Eua​n Robertson: CBA Lobbyist at Parliament House.
​He is a lobbyist to the Government and fully aware of this dishonesty.
Euan if there is any aspect of this website that is not factually correct please notify me by email

David Nolan: Bankwests Head of Government and Legal Affairs. Who issued the  "Sink Boots into Customer" instruction. I believe he has since been sacked.

This information was distributed to politicians at Parliament House in the days leading up to the announcement of the Banking Royal Commission (November 2017).
​

White Collar Crime… Here is proof with supporting documentation that Bankwest receivers FTI Consulting lied to a Senate Inquiry and have acted dishonestly.
Bankwest worked with FTI Consulting on this. Proof Document at DOC161
FTI letter to Bankwest showing costs of $160k to attend Senate Inquiry for consideration. As well as this I have a box of documents proving they worked together to lie to the Senate.

Evidence given to Senate Inquiry into Banking:
12 January 2016. Sean Butler Perth.
I have provided submissions to this current inquiry being

• Submissions 113 DOC001,
• Response to submission by ARITA  DOC002

Outlining serious misconduct and what I believe in some instances to be criminal behaviour by senior Bankwest managers and receivers in our case. I have read many of the other submissions outlining similar stories. There is too much here for you all to ignore and I hope action is taken.
I request that this committee appoint independent arbitrators to review this case and others and that if they find fraudulent conduct (which they will) then a full inquiry be conducted at Bankwests expense and charges be laid against those responsible (penalties for these sorts of offences include jail) and compensation be paid to those affected. There has been a Royal Commission into the construction industry… I am now providing you proof of white collar embezzlement and fraud. The head of the CBA Ian Narev is aware of my case and has failed to act. Please help.
The receivers in our case have been illegally withholding documents despite numerous requests from me over the previous three years. On 3rd December 2015 they finally released 45 archive boxes of materials. I believe they did this because of mounting pressure caused by the media coverage of this inquiry and my ongoing campaign to have my documents released.
Within the documents they released was a box of materials covering their appearance at the 2012 Senate Inquiry into the post GFC banking which was sent to me in error. Their evidence at this inquiry was given "in camera" (meaning in secret)  and I was not allowed to hear what they had said about me. This box of documents inadvertently sent me included the "Sink Boots into customer" letter and full details of how they had fabricated evidence for the Senate Inquiry.

Within these documents are materials that prove that they lied to a Senate Inquiry in 2012.
The Receiver Taylor Woodings, now FTI Consulting has deliberately lied to a senate inquiry in order to justify what is in effect embezzlement of at least $339,000.

They also made a series of false and misleading statements regarding their conduct through the receivership. Notes showed Senior Bankwest managers were involved in meetings with the receivers in the preparation of these documents and they were fully aware of serious misconduct by the receiver at the time but failed to act.
This in a criminal offence.
Statements made by Bankwest Receiver to the Senate Inquiry in 2012 ( DOC 02 ) that are lies:
(Numbers to the right relate to numbered items in their evidence document)
1) Mr Butler gave us reason for concern                                           FALSE                   26
2) I did not comply with statutory requests for information                FALSE                   26(a)
3) Breached Law by engaging with employees                                 FALSE                   26(d)
4) They did not threaten me with a restraining order                         FALSE                   31              
5) We did not assert that we were employees until late August        FALSE                   33
6) Books and records did not show evidence of our employment     FALSE                   34(a)
7) Our roles were redundant                                                             FALSE                   35
8) I said I would start work in a new business in direct competition  FALSE                   47(b)
9) My submission that another party was interested was false         FALSE                   82(b)
10) They can't comment on Mr Benari's offer for $14m                     FALSE                   82(d)
11) The absence of an Engineer's report meant costs couldn't be estimated   FALSE    89
12) I said it was a waste of time requesting information                    FALSE                    96
13) The previous valuation did not reflect the hotel in its current condition      FALSE    114(c)
14) I sought to obtain information from lighthouse Hotel staff           FALSE                    128(a)
15) Staff had concerns over my contact with them                            FALSE                    128(b)
16) Our appointment was welcomed by staff                                     Highly unlikely        130
17) They considered safety and asbestos issues                              FALSE                    133(c)
      This is potentially the most serious one as it involves a sub-contractor’s health.

There was no attributable value to the goodwill of my business        FALSE                   63(a)
They denied than a party was told not to offer to purchase               FALSE                   82(b) 
They revalued the National Hotel at $1.5m                                                                   100(a)
when it was valued by Bankwest valuers for over $7m. It sold for $3m                             
       
Under Bankwest receivers’ management our company profits diminished and our business was destroyed. 
My case is one of many involving Bankwest.

• Profits for September 2011 halved from $73,456 to $33,000. Their fees at this point more than consumed ALL profits.
• They charged us a total of $1,334,498 to sell just two Hotels. This cannot be justified and is in effect embezzlement.

I authorize the public use of these documents and I believe it’s very much in the public interest that the conduct of Bankwest appointed receivers be made known to the media, regulators and politicians.

On 8th October 2012 Bankwest appointed receiver Mark Englebert of Taylor Woodings (now renamed FTI Consulting) sent a letter DOC02 to Senator David Bushby, the Chairman of the Senate Economics Reference Committee in response to statements and material I had provided to the Senate Committee a few months earlier.
Companies I am a director and shareholder of were placed in receivership by Bankwest on 18 July 2011.
The companies were profitable and solvent and had paid all interest on all loans until early 2011 and could have continued to do so had not a co-director, Mr Benari, now the CEO of Challenger, told Bankwest he would buy one of the properties involved and then defaulted on that agreement. DOC26
 
Misleading statements made by Bankwest Receiver about my conduct:
1)  DOC02 item 26
From the outset of the receiverships, Mr Butler gave us reason for concern regarding the carrying out of our duties and the exercise of our powers in the course of our appointment.”  
THIS IS A BASELESS ALLEGATION AND FALSE.
What is even more disturbing is that Mark Englebert estimates that he has charged my companies an estimated $105,000 + $234,000 = $339,000 as a result of “our dealings with Mr Butler” as in his Email to Senator Bushby dated 31 October 2012 DOC06 p7.
I was at all times cooperative in my dealings with the receivers and it appears I have been charged an extra $339,000 all because I asked questions relating to getting trading results for the hotel and concerns over what they were doing. Further to this I provide evidence of my offers and efforts to help DOC1F listed from page 2 being multiple emails.
 
On 22 July 2011 I advised Jeremy Nipps of Taylor Woodings by email that "As requested I or my wife will not be involved in any way with the management or operation or security of the Lighthouse Hotel or the National Hotel unless advised otherwise and your company is now responsible."  DOC24 item 1:
 
I only visited the Hotel about 4 times over the year following their appointment, I live in Perth which is 1 ¾ hours drive from the Hotel in Bunbury. The first visit was almost two months after they had taken over and was to stay one night to attend a Diocesan Resource Committee meeting.  DOC25 p2
​"This will be the first time I have been at the property since the receivers were appointed and I have not interfered in your management of the property and will not do so."
If you read their response DOC25 lower P1 you will see what I was dealing with.
I went on to write DOC25 top P1 and “I ended up staying a second night in Bunbury but ended up staying at the Lord Forrest Hotel as I don’t want to be seen as interfering in the management (which I will not as discussed)."

2)  DOC02 item 26(a) 
“did not comply with certain statutory requests for information from us, namely Mr Butler did not provide us with an ASIC Report to affairs” despite a number of requests to do so.”
THIS IS FALSE as PROVED below.
I provided hard copies to of the documents as required to Taylor Woodings on 25th August 2011 and have retained hard copies as proof if required. DOC110.1  ,2,3 & 4  

​For preparation of the reports Bankwests appointed manager Englebert provided me with only draft unaudited bookkeepers MYOB accounts attached to a letter dated 9 August 2011 DOC110. The wording of this letter included "To assist with the completion of the RATA please find enclosed unaudited Balance Sheets dated 18 July 2011" and "we make no representations as to their accuracy".
Page 8 of the RATA documents DOC110.3  required me to sign a certification that "I certify that the particulars contained in the above report as to affairs are true to the best of my knowledge and belief"
Given that I had only been provided with draft unaudited bookkeepers accounts with the note from Englebert as to no representations as to their accuracy and given that I was prevented from contacting the bookkeeper or anyone in my company to verify the accounts I attached an annexure A to the RATA documents explaining this fact dated 24.8.2011 DOC110.4
At a meeting with Englebert and his lawyers I asked if I should have signed the unaudited bookkeepers accounts as being a true record and they agreed no. I asked them what I should do if anything else and they said they couldn’t advise me on this. So my company was paying all their fees but they still wouldn't help me in any way and went on to lie to Bankwest about my conduct. I made Bankwest aware of this at the time but they refused to so anything about it. 

Further emails as proof of my conduct:
6 October 2011  email S Butler to Mark Englebert      DOC110.7
“If any further information is needed or you need help on any matter regarding the receivership please let me know. I am very keen to get the best outcome for the Bank, our family, and Brian Benari.”
I subsequently sent many more emails to Englebert asking if any further information or help was needed. I have listed these in summary on DOC110.8  (1f)
At no time did Englebert contact me regarding the ASIC reports to affairs.
 
3 November 2011  email the receivers lawyers            DOC110.3.11.11
I requested: “Provide details of the failed “information providing’ I have not been informed of any outstanding issues.” The Lawyer replied: “The receivers will respond to those matters”
I also raised other serious concerns including Englebert’s false statements and lack of action on other matters. No response was ever received.
 
19 November 2012 email S Butler to Mark Englebert DOC110.19.11.12
“Is any further information required from me to finish the administration and receivership of the companies involved?”
 
10 December 2012 email Mark Englebert to Sean Butler       DOC110.10.12.12
“I refer to your email 19 November 2012, I provide comments as follows: 1) Save for the provisions of the signed completed reports as to affairs for Butler Constructions, Lighthouse Beach Holdings and National Hotel”
 
11 December 2012 email S Butler to Mark Englebert    DOC110.11.12.12
“1) Completed reports as to the affairs of the Companies involved were provided to your office by post on the 24th July 2011 (Butler & Lighthouse Beach Holdings) and hand delivered to Jamie Rath (of Taylor Woodings) at the National Hotel in Fremantle on 24th July 2011.”
 
“3) You took possession of our property at the Lighthouse Hotel on 18th July 2011 and refused to allow us access to company records and accounts subsequently. We were also told not to contact our bookkeeper at the Hotel. You provided us by email on 9th August 2011 DRAFT unaudited MYOB company accounts only and we attempted to complete the reports to the best of our ability based on the limited information provided and without access to our bookkeeper, accountant or company records or professional help.”
 
“4) Matters including “certain statutory requests for information” (13d) were raised in a letter we received from your lawyers Minter Ellison on your behalf dated 18th August 2011…. That letter contained a number of false allegations about our behaviour that we addressed and many disproved in subsequent correspondence to you.”
 
10 January 2013 Letter Minter Ellison to Sean Butler    DOC110.10.1.13
Receivers lawyers who we were paying for.
“We refer to your email to Mr Englebert dated 11 December. In relation to the reports as to affairs in respect of the above companies, our clients do not require any further information from you.”
The above proves the statements by Bankwests receivers to the Senate regarding my conduct on this mater was false.

3) DOC 02 item 26(d)     Breached law by engaging with employees.
Another false allegation.
22 August 2011 Email Sean Butler to Mark Englebert DOC31    
“I have not engaged contacted or solicited (or attempted to) employees of the companies, and I will not do while under administration. I want all employees to stay wherever possible and have told them that. I had told Adrian what was happening before administrators were appointed and I had a couple of telephone calls to him saying to hang in there and do his best. I have had two very brief phone calls with two other staff just to say hello and to encourage them to stay. No aspect of the running of the business has been discussed with any staff and I have not visited the site or interfered with the running of the business in any way since the administrators were appointed. My wife had a lengthy phone call with Glenn discussing the fit out of the National Hotel for pricing purposes, but she was unaware there was a problem with that. I have received no reports on the business since the administrators were appointed with the exception of one lot of revenue reports sent in June ccd to me and Brian as well as to the administrators. I have not requested any reports on the business from staff.”
 
4) DOC 02 item 31 “Mr Butlers submission that we “threatened” him with a restraining order and later retracted some of our “demands” is not an accurate reflection of events as they occurred”
This was another false statement:
18 August 2011 Letter to Sean Butler from Minter Ellison acting for Englebert:
“17. “…. Specifically, our clients request an undertaking that you will not, for the duration of the receivership… (a) attend at or enter into the property on which the Lighthouse Beach Resort is located” (b) engage, contact or solicit employees, agents or contractors of the companies (c) Engage with the media on ant matter relating to the receiverships”  DOC31a
“19 If you refuse we reserve the right to … make an application to court for injunctive relief, restraining your client from interfering with our clients conduct” DOC31b
It was a Hotel with public areas … I wasn’t even allowed to set foot on the property to show potential purchasers it without their consent… I was treated like a criminal on my own property and I in no way had done anything to warrant this treatment.
I had been sacked from my own hotel but offered a job at another hotel in the town renovating it… I needed to use contractors to do this… some of the contractors also worked occasionally at the Lighthouse Hotel, eg painters, plumbers and electricians. It’s a small country town. to ask me not to use the same contractors when doing so wasn’t affecting the receivership was very unfair and making it hard for me to gain employment as a registered builder elsewhere.
 
Employment: 
5) DOC02 item 33. “Mr Butler and Mrs Butler did not assert that they were employees of Butler Constructions until in or about late August or early September 2011 (see tab 2)” 
FALSE as proved below. Another Lie!
I advised Jeremy Nipps of Taylor Woodings by email on 22 July 2011 DOC24 item 4 that we were:
"I and my wife are employees of Butler Constructions and have in the past drawn a wage"

6) DOC02 item 34. “…. the books and records of Lighthouse Beach Resort and Butler Constructions did not in our view suggest or evidence that Mr Butler or his wife, Mrs Margherita Butler, were employees of either of these entities…”
FALSE
On 8 August Mark Engleberts sent me a letter with Attached Accounts. The balance sheet of Butler Constructions show DOC23  The MYOB bookkeepers accounts showed regular payments for wages.
 
Further to this we sent group certificates and other information clearly proving we were employees but they still required more evidence. They had lawyers involved at MY expense trying to disprove we were ever employees even though there was indisputable evidence that we were. They were proved wrong and eventually backed down on this one but it cost me tens of thousands of dollars just to do this!

7) DOC02 item 35. 
“…even if Mr & Mrs Butler were employees of Butler Constructions we considered their roles (if any) to be redundant and unnecessary in the circumstances and on the basis that:

1. Butler Constructions was in receivership: and
2. The current general manager of the Lighthouse Beach Resort was undertaking the task of managing the resort with sufficient skill.”

Our roles were not redundant because:
I had overseen the successful operation of the hotel and under my supervision profits had risen from $12,000 a year in 2003 to $796,000 in 2010 – 2011.
Taylor Woodings and their solicitors went on to charge $1,355,954 to do my role and to sell the two Hotels. I have written to Mark Englebert asking “I do not see how these amounts can be justified given that all has been done is to sell two hotels. Any comments you have in this regard would be appreciated.” Email dated 7 December 2015, I have had no reply.
Further to this Mark Englebert by his own admission estimates his fees for managing the Lighthouse Beach resort for just nine months to be $211,000 as in his letter to Senator David Bushby dated 31 October 2012 page 7. If The current general manager of the Lighthouse Beach Resort was undertaking the task of managing the resort with sufficient skill then why was Taylor Woodings charging an extra $211,000 to run it.
My role as former employee of Butler Constructions also involved rebuilding and selling the National Hotel in Fremantle. Taylor Woodings terminated my employment and took over that role. Their staff proved to be totally incompetent in the role of finalising the costs to complete this building the result of which was a complete financial disaster.
In summary Mark Englebert fabricated lies in order to justify sacking me allowing his company then to take over what was a very profitable and successful business and gouge it with his fees.

8) DOC02 47 (b)    “Mr Butler stated that, in the event that we did not accede to this request, he and Mrs Butler would “start work on a new business and property in direct competition to the Lighthouse Hotel…”
Englebert has selected some text to deceive without putting it in context:
I said if the business had sold without a deed of restraint, I may do that. Not beforehand, why would I want to diminish the value of my own business. it just wouldn’t make any commercial sense for me to do that.
The email below is what I did say:
22 August 2011 Email Sean Butler to Englebert  DOC31 
“I have not engaged contacted or solicited (or attempted to) employees of the companies and will not do. I have not refused to comply with any requests as far as I am aware. Please advise what this item refers to and I will supply what was requested if I can? I have not acted in a way adverse to the efficient conduct of the receivership. I have helped in any way I can and want the best outcome possible. I have no intention whatsoever in taking business customers or staff away from the Lighthouse business… I will not interfere with the receivership”

Selling the Lighthouse Hotel:
9) DOC 02 item 82(b).
“Mr Butlers submission that another syndicate who were in the process of putting in an offer for the purchase of the Lighthouse had sold and to ‘go away’ is not an accurate reflection of events…. The syndicate he referred to in his submission did not submit a formal offer…”
Mr Englebert is misrepresenting the facts:
I have indisputable evidence that an interested party in the Lighthouse Hotel was told not to put an offer in. See attached email DOC 125 lower p 3 The selling agent says “The receiver has advised today that as negotiations are very advanced that they will not be treating on any other offers unless the dealing fails” This party were looking at putting an offer of close to $14m in but were told not as shown in the email. Englebert then sold it to Banker Brian Benari, the CEO of Challenger, a co-director of one of the companies involved, for around $9.5m. Benari has just a few months before had agreed to pay for $14m which he defaulted on and then reduced this offer to $13.7m which Bankwest refused to accept. This evidence is indisputable and proves gross negligence and dishonesty by Englebert. Bankwest Manager David Gilbert was aware of all of this at the time but failed to act.
This issue was taken up by the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman who supported my views on this. More details with an independent ombudsmans report at : LINK

10) DOC02 item 82(d) (ii).
“the alleged offer from Mr Benari for the sum of $14m was, in our understanding, made prior to our appointment to the companies. We are therefore unable to make any comment in relation to that alleged offer.”
They were provided full details of this offer and the history behind it. Bankwest was fully aware of this, their comment "alleged offer" is misleading. They were given a written legal memo that the offer is enforceable
( DOC 150 ) yet they say they can’t comment. If they were doing their job they should have got advice on this but to say it was an alleged offer and that they can’t comment is untrue.

11) DOC02 item 89.         
“…we formed the view that in the absence of such a structural engineer’s report would make it difficult for an accurate cost to complete to be prepared…”
Then how come RBB had done one as per item DOC 02 94a “a cost to complete that had been prepared by Ralph Beattie Bosworth Pty Ltd on 21 March 2010 was available for inspection”

12)  DOC02 item 96.        
“On 20 December 2011, Mr Butler attended our office and….said that it was a waste of time and money for us to go through the process of requesting information from him.”
This is clearly intended to make it look like I was being difficult and needs to be explained in
context. It was a waste of time and money for them to get me to do what they were asking and I fully explained this to Mr Englebert in an email a few days later on 28 December 2011
DOC121 What I said was:
“The work you requested me to do was I believe a waste of both your (which I get charged for) and my time. It would not assist EMECO in any meaningful way to revise the cost to complete. The cost to complete should be assessed on what’s left onsite to do now. I can assist in this by meeting builders and tradesmen as before if required or even just talking to them on the phone to explain. Another way would be just to say what percentage of each cost item has been done (e.g. 70% of plastering) and work it out that way.”
I tried to help as explained above but this offer was rejected:

13) DOC02 item 114(c)   
“Mr Butlers submission that the National Hotel was valued at $7m prior to our appointment must be considered in the context of that valuation”…. The previous valuation “did not, in Colliers opinion, accurately reflect the value of the hotel in its current condition (being a partially complete building)”
This statement by Englebert is very misleading. The earlier valuation in July 2010 DOC128 (full valuation) and DOC129 just the relevant valuation pages:
Page 34: “The analysis indicates a potential “As if Complete value of $10,470,000 walk-in/walk-out….. After deducting an allowance for the cost to complete of approximately $3,419,000, the value “As is” equates to $7,050,000…”
Proving the previous valuation DID, in the Bank valuers, opinion reflect the valuation of the Hotel in its current, uncompleted state.

14)  DOC02 item 128(a) “Mr Butler had, following our appointment, sought to obtain information (including trading information) from the Lighthouse Beach Resort staff after we had informed he was not entitled to that information generally.”
THIS IS FALSE.
Englebert accused me of this at the time and I told both him and Bankwest Managers that this was a false allegation and I requested that he provide proof which he never did. DOC10
In an email I sent to Mr Englebert 22 August 2011 DOC31 item b) I stated and I did not interfere as he had alleged.
 
I also took these false allegations up with the Insolvency Practitioners Association in 2012 but they refused to look into it and again with ARITA in 2015 and they have again refused to look into it. There are no regulators in cases like this.

It is grossly unfair that a business owner can be kept in the dark by Bankwest appointed managers and denied any information on what is happening. Mr Englebert advised me on 1 August 2011 DOC120
"You will not be entitled to, the receipt of information relating to the trade, occupancy levels or otherwise of the Lighthouse..."

In other words Bankwest appointed managers had taken over my business, disallowed me any contact with the business or staff, charged me whatever they liked with NO accountability (I eventually found out it was over $110,000 a month totaling over $1.3m) and I was not even allowed access to trading figures that could have assisted me with refinancing the property or a sale. 

15)  DOC02 item 128(b) “we had been informed by staff at the Lighthouse Beach Resort that they had concerns regarding Mr Butlers contact with them.”
I did nothing to hinder the operation of the Hotel or the receivership and had hardly any contact with the staff at any time during the receivership.
On 12 Sept 2011 I advised Mr Englebert by email DOC25 p2 that I was planning to stay at the Hotel to attend a voluntary committee meeting and that this was the first time I had been to the property in almost 2 months and that I had not interfered in their management.
 
On 11 November I advised Bankwest of my concerns over serious false allegations being made by Mr Englebert and requested any details to substantiate his false claims DOC10. Both Bankwest and Mr Englebert did not provide any evidence whatsoever to justify these claims.
 
This allegation I believe to be untrue, they have provided no evidence to support it as I have requested and they should now be requested to prove this with the names of the staff involved and what they said so it can be checked.

16)  DOC02 item 130      
“… our appointment was welcomed by the staff at the Lighthouse Beach Resort. We say this on the basis that we have received positive feedback from the staff regarding our performance…”
This Statements requires proof. Highly unlikely
From the little contact I had with about three of the staff during the time of the receivership (in the vicinity of 3 or 4 discussions over a coffee over a period of about 9 months). This statement seems highly unlikely to be true. Mark Englebert should be asked to provide details to prove this claim, I believe he’s made it up.

17)  DOC02 item 133(c) 
“we had in relation to the Lighthouse Beach Resort, taken the necessary steps to ensure that health, occupational health and safety, and other relevant legislation and regulation was being complied with, including in relation to dealings with asbestos…”
This is UNTRUE 
Had it not been for my immediate involvement the electrician and others may have breathed in asbestos fibres which can ultimately be fatal.
I was told by a subcontractor working for me that an electrician was working on electrical boards at the Lighthouse Hotel. I was aware they contained asbestos and immediately phoned on mobile and told the contractor to stop any work on the asbestos.
I had read that these meter boards probably contained asbestos. Failure to deal with properly include fines up to $150,000 or three years imprisonment. DOC52
After I had instructed the electrician to stop work rung the receivers also to tell them and was told by Jeremy Nipps at Taylor Woodings that he had it all under control and that I should not have contacted the electrician. I then wrote expressing my concerns regarding Asbestos email dated 20 Oct 2011. DOC51
Documents now returned to us by the receivers prove that they didn’t have this under control:
Taylor Woodings Memorandum 20/10/11 DOC53 says:

• “99% sure materials are hardiflex.”
• “No samples taken from electrical boards.”
• “Could contain asbestos. Would need to test.”

Taylor Woodings Memorandum 14/11/10 DOC54 says:
“Asbestos samples all positive (Switchboards)”
So it was only after I raised my concerns with them that they took action to check up on this.
 
I received a letter from the receivers lawyers dates 4 November stating that in item 18:
“To the extent that you continue to engage (or purport to engage) contractors of the Lighthouse Beach Resort (including the electrician contacted to perform works on the Lighthouse Beach Resort), our clients repeat the comments contained I our letter dated 18 August, in relation to your lack of authority to, amongst other things, engage, deal with or direct employees, agents, advisers and contractors of the relevant Companies.” In that letter they requested that I not engage contractors of the companies which in this case was a very unfair request given that I had been offered employment at another hotel requiring my subcontractors (not full time employers, general community subcontractors) after they sacked me from my own company.
So they have engaged a lawyer at my expense to tell me not to talk to subcontractors when all I did was raise concerns regarding asbestos which turned out to be justified.

Other issues:
National Hotel Fremantle: TWO previous Bankwest valuations at $7m (email 21 July). extensive work done on Hotel since those valuations. The selling agents advised is they had a party interested in it at $3.5m for a half share.
The selling agent advised us by email 12 July that it was a  "Complete and utter waste of time to sell NH without costings unless only want to get $3.5m for it" (half its valuation). And they subsequently ignored this warning, didn't get costings and sold it for about $3.5m, half its earlier valuation. 
Estimates of the cost to complete were very important, Bankwest managers took over and said they were doing that and charged me hundreds of thousands in fees supposedly doing this but didn't and sold it anyway
The Bankwest managers had sacked me and taken all plans and costing materials. They were totally incompetent, they couldn’t work out cost to complete and didn’t contact relevant consultants.
 
Taylor Woodings then got a valuation for just $1.5m DOC02 100(a).     Pictured at that time. DOC127.
               
A large rebuilt 6 level heritage hotel In the center of Fremantle. How could it possibly be worth ¼ of a previous valuation!!
 
They didn’t do cost to complete DOC123 and didn’t even know which plans to give builders to do (they attempted but provided builder the wrong plans).
They would not accept offers from me as our company was in receivership. If we had been given a chance we could have prevented them destroying our business at the Lighthouse Hotel as described above and prevented them gouging over $1.3m in fees from us allowing us to keep and complete the National Hotel.
They then sold the National to a Singaporean Company for $3.5m, half of what it was valued at a yeart earlier!
Net Result: Economic vandalism and loss of Iconic Fremantle Hotel to Foreign ownership.
They used incorrect materials on roof causing it to leak and extensive water damage (to this day new owners are having problems as a result of this … loss of $$ to local economy. Economic vandalism.
I advised 18 October: “The leaks on the roof are now worse as the rooftop membrane is now cracking at the joints and was not intended to be left unattended so long.” DOC122
And 4 November: “The roof top membrane has not been fixed and with heavy rains over the last few days water damage is now occurring and will continue to occur with more rain predicted over the next week. The damage will need to be addressed in the engineers’ report as it is now affecting structural timbers that are not designed to be wet for prolonged periods.”
 
Company Profitability:
Our company was very profitable and at record levels but Bankwest still put in receivers. Under their management profits diminished to a point where it appears their fees exceeded total profits as is indicated below:
On 10 May the manager of the Lighthouse Hotel advised me by email that “…. It looks like the best April for 5 years! … and looking at the profit compared to last year that we beat that profit by $34,725 and that’s with an increase in Maintenance spend of $8k.” DOC27
 
On 15 June I advised Bankwest by email DOC26
“The adjusted profit (11 months July 10 – May 2011) has increased by $204,235, or 34% on last years…” (which was more than enough to cover all our interest payments going forward).
“…. Profit for April and May is above the best on record for those months…”
Despite this Bankwest appointed receivers to our business one month later on 18 July.
The receivers and their lawyers then went on to charge us over $1.3m just to sell our two hotels… how can any business stand this.
 
On 21 July 2011 I advised Taylor Woodings by email of our trading results:
“The lighthouse profit was $12,000 (a year) when we purchased it (in 2003)…..
We have just had the best June quarter on record:
2011      126,992
2010      101,004
2009      51,172
If we can continue the trend and make adjustments as needed the profits should exceed $1.2m in 2011-2012.
This would cover all Lighthouse Bankwest interest business payments and leave a profit for my company to be re invested in the business top grow it further as we have done in the past”
 
30 September 2011 Taylor Woodings memo DOC28:
Page 1 shows Butler Constructions cash & equivalent at $427,000 and total; receivables $760,498.
Page 2 shows total payables of $555,756 and a nett surplus of $204,692.
Page 3 shows Trading profits for September at $33,000.
The profit and loss account for the same period September 2010 DOC29 shows a profit of $73,456.
Receivers were appointed 18 July 2011, within two months of their appointment the profitability of my company under their management had halved.
Their fees (excluding their Legals) for the first 44 days of their appointment to 31 August were $56,258 DOC30 This equates to about $$1,287 per day or $38,000 a month.
The net result was that the company was destroyed and all profits were devoured by the receivers.
Their total fees just for this entity including legals (excluding the actual hotel sales) were $614,069.
The Company was closed; by the time they had finished its goodwill had been destroyed. They got nothing for the company even though they had charged it hundreds of thousands in fees to "run" it. My life's work was down the drain and they left me with a debt for their services! 
 

Bankwest receiver Mark Englebert didn’t want us to disclose a Deed that prevented us telling the truth about their actions to a Senate Inquiry in 2012 and then lied to the Inquiry regarding this:
In his opening statement to the Senate Economics Reference Committee on 19-10-2012 DOC102
Mr Englebert states:
“First, I deny that I or anybody else did anything to try to prevent Mr Butler giving evidence to this committee. The committee would have seen my email of 7 August. In the email I did not in any way suggest Mr Butler did not give evidence before the committee”
This is UNTRUE:
On 2 August 2011 I emailed Englebert DOC100 p2 asking:
“I have been asked to appear in person in Canberra at The Senate Inquiry into the post GFC Banking Sector next Wednesday 8th August.
I refer to the Deed of Settlement and release dated 13 12.2011 attached.
I refer to clause 9. Confidentiality.
I would like to discuss this Deed with the Senators and discuss it as part of my address.
Could you please consent to the deed being disclosed to various others.
I think in the interests of openness and fairness this Deed should be discussed as a part of the information requested in the Inquiry and invite you to provide any comments along with your decision. I will table your response at the committee hearings.”
They responded on 3 August DOC100 p1: Clearly showing they are trying to prevent me giving evidence to the Senate Inquiry:

On the same day I responded to Mr Englebert DOC100 p1 saying:
“In the interests of openness and transparency I request again that you agree to disclosure of the deed.
I have nothing to hide in relation to the claims and had hoped you wouldn’t either.
I will table your response at the hearings.”
Mr Englebert responded the day before I was to attend to give my evidence at the hearings DOC101:
"it is incumbent on you and Mrs Butler to consider and, if appropriate, take advice in relation to the extent to which your obligations of confidentiality pursuant to that agreement apply to matters within the attachment" being the Deed ans associated matters regarding Engleberts conduct that I wanted to show the Senators.
​
Taken in context I believe the above clearly shows that Mr Englebert did not want the Deed disclosed to the Senate Inquiry and he lied to the inquiry about this.
The reason I wanted the deed exposed is that it contained confidentiality clauses that attempted preventing us from disclosing his dishonest actions to others including a series of false allegations about me DOC101 p3 in order to justify my sacking from my own profitable company. This allowed Englebert to go on to charge over $500,000 in excess fees and to destroy the business. Bankwest are fully aware of this.
This is white collar crime. Englebert should be jailed.
 
Bankwest Senior Managers are aware of issues raised above:
In an email sent to David Gilbert and Les Nathan at Bankwest 9 November 2011 DOC70
I wrote: “The things the receivers have indicated need to be done, some of which I had in hand and were doing, have been stopped and not re-commenced. Why?
I have been sacked from my own profitable solvent company on the grounds of genuine redundancy which is simply not true. False allegations have been made about me. Why?”
David Gilbert Bankwest replied:
“You have requested a meeting with the Bank, and this can be facilitated. I intend to include the Chief Manager of Credit and Asset Management to also be present.
As the issues you are raising pertain largely to the receivership issues, I also intend to invite the receiver and managers together with our legal representatives to this proposed meeting.”
 
In an email I sent to David Gilbert Bankwest 9 Nov 2011 DOC123 I raised concerns that the receivers had done nothing on certain items required to sell the property.
On 11 Nov 2011 DOC10 I advised Bankwest Manager David Gilbert “There have been a number of serious false allegations made about me by Mark Englebert. These will be on the agenda. These allegations need to be cleared up….” I then requested further details and proof of these allegations. No details or proof were ever provided. These allegations are ALL FALSE.
I have raised my concerns regarding dishonest conduct by the receiver with senior Bankwest Manager David Gilbert, Chris Butler and Les Nathan and others on numerous occasions. Nothing was done.
In the documents the receiver returned to me in December 2015 there is further evidence Bankwest knew what was going on:
DOC130 10.9.2012         Three Bankwest senior managers notes discussing Senate Inquiry:
                                             “Suppress issue by not “feeding the media””
                                             “3rd Party “umpire”? might have merit”
Bankwest Manager discussed using a 3rd party umpire… I had requested independent review and arbitration but they ignored my requests. I believe this is because if they had done so it would expose criminal conduct by some involved.
DOC131 10.9.2012         Bankwest Senior Managers David Nolan, Les Nathan & David Gilbert:
                                       “sink boots into customer”
                                        “DN has info on Senators” (DN = David Nolan, Bankwest Manager)
This says it all. They produced a litany of lies to a Senate Inquiry and tried to keep it secret.
 
DOC132 5.10.2012         Receivers notes:
                                       “In camera. Confidential outcome” and “steer away from numbers”
They wanted it kept secret. There was no need for this if they have nothing to hide.
Bankwest Senior managers including David Nolan were fully aware that a document containing false evidence was being prepared and given to the 2012 Senate inquiry” As evidence are invoices from the receivers Lawyers including notations as below:
Notations in invoice from receivers’ lawyers:
DOC133 1.10.2012         “Preparing documents… and writing to … David Nolan..”
                                        “Considering and responding to email from David Nolan…”
DOC134  5.10.2011         “Meeting with Counsel, David Nolan of Bankwest… regarding Senate Inquiry”
“Preparing additional brief documents (namely submissions to Senate by Bankwest, CBA etc)”
“Engaged on considering and responding to email from David Nolan”
DOC135 10.10.2012       “Attending Senate Hearing”
                                        “Preparing summary for David Nolan”
                                        “Email to David Nolan on Senate Hearing”
The cost of the receivers’ preparation and attendance at the 2012 Senate Hearings was:
DOC136                             $  12,052
DOC137                             $160,233
I have asked them if my company was charged for that (as they have charged us a total of over $1.3m) but to date they have not responded to my request.
 
On 13 May 2014 I sent a letter DOC124 with attachments by registered post personally to Ian Narev the CEO of CBA, Robert De Luca the CEO of Bankwest and to Senior Bankwest Managers David Gilbert, Charles Perry, Ross Dearing and Chris Butler and have receipts for this DOC125.
In which I again advise of my concerns saying: “I attach and refer to two emails I sent to Mr Charles Perry, Manager Group Credit Structuring, Bankwest Sydney on 7 May 2014 noting and describing unconscionable and dishonest conduct involving Bankwest, Bankwest appointed receiver manager Mark Englebert, and Brian Benari. Some of this conduct is criminal by way of the existence of intent and it is an offence under the Crimes Act for anyone to intentionally conceal such an offence.”
On the 7th & 9th December 2015 sent further emails to senior Bankwest managers with further evidence of dishonest conduct by Mr Englebert:
 
This is a draft document and still a work in progress but you need to be aware of just how corrupt some within CBA / Bankwest and the receivership industry are so that action can be taken.
There is talk of further action being taken against the unions following last years Royal Commission into the building industry.
The current Parliamentary Inquiry into the Impairment of Customer Loans has shown many cases of white collar crime in the finance sector. Here is proof that Bankwest will lie to try to discredit witnesses.
If the government is genuine in wanting to stamp out corruption in Australia they also need to look at what is happening in the finance sector.
I request that an independent arbitrator be called to look at cases exposed in this inquiry. If extensive dishonest conduct is uncovered a Royal Commission should follow. (which did in 2017)
I can provide further evidence if required and can fly over to Canberra if necessary to discuss further.
Regards,
Sean Butler
Perth
0419 964 487
sbutler@iinet.net.au
Other issues to raise

1. I asked Mr Englebert for proof of serious false allegations, he attempted to shut me up through a Deed he prepared in order for me to get pay. I have asked again for him to provide any proof and he has refused. He has lied.
2. Receivers in collusion with Bankwest 50:50. Receivers Met Brahma Dharmananda (Senior Counsel) and Bankwest Senior Managers.
3. Mr Englebert asked me to help but on the condition that I sign a deed preventing me taking action against him and a confidentiality clause.. I refused to sign this… This shows how these people work.
4. Dishonesty and cover-up by Mark Englebert of FTI Consulting… he should be in jail
5. Mr Englebert also provided false and misleading information to the Insolvency Practitioners Association in October 2012 DOC140. This information was withheld from me until December 2015. As a result of the false information he supplied they did not investigate this case. I have advised the Insolvency Practitioners Association (now renamed ARITA) of this but no action was taken.
6. Receivers requested that their evidence be given in camera so I wouldn’t know what was being said about me.
7. Legal opinion on conduct of Mr Benari, the now CEO of Challenger: “Fraud or negligence, Misleading or deceptive conduct, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of fiduciary obligation” DOC 150​.  Challenger annuities are now trying to get more people to invest in their products.​ Their share price has since plummeted wiping billions off shareholder value (in 2019).