Lead generation – this one was a scam

Posted on January 22, 2026 by carolynbond

Lead generation ads for financial services either result in legitimate businesses obtaining customers through misleading ads (probably in breach of anti-hawking provisions1) or they lead to scams.

My recent experience shows the role lead generation plays in scams, and how difficult it is to identify a scam.

I responded to this ad by “Rate Grid” on Facebook on 18th January.

Two days later,  I received a phone call from someone who identified themselves and named a large, investment firm.  I’m not naming the firm in the text here because I believe the firm wasn’t involved.

I was asked if I was interested in investing in bonds, and after a brief discussion the caller agreed to email details to me. The email contained information about investing in bonds, and (wrongly) stated that the investment would be protected by the Financial Claims Scheme in Australia. See below for some excerpts.

The email looked legitimate.    The sender’s name was the same as an employee of the legitimate company (including a photo).   All links in the email went to the website of the legitimate company which holds an AFSL.

However, the domain on the email address was slightly different to the company’s website.  The additional “AM” in the domain (see below) could make sense, as the company’s name ended in “Asset Management” (although they didn’t use that, or “AM” in their web address).   I typed in the website using the domain in the email – and it redirected me straight to the legitimate company’s website.

While a redirect could be legitimate, for example if a business had changed its URL at some point, a check of the domain name showed that the domain name (with the additional “am”) had only been registered a few weeks ago.

These lead generation portals are being used by both licensed businesses and scammers, leading  to various levels of consumer detriment.  There are no simple solutions to scams, which must be attacked on many fronts.  However, one positive step would be for ASIC to ban all AFSL holders from receiving individuals’ details through lead generation. 

  1. This is likely to breach the anti-hawking provisions because the consumer is induced to consent to the contact so that the consumer can take up a product/service that is different to that offered by the advertisement).  See ASIC’s RG 38.68.  ↩︎

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Lead generation Part 3 – ‘Rates Compare’ and Capital Guard

Posted on January 14, 2026 by carolynbond

Lead generation ads on Facebook for financial services can link to scams, or ‘click bait’ promising unrealistic returns that can lead people to switch to risky investments.  

Lead generation ads are placed in a bogus business name, often without disclosing the company providing the services, so it’s not possible to know which licensed financial service (if any) is benefiting from the ads.

Even if they don’t lead to a scammer, these ads can result in huge losses, such as when thousands of people lost their superannuation after responding to ‘super comparison’ lead generation ads. 

New Facebook advertising rules.

While it won’t solve all the problems, it is positive that Meta (Facebook) has signed on to the Australian Online Scams Code, and has developed a new process for financial services advertising in line with the Code’s commitment to “Deploy measures to protect people from scam advertising.”

From July 2025, Meta requires financial services advertisers to verify the identification of the payer and of the beneficiary of the ad.

So you can still lose money, but at least you’ll know who’s responsible!

Rates Compare and Capital Guard

While most of the financial services ads I see on Facebook now identify the advertiser, there are exceptions.  Like this one, which advertises “term deposits’.  The advertiser ‘Rates Compare’ isn’t a real company, and the name of the owner of the website is hidden. My response resulted in a phone call from Capital Guard which holds an AFSL.

Continue reading →
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dominique Grubisa’s legal practice ban makes a rollicking read

Posted on October 4, 2025 by carolynbond

A decision to ban Dominique Grubisa from practising law found, among other things that Grubisa:

  • instructed private investigators to pretend to be her customers to mislead, and get privileged information, from another solicitor
  • allowed two banned lawyers (her parents) to work for her legal practice in breach of the law
  • made misleading and deceptive representations in relation to an asset protection scheme – the Master Wealth Control (MWC) asset protection product (her so-called “Vestey Trust”)
  • failed to provide competent legal advice
  • acted where there was a conflict of interest by acting for her own company (MWC) as well as for customers of MWC; and
  • instructed her solicitors to provide misleading information to the Council of the NSW Law Society which was investigating this case.

On 1 October 2025, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Occupational Division) recommended that Dominique Grubisa be removed from the Roll of Solicitors maintained by the Supreme Court of NSW.  This means that, like her parents, she will be prohibited from practising law for life.  

NCAT found that her conduct represented: 

“very serious and persistent departures from a reasonable standard of competence and diligence. That conduct included incompetent legal advice, misleading the Law Society, arranging and approving of investigators attempting to obtain privileged information from another solicitor by deception and failing to appreciate and act on clear potential conflicts of interest, amongst other things. 

Compounding this conduct is the Respondent’s apparent inability to appreciate the seriousness of her conduct which, as the Council submitted gives the Tribunal no confidence that she would, if she were to remain practising, not act in the same way.” 

This decision adds to Grubisa’s woes including $1 million fine from the Federal Court for misleading consumers, being banned as a company director by ASIC, becoming bankrupt and receiving a ‘smack down’ from the “Privacy Commissioner” for misusing property data.

Read the full decision here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Lead generation – “Superannuation checks” a back-door to high pressure super switching

Posted on July 14, 2025 by carolynbond

Regulators have recently warned the public about lead generation advertising,.   ASIC says that “superannuation checks” are used as a back door into the high-pressure telemarketing and have led to financial advisers putting clients into inappropriate financial products – naming entities First Guardian Master Fund, Shield Master Fund, Venture Egg and Financial Services Group.

While responding to these ads won’t cause everyone to lose retirement savings, why take the risk of sharing personal financial information, and inviting contact from someone you don’t know?

I wrote previously about lead generation, but this week I had another look. Once I started searching the web and Facebook to compare superannuation products, the Facebook ads started popping up. Here is a small selection of the ads on my Facebook in the last 48 hours.

Continue reading →
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dominique Grubisa – End of the road?

Posted on May 9, 2025 by carolynbond

Well, it’s the end of the road as far as her defence against the ACCC’s action against her for misleading and deceptive conduct.   Yesterday, the High Court rejected her application for an extension of time to lodge an appeal against the Federal Court’s decision.     

See here for details of this case and links to the court decisions.

Meanwhile, after a raft of regulatory action against her (including by the Law Society, Privacy Commissioner, ASIC and the ACCC) Grubisa continues to be philosophical about things!  

 Her regular posting on FB and Instagram include renovation and property tips, as well as inspirational (mis)quotes & affirmations.   

Her facebook page info links to propertylovers.com.au – a business owned by her husband.

And this final quote (or misquote) she shares, suggests that all the criticism and legal challenges she has faced, are just further steps on her way to success!!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Council Watch Victoria’s ‘anti-woke’ stance doesn’t reflect majority views

Posted on March 4, 2025 by carolynbond

Council Watch Victoria claims to represent ratepayers – but are its views shared by most Australians?

Independent research[i] reveals that “Australians increasingly have an appetite for local government to address contentious cultural and political issues”.

However, Council Watch argue otherwise based on biased surveys, and encourage angry comments on their Facebook page about issues such as flying inclusive flags, Welcome to Country and changing the date of Australia Day. 

Continue reading →
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Sins of the Father

Posted on April 16, 2024 by carolynbond

Dominique Grubisa suggests that her parents suffered at the hands of a bank –  but is it true?  

Far from being ‘innocent’ consumers ripped off by a bank, both were lawyers who incurred large debt due to her father’s gambling ($14 million over 5 years was reported) and misappropriating clients’ trust money.  They still owed the bank $1.5 million after their three properties were sold.

Grubisa currently claims in one of her videos “I’ve seen my parents lose their home with a lot of equity in it, no word from the bank, no accounting of what was left over and no change given”.   

She shares this, and similar anecdotes, to support her message that when banks repossess a home “equity in a property is fast eaten up in fees and charges banks”.   This is a toned-down version, since her claim that “banks don’t give change” was found by a court to be misleading.

So, what really happened to her parents?

Court records show that after the sale of three properties, Christoper Fitzsimons and his wife Maria still owed $1.5 million to the bank – debt they owed, in part, due to Christopher’s gambling and misappropriation of trust money.

Grubisa’s parents fought legal action for 8 years challenging the bank, and the Law Society’s attempts to remove them from the role (prohibiting them from practising law for life).  Both parents were eventually struck from the role.

Dominique Grubisa is currently defending herself against action by the Law Society of NSW which is seeking a disciplinary finding that she is guilty of professional misconduct on 13 grounds, including her claim that her ‘Vestey Trust’ is effective in preventing creditors from obtaining access to the consumer’s’ assets.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Dominique Grubisa knowingly misled consumers

Posted on April 10, 2024 by carolynbond

When your barrister’s strongest argument in your defence is that you are incompetent, you’re in trouble!

On 9 April 2024, the Federal Court found in the ACCC’s favour on all counts, that DG Institute engaged in misleading conduct in relation to  “no equity” representations in promoting the RER program,  claims that the ‘Vestey Trust’ would protect all assets from creditors, and representations that the ‘Vestey Trust’ had been tested and upheld by the Federal Court (Sharrment v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy).    For background to the ACCC’s claims see here.

The Judge remarked that the ‘Vestey Trust’ system had no resemblance to the structure implemented by the (well known) Vestey family, and that members of the Vestey family have had their names taken in vain!

Grubisa was sole director of DG Institute and the Court found that Grubsia was “knowingly concerned in and party to the contraventions”, meaning that the Court can impose penalties (which could include fines and injunctions) on Grubisa personally.

Grubisa’s barrister was unable to argue that the representations were true (because they were so clearly false).  Even a lawyer who Grubisa called as her witness, to explain her “banks don’t give change” statement, couldn’t support her misleading statements.

Screenshot
Continue reading →
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

ACCC v Dominique Grubisa

Posted on March 15, 2024 by carolynbond

You can find updates on this case here.

As the date for hearing approaches, here’s some background about Dominique Grubisa.

On 18th March 2024, the Federal Court (Sydney) will start hearing the ACCC’s case against Dominique Grubisa and Master Wealth Control (trading as DG Institute).  Master Wealth Control was owned jointly by Grubisa and her husband Kevin and more recently by a company controlled by Kevin.  See ACCC’s statement provided to the Court

The ACCC alleges that Grubisa made misleading representations in relation to Real Estate Rescue program and Master Wealth Control program. 

The three specific misrepresentations alleged by the ACCC are:

  • if a bank repossesses and sells a home, the homeowner loses all their equity because “banks don’t give change”
  • the Vestey Trust was “bulletproof”, “impenetrable” and would result in students being “unable to be effectively pinned down by creditors”
  • the Vestey Trust structure had been tested and upheld as effective by the Full Federal Court of Australia in case Sharrment.

These three alleged misrepresentations were made when selling courses and products.  Her conduct has also been of concern to other regulators, and it is my opinion that much of the content of the courses and manuals was incorrect or unethical.  

Continue reading →
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Dominique Grubisa’s AAT appeal successful – but confirms her disgraceful conduct.

Posted on October 19, 2023 by carolynbond

Dominique Grubisa’s appeal against a ban by ASIC have resulted in ASIC’s banning orders being set aside (10 October 2023), however the detailed decision confirms ASIC’s original findings when it placed the ban.

ASIC placed a ban on Dominique Grubisa from providing financial or credit advice in April 2022. 

The Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), Bernard McCabe,  was satisfied that grounds existed to make the banning orders.  However, he found that Grubisa’s “problematic behaviour” were issues for a different decision-maker and a ban wouldn’t “further legitimate regulatory interests”.  

The full decision includes details of Grubisa’s misconduct, but a short summary follows.

Continue reading →
Posted in Property Seminars | Tagged | Leave a comment