot closer (50.6%) than Josh Frydenberg (55.7%) and as Justice Gordon said one element that needs to be proven is “that it was likely to have affected the results.” I think there would be a strong argument that it did effect Gladys Liu’s result in the seat of Chisholm as she only won by 1090 votes and there is reportedly a large Chinese speaking community in her seat which the sign was designed to deceive. The sign that looked like an Australian Electoral Commission sign said in Chinese that the “correct way to vote” was to place a “1” next to the name of the Liberal candidate on the ballot paper.

Gladys Liu is not just refusing to answer my questions but all questions from any media which is not a good look given the serious and numerous allegations of suspected corruption against her.

Other media should also start asking questions about Gladys Liu’s mystery company Australian Access Capital Company Pty Ltd which looks like an illegal front for funnelling donations. If the situation was something simple, I have no doubt Gladys Liu would have already answered the questions as it was Senator Rex Patrick who first raised issues on social media about her company and I have dug a bit further and put questions to Gladys Liu which remain unanswered.

Please use the Twitter, Facebook, email and other buttons below and help promote this post.

Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site, please click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options. (Click here to go to the Donations page)

If you would like to follow this website, you can by email notification at the top right or left of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.

Thank you for your support.

Subscribe to Kangaroo Court of Australia for free and be notified via email immediately there is a new article posted

Enter your email address below and click the subscribe button. You will also receive an email to confirm you want to follow this website. You can unsubscribe at any time.

7 replies »

  1. [quote]A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non–Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature. The essential requirement is that every Member taking an oath should take it in a manner which affects his or her conscience regardless of whether a holy book is used or not.[ ]

    The punishment for her offence is at least immediate removal from Parliament and ignoring the oath is a crime against those whom she swore to serve, being Australians.

  2. Has any scrutiny been attended to the Chinese Labor candidate who stood against Gladys Liu, it struck me that if the Chinese government was involved, they may be having a bet each way.
    No one who was not born here, or born after 1970 in any Commonwealth country should not be eligible to represent us in Parliament, certainly not any migrants.

  3. Don’t look for corruption at government level in the u.s., Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Somalia North Korea etc… it’s right here in our own backyard. The LNP reeks of it.

  4. Unfortunately when one learns that the claims and statements (no matter that whether they be either despicable lies or at best half-truths) having issued out from the mouths of Prime Ministers past and present,are not brought to account, not even by Australia’s Inspector General’s office, but that they become supportive to the non-credibility of our former and current Prime Ministers.
    (According to my ongoing correspondences with the Inspector General’s office)

    It is then one can safely assume that the fidelity of Australia’s Prime Ministers and all that they had engaged in “John Howard for example” no matter how traitorous or treacherous to the people of Australia, as there is no government body (certainly not in our Foreign Affairs undertakings, nor our national intelligence and national security & intelligence agencies of ASIS ASIO, or Inspector General’s office.) in Australia, that will hold such impropriety and or dishonesty to account.

    The one exception seems to be that Australia can be found guilty is to failing the United Nations Assembly Charter on Human Rights, as former PM Howard has now learned and been caught out uttering his lies to Australia’s people. 

    My comment has traversed through the higher realms of government departments we are simply asked to place our trust therein. Yet it encompasses Sco Mo’s statements, claims and or illegal matters he may be alleged to have engaged in or either endorsed (relative to Gladys Liu) that he may never be held accountable thereto.

    Were matters relative to the alleged improprieties engaged by Gladys Liu, to proceed to the High Court of Australia, does not offer that the truth will issue.
    Nor will Australia’s Liberal Attorney General hold his boss to account.

Leave a Reply