The Naysayer

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.

You can find updates on this case here.

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

On 18^th 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.  

• Who is Dominique Grubisa?
• Products and courses
• Dodgy claims
• Legal action and criticism
• Grubisa’s response to regulators and critics
• Grubisa’s boasts
• Who are the victims?