This episode is a shortened form of a presentation I made in November 2022. I was given the topic Elder Abuse & Crime.

In Australia, recent studies have shown that about one in six people are reporting some type of elder abuse. At the same time, The World Health Organisation (WHO) suspects that only about 4% of it is actually reported. Because this problem is far more prevalent than we'd like to believe, we decided to delve into this issue in today’s episode. Tuning in, you’ll find out how the WHO defines elder abuse before we break down the different forms it can take. You’ll hear how elder abuse relates to the ACT jurisdiction and why no crimes have yet been prosecuted under it. From Ponzi schemes to will fraud, scams, and neglect, you’ll hear some shocking stories about crime relating to extreme forms of elder abuse and get a broad overview of this issue in Australia. We hope you’ll join us.

Key Points From This Episode:

•    The World Health Organisation's definition of elder abuse.

•    The prevalence of elder abuse in Australia

•    Some of the different forms of elder abuse: psychological, emotional, financial, sexual, physical, and neglect.

•    How elder abuse relates to the ACT jurisdiction in Australia.

•    Crimes relating to extreme forms of elder abuse, starting with a murder in New South Wales.

•    A case from 2019 where two sons neglected to care for their mother. 

•    A Ponzi scheme that took advantage of quite a number of elderly people.

•    The 2006 case where a bank manager stole money from a former bank client.

•    A roof repair scam aimed at elderly people.

•    The story of a woman who used romance to extort money from at least two elder men.

•    The details of a fraud case involving a deceased estate.

Tweetables:

“In Australia, recent studies showed that about one in six people were reporting some type of elder abuse. WHO actually suspects that only 4% of the abuse is actually reported. So, it is far more prevalent than we'd like to believe.” — Leah Sewell [0:01:48]

“Elder abuse can come in a variety of forms. It can come in the form of psychological abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and neglect.” — Leah Sewell [0:02:04]

“One lesson of these Ponzi-style schemes is that people just don’t do their due diligence.” — Leah Sewell [0:08:55]

Today’s episode is a little different as it is a recording of a seminar held in New South Wales. The seminar’s primary purpose was to educate people on how to prevent the problem of elder abuse, but as aging lies ahead for all of us, its content is relevant to an audience beyond those who attended the talk. Join us as we define the landscape of elder abuse in Australia, signs to look out for when you suspect someone may be a victim, and how to find them the support they need. We also unpack the role of guardianship and power of attorney, legal support, and the relevant channels in Australia that provide assistance to prevent and stop the abuse of our elderly population. Please note that today’s episode carries a trigger warning for abuse perpetuated by loved ones. Tune in today to hear more! 

Key Points From This Episode:

•    Key risk factors which make the elderly more vulnerable to abuse.

•    The concept of predatory marriage which facilitates elder abuse.

•    Signs to look out for when you suspect someone is a victim of elder abuse.

•    Why you should reach out to their bank if you are suspicious that they might be a victim.

•    The element of coercive control present in elder abuse.

•    What the implications of signing over power of attorney are.

•    The appropriate role of a guardian. 

•    How to support someone who you suspect is experiencing abuse as an elder. 

•    The difference between financial management and power of attorney. 

•    Implications and limitations of the NCAT process. 

•    How lawyers can assist the elderly during court proceedings.

•    How the NSW Ageing and Disability Commission can assist in elder protection.

•    Various channels where you can report suspected elder abuse of yourself or another.

Tweetables:

“If you suspect someone is a victim of elder abuse, you should talk to their bank because the banking code practice has got quite a strong element on elder abuse and preventing it.” — Leah Sewell [0:18:05]

“As much as people squirm with formalising family loans and getting lawyers involved, it’s a small price to pay for protection for everyone.” — Leah Sewell [0:42:49]

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

Elder Abuse - What Can You Do to Help? 

Elder Abuse - Know the Signs

NSW Ageing and Disability Commission 1800 628 221

NCAT

Australian Human Rights Commission 1800 ELDER HELP
World Health Organization

Leah Sewell

3 Deadly Sins

The lengths some people will go to take advantage of vulnerable members of society is appalling. Today, we examine one such case from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. This episode is all about sham marriages, divorce, and illicit gains, using the case of Mr Lo-Sing Ip and Lisa Chang as an example. 

Lisa deliberately married Mr Ip in order to get property transferred into her name. She then proceeded with a divorce to ensure her desired outcome. Today, we break down the particulars of Lisa’s manipulation of an elderly gentleman (who was likely suffering from dementia) by isolating him and gaining control of his property and financial affairs. Tune in to hear about this unconscionable case, step-by-step, and find out the eventual outcome of the court proceedings!

 Key Points From This Episode:

•    Mr Ip’s background and marriage history.

•    The relationship Mr Ip had with his son who was born of his first marriage.

•    Reasons to suggest that Mr Ip suffered from cognitive impairment.

•    The entry of Lisa into Mr Ip’s life after his first marriage left him widowed.

•    How Lisa manipulated a transfer of Mr Ip’s property into her name.

•    Mr Ip’s level of understanding and sophistication irrespective of cognitive impairment.

•    The difference between joint tenancy and tenants in common.

•    Lisa’s questionable divorce proceedings and what was included in the binding financial agreement.

•    Mr Ip’s move to an aged care facility without the notification of the plaintiff.

•    How Lisa isolated Mr Ip from the plaintiff and gained control of his financial and medical affairs.

•    The amount that the lawyers involved were sued for prior to the Supreme Court hearing.

•    How Lisa procured a counselling certificate in Mr Ip’s absence.

•    Lisa’s undisclosed sale of Mr Ip’s house and her purchase of a new property.

•    The scheme to marry Mr Ip to Ms Gou, Lisa’s ex-mother-in-law.

•    The outcome of the court proceedings.

Tweetables:

 “Mr Ip was a fairly simple person. He was uneducated, wasn’t sophisticated in any means, so his level of understanding, even without any form of cognitive impairment or dementia, about various transactions will have been quite limited.” — Leah Sewell [0:08:06]

 “All of [Lisa’s] actions in obtaining the property for herself were unconscionable. They were illicit but this was not a criminal matter.” — Leah Sewell [0:25:13]

 Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

 Leah Sewell

3 Deadly Sins

Ip v Chiang [2021] NSWSC 822

Episode 3: Show Notes

 Today’s story is one of secrecy, tall tales, and a multimillion-dollar estate! The complex case in question, Yesilhat v Calokerinos, spanned many court hearings and many years, accruing an astonishing amount in legal fees. At the heart of it was George Sclavos, a pharmacist who owned a pharmacy in Leppington and was 65 when he died in August 2013. Then there’s Okan Yesilhat, a former police officer, now co-owner of a tyre business, who claimed after George’s death that they had been having a secret romantic and sexual affair for over a decade and sought to claim family provision from the deceased’s estate. There were a total of six judgments in this matter but, in today’s episode, we address the primary judgment made by Justice Slattery and what it tells us about the factors that determine a de facto relationship and the important role that credibility plays in the outcome of the proceedings. This case is an example of the lengths people might go to claim against someone’s estate, in this instance, manufacturing a same-sex relationship that might have damaged not only Okan’s personal relationships but his public reputation too! Tune in today to learn more.

 Key Points From This Episode:

 •   Outlining the two main sets of proceedings involved in the case.

•   Why there were four judgments handed down by Justice Slattery between 2017 and 2020.

•   The relationship between the deceased, George Sclavos, and Okan Yesilhat, which formed the basis of Okan’s legal claims.

•   Understanding how Okan, a friend, could claim family provision from the deceased’s estate.

•   Some of the factors that determine a de facto relationship, including the common household.

•   Why the claim wasn’t previously dismissed by Justice White in 2015.

•   The role that credibility played in the outcome of the proceedings.

•   Interesting elements of the judgment, including the fact that George saw Okan “like a son.”

•   Evidence regarding George’s known intimate relationships, which were all with women.

•   How a de facto relationship between Okan and the deceased was disproven.

•   Why a Court of Appeal often cannot make a judgment on the basis of credibility.

•   The eight grounds of appeal that Okan claimed supported his contention that he was in a de facto relationship with the deceased.

•   Why Okan could not be a beneficiary on intestacy based on the known will of the deceased. 

•   Why it’s illegal to touch someone’s bank account after they have died, even even if you had valid access while they were alive.

 Tweetables:

 “A de facto relationship requires more than just sleeping together. There is usually an element of living together, a common household, which most people understand to be for a period of two years, [but] it’s not always that straightforward.” — Leah Sewell [0:07:33]

 “The court’s determination of credibility of the parties and witnesses go a long way to determining the outcome of the proceedings. In other words, the person whose story the judge believes more is likely to be the more successful party.” — Leah Sewell [0:10:42]

 “It is actually illegal for anyone to touch someone’s bank accounts after they have died, even if you had valid access while they were alive. The moment someone dies, any power of attorney is extinguished and any right to touch those bank accounts ceases.” — Leah Sewell [0:27:09]

 Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

 Yesilhat v Calokerinos [2021] NSWCA 110

Leah Sewell

3 Deadly Sins

This week we take a look at the case involving the estate of Leila Jean Jones. This is a complex matter involving two key aspects of estate litigation and it was dealt with in two separate decisions from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. In this episode, you’ll hear the story of Mr. and Mrs. Jones who purchased a second waterfront property in addition to their family home so they could leave one to each of their children as an inheritance. However, after the passing of Mr. Jones and in the final years of the life of Mrs. Jones, their son Stephen began to feel entitled to a greater portion of the inheritance. Tune in to hear about the developments that occurred in the family in the final years of Leila Jones’s life, how her will evolved with time and how her entire estate came to be left to her son in her final two wills.  

Key Points From This Episode:

 ●      How the deceased’s final will had been altered and the entire estate left to Stephen upon her death.
●      The paranoia Stephen had started suffering and why he felt entitled to more of his mother’s estate before her death.

●      Insight into the series of solicitor’s meetings that happened with the deceased before her passing and why the solicitor felt the need to have Leila’s capacity verified. 

●      Some of the red flags that were raised at a second solicitor’s meeting after Stephen had moved in with the deceased. 

●      The handwritten will that the deceased submitted without the help of lawyers and why the judge had a problem accepting it.

●      The details of the final will that was made by a different solicitor and how it differed from previous versions.

●      Evidence that the deceased may have been suffering from dementia at the time her final wills were created.

●      How the judge noted that Stephen may be suffering some sort of psychological disorder. 

●      What solicitors should be aware of when it comes to elderly clients and estate law.

 Tweetables:

 “The meeting was that unusual that the solicitor wrote a detailed file note, which she admitted that she did not usually do. In the end, the solicitor considered that there was a risk that the deceased was being unduly influenced and that she needed to have the capacity of the deceased verified by a medical practitioner before she could proceed to take any instructions for a new will.” — Leah Sewell [0:07:52]

 “There was no valid reason why the deceased would have cut out not only Diane, her daughter, but also her daughter’s children. There was just no logic to it.” — Leah Sewell [0:17:31]

 “It cannot be underestimated how difficult it is to establish that someone has unduly influenced someone else into making a will in a particular way. There’s only been a small handful of cases in the New South Wales Supreme Court in the last 150 years that have been successful.” — Leah Sewell [0:19:13]

 “It’s also a reminder that solicitors should try and get capacity assessments, particularly if there are any doubts whatsoever as to the capacity of the person they’re seeing, even if it is just to rule out undue influence or make such a claim incredibly difficult to prove.” — Leah Sewell [0:26:51]

 Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

 Bracher v Jones [2020] NSWSC 1024 

Bracher v Jones (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 134

Leah Sewell

3 Deadly Sins

The Witch of Walcha Episode: Show Notes
 Welcome to the podcast where we explore greed, wrath, and envy, and how these play into stories of contested wills and property inheritance! Here on the 3 Deadly Sins Podcast, we will be bringing you stories from New South Wales, Australia, and beyond, looking at small cases as well as some dealing with high-profile celebrities. Today's show deals with a case of murder and an inheritance involving Mathew Dunbar and Natasha Darcy, who was dubbed The Witch of Walcha. This case is an extreme example of the blindness of love, and how conniving desires for wealth and property can drive people to violent, drastic, and stupid measures! Mathew Dunbar was the owner of Pandora, a farm worth over $3 million, and his supposed romance and cohabitation with Natasha Darcy led to his murder, as she plotted to gain control over the estate. We talk about the prior brushes that Natasha had with the law, including jail time, and the extensive research that she did into methods for a murder that proved to be her downfall. After she was convicted, the judge underlined her continual focus on finding ways to kill a person, available through her internet searches, as the main signifier of her guilt. To hear all about this baffling situation and the disturbing actions of the Witch of Walcha, join us for the show! Trigger warning: Please be aware that this episode deals with themes and details of suicide and murder. 

 Key Points From This Episode:

•    How Mathew Dunbar and Natasha Darcy met, and the courtship that led to them moving in together.

•    Natasha Darcy's history of attempted scams and investigations into poison and bodily harm.

•    How Natasha Darcy attempted to kill her first husband by drugging him and setting their property on fire. 

•    The conviction that Natasha Darcy received; reckless damage instead of attempted murder.  

•    The pressure that Natasha Darcy exerted on Mathew Dunbar regarding the arrangement of his will. 

•    Internet research that Natasha Darcy conducted into human physiology, death, and police jurisdiction.  

•    The events that led up to Mathew Dunbar's death and information that Natasha Darcy fabricated.    

•    Police interest in Natasha Darcy that arose before Mathew Dunbar was killed.

•    The claims Natasha Darcy made about Mathew Dunbar's sexual orientation to the police.

•    Natasha Darcy's capture and conviction, and her inability to stick to her story.

•    The judge's ruling and statement at the trial condemning Natasha Darcy and her actions. 

 Tweetables:

 “He was a man without any obvious heirs, and he owned a property known to be worth more than 3 million. All he wanted was a family to surround him on his sheep farm, and to live out his life working hard.” — Leah Sewell [0:02:18]

 “She was convicted in 2012 and sentenced to serve a minimum 9 months in jail. In 2015 Darcy was sent to jail again for stealing a former boyfriend's credit card.” — Leah Sewell [0:07:26]

 “Darcy's internet searches became more direct. She searched things like, 'how to commit murder,' murder by injection,' and '99 undetectable poisons.'” — Leah Sewell [0:17:05]

 “Of course, Darcy will not inherit the property, as she has been found guilty of murder, so forfeits any entitlement under the will.'” — Leah Sewell [0:25:00]

 Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

 Leah Sewell

Case References R v Darcy [No 9] 2022 NSWSC 135

Lifeline — 131114