Boga v 15 Glenburnie Rd Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1009 | Case summary | Zoe

NSWNSWSC

Boga v 15 Glenburnie Rd Pty Ltd

[2025] NSWSC 1009

Supreme Court of NSW|2025-09-05|Before: Harrison AsJ

View on NSW CaselawOr email me a plain-English summary of this case

General information, not legal advice.

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2025-09-05

Before

Harrison AsJ

Catchwords

MONEY CLAIMS — Loan agreement — Advances in dispute —
Repayments in dispute

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Email me a plain-English summary of this case

Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.

General information, not legal advice.

Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.

Catchwords

MONEY CLAIMS — Loan agreement — Advances in dispute —Repayments in dispute

Judgment

Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

Medium Neutral Citation: Boga v 15 Glenburnie Rd Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1009

Hearing dates: 17 February 2025 – 20 February 2025

Date of orders: 5 September 2025

Decision date: 05 September 2025

Jurisdiction: Common Law

Before: Harrison AsJ

Decision: (1) The defendants are to pay the plaintiff in the sum of $167,000.
(2) Interest is payable to the plaintiff by the defendants and is to be calculated by the parties.
(3) The defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

Catchwords: MONEY CLAIMS — Loan agreement — Advances in dispute — Repayments in dispute

Legislation Cited: Nil

Cases Cited: Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Rich (2009) 75 ACSR 1
Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969
Ho v Powell (2001) 51 NSWLR 572
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Kraljevic v Kraljevic [2017] NSWSC 225
O'Donnell v Reichard [1975] VR 916
Transport Industries Insurance Co Ltd v Longmuir [1997] 1 VR 125

Texts Cited: Nil

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Thomas Boga (Plaintiff)
15 Glenburnie Rd Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Ahmed Abdulkader Sakr (Second Defendant)

Representation: Counsel: G George (Plaintiff) I Chatterjee (Defendants) Solicitors: Elie Rahme and Associates (Plaintiff) Davies Moloney Barristers & Solicitors (Defendants)

Both parties agree to the following advances:
On 30 May 2019, $100,000 – Boga transferred via electronic fund transfer (EFT) to Sakr, first instalment of the first loan (CB22 at [35]). Boga produced a copy of the bank statement including this transaction with the description “loan” (CB 90). Boga also produced a letter from St George Bank confirming that the payee of the transaction was Sakr (CB 92).
On 5 June 2019, $50,000 – Boga EFT to Sakr, second instalment of the first loan (CB22 at [35]). Boga produced a copy of the bank statement including this transaction with the description “loan” (CB 91). Boga also produced a letter from St George Bank confirming that the payee of the transaction was Sakr (CB 92).
On 28 October 2019, $250,000 – Boga EFT to Glenburnie Rd as requested by Sakr, first instalment of the second loan (CB 24 at [45]). Boga produced a copy of the email exchange between his lawyer and Sakr’s lawyer along with the bank statement 64 which shows that he transferred the money via EFT (CB 127-130).
On 29 October 2019, $1,450,000 – Boga EFT to Glenburnie Rd as requested by Sakr, second instalment of the second loan (CB 24 at [45]). Boga produced a copy of the email exchange between his lawyer and Sakr’s lawyer along with the bank statement 64 which shows that he transferred the money via EFT (CB 127-130).
In total, both parties agreed that $1,900,000 has been advanced. However, there is a dispute regarding how that $1,900,000 is composed.
In his affidavit dated 5 March 2024, Boga claimed that in May 2019, he agreed to lend Sakr $150,000 at Sakr’s request. Sakr would pay Boga back in four to six weeks. On 30 May 2019, Boga transferred Sakr $100,000 and a further $50,000 on 5 June 2019. The loan was not repaid and became part of the larger loan advanced in October 2019. In October 2019 Sakr requested a further loan of $1,700,000 and in return a “gift” would be paid to Boga of $150,000 as compensation for advancing the loan. The term “gift” replaced the conventional interest payment, as a lump sum interest payment was haram with Sakr’s religious beliefs and his reluctance to practice “usury”. As he broke his term deposit, Boga needed to pay his bank a penalty fee of $23,890. Sakr agreed to pay the bank’s penalty fee if the loan was executed.
Boga’s solicitor, Guijan Boga, drafted a loan agreement for the sum of $1,900,000 with the land at 15 Glenburnie Rd, Beveridge Victoria (the Beveridge property) to be owed by Sakr as security (the loan agreement). The loan of $1,900,000 was comprised of the first loan ($150,000), the penalty fee ($23,890), and two payments amounting to $1,700,000, which together totaled $1,873,890. Boga did not provide any further explanation about the gap of $26,110.
During cross-examination, Boga gave evidence that Sakr should have paid him back $1,900,000 on 27 December 2019, plus another $150,000 (T55 [33]-[35]):

The following advances are in dispute:
On 27 December 2019, $450,000 – Boga claimed that Sakr called him for money. Boga made an EFT to Anthill Construction as per Sakr’s instructions (CB 25 at [54]-[55]). Sakr produced a record of telegraphic transfer from St George Bank showing the transfer of $450,000 on 27 December 2019 to Anthill Construction (CB 138).
On 23 February 2020, $45,000 – Boga claimed that he gave cash to Sakr when Sakr collected him from Melbourne airport (CB 25 at [58]).
On 10 November 2020, $100,000 – Boga claimed that he made an EFT to Anthill Construction as per Sakr’s instructions (CB 26 at [69]. Boga produced a copy of the telegraphic transfer that he made to Anthill Construction on 10 November 2020 (CB146)).
On 29 November 2020, $65,000 – Boga claimed that he gave cash to Sakr when having dinner with Sakr (CB 26 at [71]).
On 31 March 2021, $20,000 – Boga claimed that he gave cash to Sakr in the presence of John Aras (Aras) (CB 27 at [80]).
On 19 July 2021, $150,000 – Boga claimed that he made an EFT to Anthill Construction as per Sakr’s instruction (CB 28 at [87]). Sakr produced a copy of the telegraphic transfer he made to Anthill Construction on 19 July 2021 (CB 157).
In total, advances of $830,000 are in dispute.
The following repayments (not involving the third parties Ousama El Zohbi (El Zohbi) and Wehbe) are in dispute:
On 2 June 2020, $25,000 – Sakr claimed that he made an EFT to Anthill Construction, which Boga agreed to, as a reduction of the amount owed to Anthill Construction by Mt Ridley as well as reducing the loan (CB 423 at [39]). Sakr produced a bank statement which showed a transfer of $25,000 on 2 June 2020 (CB 405).
On 11 November 2020, $34,000 – in his affidavit dated 29 August 2024, Sakr claimed that he withdrew $35,000 with Boga and gave that cash to Boga (CB 424 at [47]). However, in his affidavit dated 5 April 2024 and the bank statement he produced, it showed that he in fact transferred $34,000 on 11 November 2020 (CB 411).
On 8 January 2021, $300,000 – Sakr claimed that he made an EFT to Anthill Construction, which Boga agreed to, as a repayment of the loan (CB 425 at [56]). Sakr produced a bank statement which showed a transfer of $300,000 on 8 January 2021 (CB 413).
On 25 January 2021, $40,000 – Sakr claimed that he made EFT to Anthill Construction, which Boga agreed to, as a repayment of the loan (CB 425 at [57]). Sakr produced a bank statement which showed a transfer of $40,000 on 25 January 2021 (CB 413).

Sakr gave evidence that during the Covid-19 pandemic, on several occasions, he first withdrew cash or transferred the money from his bank account to either El Zohbi who then gave that money to Wehbe, or the money was given directly to Wehbe. Wehbe would then give that money to Boga.
Sakr deposed that he gave money to either El Zohbi or Webhe on the following occasions:
On 9 December 2019, Sakr withdrew $30,000 and on 20 December 2019, Sakr withdrew $20,000 (Sakr produced a bank statement showing these two withdrawals (CB 403)). Along with $9,000 Sakr already had in his possession, Sakr gave a total of $59,000 in cash to El Zohbi who gave it to Wehbe who then gave it to Boga (CB 423 at [38]);
On 24 July 2020, Sakr withdrew $20,000 and on 27 July 2020, Sakr withdrew $20,000 (Sakr produced a bank statement showing these two withdrawals (CB 405)). On 28 July 2020, Sakr gave a total of $40,000 in cash to El Zohbi who gave it to Wehbe who then gave it to Boga (CB 423 at [42]);
On 4 August 2020, Sakr withdrew $51,500 (Sakr produced a bank statement showing this withdrawal (CB 407)). On 10 or 11 August 2020, he gave the cash to El Zohbi who gave it to Wehbe who then gave it to Boga (CB 423 at [43]; CB 424 at [44]);
On 20 November 2020, Sakr transferred $42,000 directly to Wehbe who gave it to Boga (CB 424 at [50]). Sakr produced a bank statement showing this transfer (CB 411);
On or around 21 November 2020, Sakr gave $180,000 in cash to El Zohbi who gave it to Wehbe who then gave it to Boga (CB 424 at [51]);
On 24 November 2020, Sakr transferred $34,000 to Wehbe who gave it to Boga (CB 424 at [52]). Sakr produced a bank statement showing this transfer (CB 411);
On 5 March 2021, Sakr withdrew $10,000 (Sakr produced a bank statement showing this withdrawal (CB 415)) and gave it to El Zohbi on 6 March 2021, who gave it to Wehbe who then gave it to Boga (CB 425 at [53]-[54]); and
On 15 July 2021, Sakr borrowed $43,000 in cash from Emna Hayek (Emna) and gave the cash to El Zohbi who gave it to Wehbe who then gave it to Boga. Sakr instructed El Zohbi and Wehbe that Wehbe needed to take a picture of the money (CB 425 at [55]).
Boga agreed that he has received cash from Wehbe on the following six occasions. They are as follows:
On 24 August 2020, $20,000 – Wehbe gave cash to Boga as per Sakr’s instructions (CB 26 at [65]);
On 23 October 2020, $25,000 – Wehbe under Sakr’s instructions gave the cash to Boga (CB 26 at [68]). However, Counsel for Boga denied the payment in closing submissions;
On 25 January 2021, $20,000 – Wehbe gave this money to Boga’s wife as per Sakr’s instructions (CB 26 at [76]);
On 24 February 2021, $25,000 – Wehbe gave cash to Boga as per Sakr’s instructions (CB 27 at [77]);
On 24 March 2021, $20,000 – Wehbe gave cash to Boga as per Sakr’s instructions (CB 27 at [78]); and
On 21 July 2021, $20,000 – Wehbe gave cash to Boga as per Sakr’s instructions (CB 28 at [88]).
Sakr’s evidence is that he gave $459,500 in total either in cash or by electronic transfer to El Zohbi or to Wehbe to give to Boga. Boga’s evidence is that he has only received $130,000 from Wehbe. Thus, there is a $329,500 gap between the amount of money that Sakr gave to either El Zohbi or Webhe (who then gave that money to Boga) and the amount of money that Boga claimed that he received from Wehbe.
In total, repayments of $729,500 (including the repayments of $400,000 which El Zohbi and Wehbe are not involved in and the repayments of $329,500 which involve El Zohbi and Wehbe) are in dispute.
I will now focus on the loan advances and repayments in dispute. As I stated earlier, it has been a moving feast. A large number of payments have been made in cash. There are limited documents to support many of the transactions but where there are credible documents supporting advances and repayment, I will prefer them over Boga’s, Sakr’s, Wehbe’s and El Zohbi’s evidence.
Further there are disputes as to whether Boga was lending the money to Sakr or paying his share of building costs to Anthill Construction. Except for Seyhan, I will not discuss the credibility of any of the witnesses in order to make my findings on these disputed transactions.

In his affidavit dated 5 March 2024, Boga gave evidence that in May 2019, Sakr telephoned Boga and asked for a $300,000 loan. Boga informed Sakr that he was unable to forward him the full amount requested but agreed to lend Sakr $150,000. The parties agreed that repayment of the loan would be made in the timeframe of four to six weeks. Boga then proceeded to transfer Sakr $100,000 on 30 May 2019 and a further $50,000 on 5 June 2019, both via EFT to the bank account nominated by Sakr.
The loan was not repaid and became part of the larger loan advanced in October 2019.
Throughout this time, Boga submitted that he was in constant discussions with Sakr largely in relation to both the Wollert and Craigieburn properties.
In October 2019 Sakr rang Boga requesting a further loan of $1,200,000. Sakr assured that the loan would only be required for a period of two months and that he would repay it with a “gift” of $100,000. The term “gift” replaced the conventional interest payment, alluding to a lump sum interest payment in line with Sakr’s religious beliefs and his reluctance to practice “usury”.
While Boga was considering Sakr’s request, Sakr rang him again requesting a loan amount of $1,700,000 as opposed to the original amount of $1,200,000, in return a “gift” would be paid to Boga of $150,000 as compensation for advancing the loan.
Boga deposed that he held money in a long-term deposit and advised Sakr that if he was to break his term deposit, he would be required to pay his Bank a penalty fee of $23,890. Sakr agreed to pay the bank’s penalty fee if the loan was executed.
Boga instructed Sakr that he was not comfortable lending such a large amount of money without security. Sakr informed Boga that he intended to purchase a property with said money (the Beveridge property) and that he would provide a mortgage over it as security for the loan. Boga would be the first and only mortgagee registered on title.
Sakr also agreed that the $150,000 still owing from the previous dealing be included in the new agreement together with the penalty fee.
Boga then requested the assistance of Guljan Boga, solicitor, from Borg and Bogs lawyers in Sydney to draft a loan agreement for the amount of $1,900,000 with the Beveridge property as security (the loan agreement).
Boga claimed in his affidavit that following the signing of the loan agreement, Sakr owed him $2,050,000, comprising of the loan agreement and the $150,000 “gift” for providing the loan. According to the loan agreement, the loan was required to be paid back in two months.
According to Boga, Sakr told him that the loan would assist Sakr in alleviating Sakr’s financial burdens.
In November 2019, Boga was enquiring into purchasing a Ford utility vehicle and asked Sakr for a repayment of the loan so he could purchase the vehicle. Sakr transferred the amount of $67,000 to Coffey Ford to pay for the car on his behalf.
At the time of purchasing the Ford Raptor on 26 November 2019, Sakr also paid Boga, according to his affidavit, $4,500 in cash when he was in Melbourne to pick up the car.
By 26 November 2019, the amount owed to Boga by Sakr was $1,978,500.
On 20 December 2019, Boga had a telephone and text conversation with Sakr requesting repayment of the loan. Sakr agreed to repay $700,000 via EFT and told Boga he would send a further cash payment of $59,000 with Solak as Solak was heading to Sydney.
On 23 December 2019, Sakr sent Boga a text message confirming that he had transferred funds into Boga’s account. On 23 December 2019, Boga’s bank records showed that Sakr had made a cash deposit of $556,500 to Boga’s Commonwealth Bank account. Further, Boga’s evidence is that Sakr did not send a cash payment through Solak as had been promised.
Four days later, on 27 December 2019, Sakr rang Boga claiming he was tight for money requesting another $450,000. Boga said he felt comfortable transferring the additional funds to Sakr because of the deed and mortgage that was already in place over the Beveridge property.
On 27 December 2019, Boga transferred $450,000 directly from his St George bank account to Anthill Construction.
On 28 December 2019, Boga’s evidence is that Glenburnie Rd and Sakr owed him $1,872,000 under the loan agreement.
On 23 February 2020, Boga flew to Melbourne with his wife. When Boga told Sakr he was coming to Melbourne, Sakr requested another loan as he was apparently in urgent need of money. At that time, Boga was able to secure $45,000 in cash. He handed the money to Sakr at Melbourne airport upon the family’s arrival.
On 19 March 2020, Sakr transferred $300,000 through Anthill Construction to Boga’s St George bank account.
On 23 March 2020, Sakr transferred $100,000 through Anthill Construction to Boga’s St George bank account.
On 24 March 2020, Sakr transferred $100,000 through Anthill Construction to Boga’s St George bank account.
On 25 March 2020, Boga says that Sakr owed him the sum of $1,417,000 under the loan agreement.
On or about May 2020, Boga spoke to Sakr and agreed that Sakr’s company Anthill Construction would commence construction on the Wollert property.
On 26 June 2020, Boga transferred $400,000 to Anthill Construction as a progress payment for construction work that Anthill Construction had completed at the Wollert property. This payment did not relate to the loan agreement.
On 29 September 2020, Boga received a development application approval for the Wollert property.
In early November 2020, Sakr phoned Boga requesting another loan of $100,000. Boga transferred that amount to Anthill Construction on 10 November 2020.
On 28 November 2020, Boga drove to Melbourne with his wife. Upon telling Sakr that he was coming to Melbourne, Sakr requested another loan in the amount of $100,000. Boga agreed to loan Sakr a further $65,000 and not the $100,000 that was requested.
On 29 November 2020, Boga had dinner at Sakr’s farmhouse at Northern Highway, Bylands where Boga handed Sakr $65,000 in cash.
Boga calculated that at this time, the amount owed by Sakr under the loan agreement was $1,537,000.
On 29 December 2020, Sakr made a repayment of $350,000 via bank transfer. The transfer was paid to Boga’s Commonwealth Bank account, resulting in an outstanding balance of $1,187,000.
On 1 January 2021, Sakr made a repayment of $10,000 by bank transfer. At this time $1,177,000 plus interest was owed.
On 25 January 2021, Sakr made a repayment of $20,000 in a cash deposit. At this time $1,157,000 plus interest was owed.
On 31 March 2021 Boga drove to Melbourne with his friend Aras. Prior to this trip, Sakr had requested another loan of $20,000 in cash. Boga brought the cash with him to Melbourne and gave it to Sakr in the presence of Aras while at the Wollert property.
Boga says that he would always visit the Wollert property when he was in Melbourne and that usually Sakr would meet with him on site to update him on the progress of the construction.
On 1 April 2021, Boga calculated that the amount owed to him by Sakr under the loan agreement was $1,112,000 plus interest.
On 1 June 2021, Sakr made a repayment of $10,000 as a cash deposit. At this time $1,102,000 plus interest was owed.
On the same day, 1 June 2021, Sakr made a second repayment of $10,000 by bank transfer. At this time $1,092,000 plus interest was owed.
On 7 June 2021, Sakr made a repayment of $3,000 by bank transfer. At this time $1,089,000 plus interest was owed.
In mid-July 2021, Sakr called Boga and asked for another loan of $150,000. On 19 July 2021, Boga transferred this money to Sakr. The balance owing was now $1,239,000.
Around this time the amount owed to Boga by Sakr was $1,219,000 plus interest.
Boga says that as of 16 September 2022, construction at the Wollert property had not been progressing.
On 26 September 2022, Anthill Construction’s building licence was suspended by the Victorian Building Association.
On 16 October 2023, Sakr asked Boga to release the mortgage over his property because he had sold the Beveridge property, and the settlement was scheduled for the following Friday.
Boga informed Sakr that he would only release the property if Sakr repaid the loan of $1,219,000 plus interest.
At this time, Boga says that Sakr got upset and aggressive over the phone and hung up. Boga then immediately texted Sakr to which he received a reply from Sakr which read “don’t call me”. According to Boga, this was the last point of contact between the two men.
Boga says that apart from the transactions relating to the loan agreement, monies were also being sent separately to Anthill Construction as progress payments for the construction of the Wollert property.

In October 2019, Sakr requested a further loan of $1,200,000 for 12 months. The $100,000 stipulated by Boga as a “gift” was not interest, but instead, would offset any future contractual payments between Semak and Anthill Construction for anticipated building works at the Wollert property.
Sakr says that he was actively involved in business and paid interest on loans as part of that. He never told Boga that he had any religious prohibition against the paying of interest; rather, he signed a loan agreement with Boga that expressly required the payment of interest.
As both Sakr and Boga were assisting with their family’s businesses, on several occasions, Boga directed Sakr (as set out in greater detail below) to repay the loan by paying certain various amounts to Anthill Construction.
Sakr submitted that the $150,000 was not a “gift” for Boga providing the loan but it was to be deducted from the building contract of the Wollert property.
Sakr denied Boga’s evidence that by 26 November 2019, Sakr owed Boga $1,978,500.
On 20 December 2019, Boga messaged Sakr seeking $700,000 by EFT and $59,000 in cash. On either 20 December 2019 or 22 December 2019, Sakr called Boga and agreed to pay $556,500 by EFT and $59,000 in cash.
Sakr says that the payment of $450,000 on 27 December 2019 was not a loan to him, but instead, it was paid to Anthill Construction by Mt Ridley Developments for planning, designing and other development requirements for the Craigieburn property. He gave a copy of the tax invoice dated 19 November to Boga at the Wollert property.
On 23 February 2020, Sakr collected Boga and his wife from the airport. He never asked for, nor did he receive a cash payment of $45,000. The purpose of the visit was for Boga to meet Bruce Barron (Mr Barron), a real estate agent.
Sakr denied that on 25 March 2020, the amount he owed to Boga under the loan agreement was $1,417,000.
In June 2019, the construction works to be carried out on the Wollert property were contractually agreed upon. On 14 May 2020, a domestic building contract was executed**.**
On 2 June 2020, Sakr paid $25,000 to Anthill Construction. Sakr says that before making the payment, he called and suggested to Boga that this payment should be made in reduction of the amount owed to Anthill Construction by Mt Ridley Developments as well as reducing the loan. Boga agreed with the suggestion.
On 10 November 2020, Sakr went to a Commonwealth Bank branch with Boga and withdrew $300,000. Sakr says that these funds were forwarded into an account that Boga nominated. However, during examination in chief and cross-examination, Sakr admitted that he made a mistake.
After subpoenaing Commonwealth Bank, the records showed that $300,000 was transferred to FE Lawyers so that one of Sakr’s associates, Omar Al Nasbi, could buy a property:

On 11 November 2020, Sakr went to the bank with Boga, withdrew $35,000 and then gave that cash to Boga.
On 24 November 2020, Sakr transferred $34,000 to Wehbe’s account to pay Boga. He did not transfer this money directly to Boga.
Sakr denied that on 28 November 2020 he asked Boga for a loan of $100,000 and says that it was a construction payment towards the building of the Wollert property.
On the 29 November 2020, Boga only came over to his house for lunch. Sakr did not receive any money from Boga.
Sakr denied requesting a loan of $20,000 from Boga. Sakr has never met Aras or Murat Gulasi (Boga’s friend).
Sakr deposed that the $150,000 was a construction payment made to Anthill Construction towards the building of the Wollert property rather than a loan.
On 13 June 2023, Anthill Construction went into liquidation. Before that, Sakr assisted Boga with arranging a new builder to complete the works at the Wollert property.
On 18 October 2022, Building Consultants International (BCI) signed a domestic building contract with Semak. BCI commenced work on the Wollert property shortly after the execution of the domestic building contract.
Sakr says that he trusted Boga would keep account of the payments being made due to their long-term friendship and business relationship. He believed that Boga would refund him if he overpaid Boga.
On 16 October 2023, Sakr called Boga to request an in-person meeting with him to discuss the money owed. However, Boga refused this invitation and disputed several variations that Anthill Construction had charged in relation to the Wollert property.
On 16 October 2023, following the call, Boga messaged Sakr on WhatsApp, and relevantly said: “Be a man give me my OC invoices and certificates I’ll transfer u the title without any problems.” The reference to certificates was in connection with the Wollert property. The reference to title is a reference to the Beveridge property Sakr had granted Boga a mortgage over for the loan.

In his affidavit dated 6 November 2024, Boga replied that there was no verbal agreement that he had to pay Sakr $300,000 for facilitating the arrangement where Boga purchased Solak’s share of the Craigieburn property. It was Boga’s son, Seyhan, through Mt Ridley Developments that purchased Solak’s share of the property. Boga further explained that the property did not belong to Sakr and there was no reason to pay Sakr for the purchase of Solak’s share of the property. In May 2019, Sakr called him to request $300,000 as a loan rather than as a repayment.
The $100,000 which was attached to the first proposed $1,200,000 loan (noting that Sakr later requested a $1,700,000 loan instead) was not an offset on future construction works. At the time Boga and Sakr entered the loan agreement, there was no development approval for building works at the Wollert property. The loan agreement was executed on 28 October 2019. The development approval for the Wollert property was not obtained until 28 January 2020.
Boga has never directed Sakr to pay money owed to him to Anthill Construction.
In December 2019, Sakr never paid Boga $59,000 in cash.
In the invoice produced by Sakr dated 19 December 2019, Mt Ridley Developments was to pay Anthill Construction $300,000 for work completed and $150,000 for profit share. Boga replied that he has never seen this invoice and there was no profit share to be paid to Sakr. The $450,000 was a loan requested by Sakr.
Boga says that the contract that Anthill Construction was to conduct the construction works for the Wollert property was agreed in May 2020 rather than in June 2019.
On 10 November 2020, Boga transferred $100,000 to Sakr as a loan rather than a construction payment towards the building of the Wollert property. Boga has never seen the invoice dated 9 November 2020 produced by Sakr.
On 19 July 2021, Boga transferred $150,000 to Sakr as a loan rather than a construction payment towards the building of the Wollert property. Boga never saw the invoice dated 19 July 2021 produced by Sakr.
Boga explained that the text message that he sent to Sakr dated 16 October 2023, which relevantly said, “Be a man give me my OC invoices and certificates I'll transfer u the title without any problems”, was an expression of his frustration that he had not been paid the debt Sakr owed him. He needed the money to loan to Semak so it could pay the $1,400,000 to BCI to complete the development of the Wollert property. Once the Wollert property was complete, Semak could obtain the Occupation Certificate (OC) and then move to either sell or refinance the property. Once Sakr made payment of the loan amount to Boga, he would then release the security over the Beveridge property.
Boga says that he had never requested any cash payments from Sakr. He also did not want the loan to be repaid in cash as there was no benefit for him to do so. He believed that the reason Sakr paid him by cash was that Sakr had been paid in cash for work he was doing, and it was easier for Sakr to pay Boga in cash rather than deposit the money into his own account and then transfer the funds to Boga.
Boga did not receive $59,000 in cash from Wehbe.
Boga never agreed to nor received any benefits from the payment made by Sakr on 2 June 2020 to Anthill Construction.
Boga never requested that the $40,000 transferred on 26 January 2021 by Sakr to Anthill Construction be a repayment of the loan.

Hakan completed high school at St Andrews Cathedral School in 2005. He attended the University of Western Sydney to study finance. He currently manages the family’s extensive fast-food business.
To recap, Hakan is Boga’s eldest son. Together, he and his younger brother Seyhan co-direct Semak which is the proprietor of the Wollert property.
Hakan recalled that shortly after purchasing the Wollert property, Boga introduced him to Sakr. Boga told Hakan that Sakr had access to other properties in Victoria that had potential for redevelopment.
On 2 September 2016, the Wollert property purchase settled. The Wollert property was a vacant block of land, 1614 square metres in area. The property had an approved development application for 16 two-bedroom town houses. Hakan’s plan for the Wollert property was to develop it and either keep and rent or sell off the individual residences for profit.
Semak purchased the Wollert property for $660,000 inclusive of GST. Semak borrowed the purchase funds from Boga and planned on repaying the funds upon completion of the development, by either, refinancing the property once developed to access the additional equity, or selling the town houses and using the proceeds for repayment.
In the second half of 2018, Seyhan and Hakan commenced discussions with their father about developing the Wollert property. Semak engaged Chinh Mai to draft plans for the development of the property. Semak submitted plans to the council for 12 two-bedroom townhouses and two three-bedroom double story townhouses amending the original plans which had been submitted by the previous owner.
On 28 August 2018, Semak submitted the plans to Whittlesea Council (the Council).
On 28 January 2020, Semak received development approval from the Council.
As Hakan and Seyhan were not familiar with any builders in Victoria, they decided engage Sakr who was a licenced builder at the time.
In or about May 2020, Semak came to an agreement with Sakr and Anthill Construction to undertake the building works at the Wollert property. The agreed contract price for construction was $2,408,000. A hard copy of the contract was sent to Hakan, who signed and initialled the contract, followed by an emailed copy to Anthill Construction who returned it by post. Hakan did not photocopy or scan the executed copy of the contract. At trial, Hakan produced an unexecuted copy of the building contract that he received and executed. On page 36 of the contract under item 10, the contract price including GST is $2,408,000 (CB 309). On page 41 of the contract under item 23.1, it also shows a total price of $2,408,000 (CB 314).
Sakr produced a domestic building contract executed on 14 May 2020 in evidence. When reviewing the contract provided by Sakr, Hakan found pages 36 and 41 (CB 496 and 501) of the contract were different to the document that he initiated and executed. Hakan did not initial pages of the contract with a contract price of $1,900,000. Hakan did not initial pages 36 and 41. Hakan also did not give his consent for anyone else to place his initials on those two pages.
Hakan believes that Sakr informed him before they commenced construction work that Sakr’s wife, Saly, was the director of Anthill Construction and that entity was the builder. Hakan has never met Saly.
On 31 October 2018, Boga received $3,300,000 from the sale of his property at Lyons Rd Drummoyne (Lyons Rd property). Boga promised Semak the amount of $1,300,000 as a financial contribution for the construction of the townhouses at the Wollert property. Semak was to repay any money Boga lent to the Wollert property. Boga did not charge interest on the money he was advancing to Semak.
On 26 June 2020, Boga transferred the sum of $400,000 to Anthill Construction as payment for the commencement of construction.
ln or about October 2020, the excavation work commenced at the Wollert property. It concluded in or about March 2021.
On 14 April 2021, Hakan received an email from Saly with the tax invoice 331 attached. This was the first invoice issued to Semak from Anthill Construction. Hakan produced a copy of tax invoice 331 for a total amount of $240,800 (CB 323).
On 20 May 2022, Hakan paid tax invoice 331 in full. He transferred money from his personal offset account (shared with his brother) to the bank account nominated in tax invoice 331. He produced a copy of the EFT records and the customer receipt for the amount of $240,800 (CB 326).
On 12 April 2021, Hakan received an email from Saly with the tax invoice 330 attached. Hakan produced a copy of tax invoice 330 for the amount of $12,848 (CB 328).
Between 26 April 2021 and 28 April 2021, Hakan transferred payments from his Macquarie Bank home loan account to Anthill Construction’s account. The payments were split into three, due to the bank’s daily withdrawal limit of $5000. Hakan produced Saly’s email which confirmed that Saly received Hakan’s payment of $12,838 (CB 330).
On 14 December 2022, Hakan met Sakr in Melbourne. Sakr requested that Hakan urgently pay Anthill Construction $34,500 to cover the home warranty insurance.
On 16 December 2022, Hakan received tax invoice 369 for home warranty insurance in an email from Saly. Hakan produced a copy of tax invoice 369 which includes $34,500 for the home warranty insurance and $3,500 for broker fees (CB 333). On 20 December 2022, Hakan transferred the $34,500 from his Commonwealth Bank account to Anthill Construction. He produced a copy of the electronic transaction record of his payment of $34,500 to Anthill Construction (CB 335).
Hakan deposed that Sakr did not ask him to pay “broker fees” so he did not pay them.
Hakan requested an invoice to cover the $400,000 payment made by Boga on behalf of Semak on 26 June 2020 which had not previously been invoiced. On 20 December 2022, Hakan received an email from Saly that had attached to it tax invoice 365 for the amount of $400,000. Hakan produced a copy of tax invoice 365 with a total amount of $400,000 (CB 337).
On 20 October 2022, Hakan received an email from Saly with invoice 366 attached. Hakan produced a copy of tax invoice 366 with a total amount of $250,000 (CB 339).
On 22 October 2022, Hakan used his father’s St George line of credit account to transfer $70,000 to Anthill Construction, because as co-signatory on the account Hakan was able to access it. Boga was overseas at that time. On 24 October 2022, Hakan transferred $100,000 to Anthill Construction from the St George line of credit account. On 25 October 2022, Hakan transferred $80,000 to Anthill Construction from the same St George account as the earlier payments**.** Hakan made payment toward invoice 366 on 25 October 2022. Hakan produced the EFT records for all these payments (CB 341; CB 343; CB 345). In total these transfers amounts to $250,000.
The building contract between Semak and Anthill Construction allowed for a construction period of 500 days. The 500-day completion date including delay days expired around mid-October 2021. Anthill Construction did not complete the construction work by that day.
On 26 September 2022, Boga received a letter by email from the building surveyor Permit Point advising that Anthill Construction’s builders licence had been suspended or cancelled. He forwarded the email to Hakan on the same day.
Hakan immediately called Sakr to discuss Anthill Construction’ licence suspension. Sakr told Hakan not to worry and that he would arrange for a new builder to take over and complete the construction of the townhouses. Sakr arranged for Mr George Stefanidis from BCI to take over the project.
On 20 October 2022, Hakan flew to Melbourne and executed a contract on behalf of Semak with BCI. The cost of construction in that contract was $1,400,000. Hakan produced a copy of the contract between Semak and BCI which was provided by the law firm Davies Moloney (who was acting for BCI) to the law firm Elie Rahme and Associates (who was acting for Semak) on 9 February (CB 349-374).
To date, BCI has not completed the construction project, and Semak has not been able to obtain the occupancy certificate for the Wollert property. On 14 June 2024, the contract between BCI and Semak was terminated. There is now a separate dispute between Semak and BCI.
The contract price of $1,400,000 with BCI, was reached as it was the approximate figure that remained unpaid on the original building contract with Anthill Construction. At the time, Hakan recalled that roughly $925,300 had been made in payments to Anthill Construction, leaving an estimated balance of $1,400,000. That is why Hakan agreed to the contract with BCI for $1,400,000.
During 2023, Hakan transferred payments to a number of tradesmen that worked on the construction of the Wollert property including: an electrician, plumber and concreter. Hakan retained records of all payments made. In total, he paid $240,575.52 to the tradesmen directly. He produced a copy of a list of payments that he made (CB 376).
On 28 November 2023, a letter of demand addressed to Semak was emailed to Boga’s personal email address. The letter was from law firm Davies Moloney in Melbourne. The letter sought the sum of $1,400,000 to be paid by Semak to BCI.
On 30 November 2023, Hakan instructed the firm Elie Rahme and Associates to respond to Davies Moloney, requesting a copy of the contract that was entered into by BCI and Semak on 18 October 2022. Hakan did not have a copy of the contract at that time as he did not take a copy after executing it. The letter also requested confirmation that BCI was able to provide the occupation certificate. He produced a copy of the letter to Davies Moloney dated 28 November 2023 (CB 378-379).
On 9 February 2024, Elie Rahme and Associates received a response by email from Davies Moloney attaching a copy of the home building contract between Semak and BCI. The email reiterated its demand for the payment of $1,400,000. Hakan produced a copy of the letter from Davies Moloney dated 9 February 2024 (CB 383).

In his affidavit dated 18 December 2024, Sakr denied that in October 2019, he called Boga to request a further loan of $1,200,000 for a period of two months and promised Boga that he would “gift” him $100,000 in turn. Instead, Sakr deposed that he requested a further loan of $1,200,000 for 12 months from Boga. The $100,000 stipulated by Boga as a “gift” was not interest, but instead, it would offset any future contractual payments between Semak and Anthill Construction for anticipated building works at the Wollert property.
Sakr denied that following signing the loan agreement, Sakr owed Boga $2,050,000 comprising the loan agreement, plus the $150,000 “gift” for providing the loan. Sakr clarified that the $150,000 000 was not a “gift” for Boga providing the loan but it was to be deducted from the building contract of the Wollert property.
Sakr denied that on 28 November 2020 he asked Boga for a $100,000 loan and said that it was a construction payment towards the building of the Wollert property. He produced a handwritten invoice dated 9 November 2020 (CB 510).
Sakr denied that the $150,000 that Boga transferred to Anthill Construction on 19 July 2021 was a loan. He deposed that it was a construction payment made to Anthill Construction to build the Wollert property rather than a loan. He produced a handwritten invoice dated 19 July 2021 (CB 512).
On 2 June 2020, Sakr paid $25,000 to Anthill Construction. Sakr deposed that before making the payment, Sakr called and suggested to Boga that this payment should be made in reduction of the amount owed to Anthill Construction by Mt Ridley Developments as well as reducing the loan and that Boga agreed with the suggestion.
Around 25 January 2021, Boga requested $40,000 in repayment of the loan when he phoned Sakr. Boga agreed to Sakr transferring a further $40,000 to Anthill Construction on Boga’s behalf towards the Wollert property. On 25 January 2021, Sakr transferred $40,000 to Anthill Construction towards to Wollert property building property as the loan reduction.
Due to the liquidation of Anthill Construction, Sakr says he cannot provide the relevant invoices.

In his affidavit dated 19 December 2024, Sakr replied to Hakan’s evidence. He deposed that there was a whole new planning application submitted to the Council for the Wollert property rather than an amendment of the original plans.
Sakr confirmed that the contract price for the building works was initially contemplated for the price of $2,408,000. However, Sakr says that, in or about May 2020, Boga asked Sakr, either in-person or by phone, whether they could reduce the contract price. They agreed to remove several items from the contract including, the driveway concrete, the public road and lighting between the townhouses and the public park. The ultimate contract price was $1,900,000.
Sakr asked his wife, Saly, to revise the contract and send the updated copy to Hakan. Although he could not recall how he received the contract, upon receiving it, Sakr applied for builder’s warranty insurance that was taken out for 14 townhouses at a total value of $1,900,000. Sakr produced a copy of the certificate of insurance (CB 545-572).
Sakr’s evidence is that the excavation works for the Wollert property commenced in September 2020 and concluded at the end of 2020 rather than in March 2021.
The first invoice issued from Semak to Anthill Construction was dated 9 November 2020 and related to excavation works for the Wollert property for the sum of $100,000 rather than an invoice dated 13 April 2021 for the sum of $240,800 inclusive of GST. Sakr produced a copy of invoice dated 5 November 2020 from Wally Group, the excavator (CB 574).
Sakr submitted that the tax invoice 331 for the sum of $240,800 was sent to Hakan as a mistake. This was the amount pursuant to the original agreed contract price, prior to the variation. Sakr had a conversation with Boga and advised him that he had been invoiced for the incorrect amount and that the amount would be adjusted at a later stage in the contract.
The building licence for Anthill Construction became restricted due to a change in Victorian law which required that to complete a build, a builder must possess a Domestic Builder Unlimited (DBU) licence. This change came into effect in or around June 2022. Anthill Construction only had a Domestic Builder Manager (DBM) licence. Sakr informed Boga about the change and requested to engage another builder to finish the building work at the Wollert property. Sakr and Boga decided on BCI to carry out the work.
On 14 December 2022, Sakr contacted Hakan and requested that he pay the sum of $34,500 to cover the home warranty insurance for the Wollert property. This insurance was for BCI. In late 2022, Sakr requested Boga to pay the builders warranty insurance. Sakr told him that if he paid Anthill Construction the insurance, Sakr would pay it to the insurance broker on behalf of BCI. Boga agreed to the suggestion. Upon receipt of the sum of $34,500, Sakr then paid it to the insurance broker, Joe Falcone on behalf of BCI.
By mid-October 2021, the construction works at the Wollert property were not completed. The major cause of the delay was that the building took place during Covid-19 lockdowns in 2020 and 2021.

To recap, Seyhan is Boga’s younger son. He is the co-director of Semak with his brother, Hakan. He was also the co-director of Mt Ridley Developments with Sakr. Mt Ridley Developments was the owner of the Craigieburn property.
Seyhan attended high school at St Andrews Cathedral School and graduated in 2008. He operates and co-manages the family fast food business alongside his brother Hakan.
It is common ground that in November 2017, Seyhan was introduced to Sakr by Boga in November 2017.
On 20 November 2017, Seyhan flew to Melbourne with Hakan and Boga to visit a potential development site. He believed that Sakr had already signed a contract to purchase the property, but he did not intend to purchase it on his own as he could not afford it.
Seyhan visited the Craigieburn property with Hakan and Boga and then went to Sakr’s office to discuss the purchase of the property. Sakr wanted to nominate Seyhan, Hakan and Boga as the purchaser so they could purchase it in his place. Sakr also wanted a fee for bringing the deal to them.
After a significant amount of time negotiating, Seyhan, Boga and Hakan could not agree to Sakr’s terms because they did not have the financial capacity to purchase the Craigieburn property at that time. The next morning, Boga called Sakr on the way to the airport and then told Seyhan and Hakan that Sakr wanted to purchase the property with them.
The agreement reached with Sakr was that Seyhan, Hakan and Boga would purchase the Craigieburn property for $1,425,500. Seyhan would pay the full 10% deposit on exchange and Sakr would account for his share of the deposit at settlement. Boga agreed that he would provide Seyhan with the money to pay the 10% deposit from his own line of credit. Seyhan produced a bank statement dated 21/11/24 showing the payment of the 10% deposit from Boga’s account (CB 226).
Sakr’s accountant helped Seyhan to establish Mt Ridley Developments. Sakr and Seyhan were directors and shareholders of Mt Ridley Developments.
The terms of the contract were that settlement was to be delayed and would not occur for 12 months because Seyhan and Sakr wanted time to lodge a development application for the property to add value to it prior to settlement.
On 15 November 2018, the Craigieburn property was purchased. On 16 November 2018, Seyhan received a letter from Jafer Lawyers endorsing the settlement statement. He produced a copy of the settlement statement that he received on settlement from the lawyers acting on behalf of Mt Ridley Developments (CB 231-237).
The settlement statement recorded that Seyhan paid $583,557.10 at settlement in addition to the $142,500 paid as the deposit. Sakr paid the sum of $783,557.10 on settlement along with penalty interest as he caused settlement to be delayed because he was not ready to settle on the set date.
On 5 November 2018, Seyhan requested that Boga transfer $683,542.25 to Jafer Lawyers’ trust account as completion of funds for the settlement of the Craigieburn property which was due to settle on 9 November 2018. Immediately after making the transfer of $682,542.25 to Jafer Lawyers’ trust account, Seyhan realised that he had overpaid his share by $99,955.15 as he paid the full deposit initially. Jafer Lawyers agreed to reimburse Seyhan for the amount which was overpaid.
On or about 13 February 2019, Sakr informed Seyhan and Boga that he was selling his half interest in the property to Solak. Seyhan agreed that Sakr was free to do that as Boga was friends with Solak. Solak set up a company called Mt Ridley Holdings and purchased Sakr’s share in Mt Ridley Developments. This transaction is recorded on the ASIC extract for Mt Ridley Developments. A copy of the ASIC extract has been produced by Sakr (CB 440-445).

In his affidavit dated 7 November 2024, Seyhan replied to Sakr and denied the existence of the agreement that Boga would pay $300,000 to Sakr for transferring his shares to Solak as it would not benefit Boga or Seyhan. Seyhan’s shareholding in Mt Ridley Developments remained unchanged when Solak and Mt Ridley Holdings purchased Sakr’s shares.
Mt Ridley Developments lodged a development application with the Council to redevelop the Craigieburn property. The Council approved the development of the land into a childcare centre.
On or about 1 June 2021, the Craigieburn property was sold. The proceeds of the sale were split between Seyhan and Mt Ridley Holdings. There was no money owed to Sakr from this venture. After the Craigieburn property was sold and all taxes and expenses paid, the company was liquidated. Seyhan returned the money his father had loaned him for the purchase of the Craigieburn property along with fees paid to Sarris International.
Seyhan denied Sakr’s claim that the payment of $450,000 on 27 December 2019 was not a loan to him, but instead, was paid to Anthill Construction by Mt Ridley Developments for planning, designing and other development requirements for the Craigieburn property. Seyhan deposed that Anthill Construction was not involved in the Craigieburn property and never completed work for the Craigieburn property. He says that it is not true that Mt Ridley Developments had to pay $450,000 to Anthill Construction, while Sakr claimed that he gave a copy of the tax invoice for the $450,000 dated 19 November to Boga at the Wollert property and Sakr produced a copy of the handwritten tax invoice (CB 449). Seyhan deposed that he had never seen that invoice before (CB 449).
Sakr says that on 2 June 2020, he paid $25,000 to Anthill Construction with Boga’s consent that this payment should be made in reduction of the amount owed to Anthill Construction by Mt Ridley Developments as well as reducing the loan. Seyhan denied that Mt Ridley Developments owed $25,000 to Anthill Construction. There was no reason for Sakr to pay the sum of $25,000 to Anthill Construction on behalf of Mt Ridley Developments.
Sakr says that on 8 January 2021, Boga requested a payment of $300,000 and agreed to Sakr paying the $300,000 to Anthill Construction on behalf of Mt Ridley Developments towards the Craigieburn property as a loan reduction. Seyhan denied that Mt Ridley Developments had to pay the sum of $300,000 to Anthill Construction because it never engaged Anthill Construction to complete any work on its behalf.
Mt Ridley Developments engaged Mr Allister Sarris of Sarris International to draft all plans and make submissions to the council for the development application. Once the development consent was obtained Mt Ridley Developments sold the property. Mt Ridley Developments did no building works at the Craigieburn property. Seyhan produced a copy of the fee proposal issued by Sarris International to Boga and Sakr dated 9 May 2018 (CB 239-246).
As Sarris International completed the work, Mt Ridley Developments would provide payment. Sarris International issued invoices to Mt Ridley Developments showing the amount invoiced and confirming payment had been made. The invoices would then have a balance of zero on them. Seyhan produced all tax invoices issued to Mt Ridley by Sarris International (CB 248-255).

In his affidavit dated 18 December 2024, Sakr replied that the $300,000 he received from both Boga and Solak were not for the transfer of shares or transferring the Craigieburn property to sell it but rather money paid to Sakr as he had organised the business transaction and for Sakr or Anthill Construction to undertake any works on the land such as any maintenance and assistance with obtaining planning permits. Further, it was also agreed that the $300,000 payment was to be paid to Anthill Construction.
Sakr purchased the Craigieburn property on 14 November 2017 for $1,425,000. The property was subsequently sold about two and half years later on or about 3 June 2020 for $3,300,000. The only development on the land was the application for the planning permit for the development of a childcare centre with nine townhouses at the rear. Sakr noted from the transfer of land that the Craigieburn property was sold for $3,300,000 and settlement took place on or about 3 June 2020. He produced a copy of the instrument search of the transfer of land (CB 576-577).
The Council approved Mt Ridley Developments’ development application to redevelop the Craigieburn property with a childcare centre and nine townhouses at the rear.
Sakr says that the invoice dated 19 December 2019 did not solely relate to works undertaken by Anthill Construction for the Craigieburn property. When Sakr sold his share to Solak, Solak did not have sufficient funds, creating a shortfall of $150,000. In or around December 2019, Sakr phoned Boga and told him that Solak owed him $150,000, being the balance of his share in the Craigieburn property, and the $300,000 for his associate fee. Sakr recalled that Boga told him that he would arrange payment of the $450,000 owed by Solak and requested Sakr to render an invoice to Semak and that it would be paid shortly after. Sakr then proceeded to render an invoice on behalf of Anthill Construction addressed to Semak.
In 2023 when Mt Ridley Developments was being liquidated, Seyhan discovered that Sakr was still a director. Sakr was asked to resign immediately so that the winding up of the company could be completed.

In his second affidavit dated on 31 January 2025, Seyhan gave evidence in reply to Sakr’s affidavit dated 18 December 2024.
Sakr stated that $300,000 was to be paid to him for the business transaction and for work that Anthill Construction was to complete on the Craigieburn property. Seyhan denied this and claimed that there was no agreement to pay Mr Sakr $300,000 for any transaction and no agreement for Anthill Construction to complete work at that time.
Sakr claimed that Solak owed him $150,000 for the share transfer. Sayhan deposed that he was not aware of any money being owed to Sakr by Solak. He was not aware of any conversation between Sakr and Boga, in which Boga agreed to pay Sakr $450,000 on behalf of Solak.
Sakr claimed that he worked with Chinh Mai on the Craigieburn property. Seyhan deposed that Chinh Mai was not involved with the Craigieburn property, he worked on the Wollert property only. Instead, Allister Saris of Saris International worked on the Craigieburn property.
Sakr further explained that Boga agreed to pay Sakr $300,000 for the associate fee of finding the Craigieburn property and that this also included minor works undertaken at the Craigieburn property by Anthill Construction. Anthill Construction was engaged by Mt Ridley Developments to complete works on its behalf. Anthill Construction liaised with the Council and worked alongside the architect being Chinh Mai of Planning Design. Boga would also contact Sakr for updates on council permits. Seyhan produced his text messages with Boga about the council permits (CB 588). Boga disagreed that he was to pay an associate fee.
In May 2022, Hakan requested that Sakr send an invoice to Mt Ridley Developments for his “associate fee” and the works undertaken by Anthill Construction. He produced a copy of text messages between him and Hakan (CB 580-582). The messages show that Hakan requested a tax invoice from Sakr. They do not include any information about the associate fee. On 20 May 2022, Sakr sent Hakan an invoice for $300,000 including GST. Sakr produced a copy of the invoice for the sum of $300,000 dated 20 May 2022 with the description “civil works” at the Craigieburn property (CB 584).
Sakr advised Hakan that if the payment was to be made to Anthill Construction, Anthill Construction would be liable for the GST of $27,272.73 and required Mt Ridley Developments to pay the GST of $27,272.73. On 23 May 2022, Hakan paid the sum of $27,272.73 to Anthill Construction.
Sakr replied that he was not forced to resign from director of Mt Ridley Developments. Rather, he resigned on his own accord as he did not agree with how Boga, Seyhan and Hakan were operating Mt Ridley Developments.

In his affidavit dated 29 August 2024, Sakr says that the course of the loan and the repayments span between the end of 2019 to mid-2021. Due to Covid-19 lockdowns, Sakr could not travel to Sydney to give Boga the cash payments that he consistently requested. Hence, Sakr’s friend, El Zohbi, who occasionally travelled to Sydney to work on his projects would help Sakr to deliver the cash that Boga had requested to Wehbe, another one of Sakr’s friends. Wehbe would then deliver the cash to Boga.
On 9 December 2019, Sakr withdrew $20,000 from the Roxburgh Park Commonwealth Bank branch. He then withdrew $10,000 from the Dallas Commonwealth Bank branch on the same day. On 20 December 2019, he withdrew another $20,000 from the Dallas Commonwealth Bank branch. He gave the abovementioned money with an additional $9,000 (that is, a total of $59,000) to El Zohbi who would then give the money to Wehbe. Wehbe gave that money to Boga.
On 24 July 2020, Sakr withdrew $20,000 from a Commonwealth Bank branch. On 27 July 2020, he withdrew another $20,000 from the Kilmore Commonwealth Bank branch. On 28 July 2020, he gave $40,000 to El Zohbi who gave the money to Wehbe. Wehbe would then give the money to Boga.
On 4 August 2020, Sakr withdrew $51,500 from the Kilmore Commonwealth Bank branch. On 10 August 2020 or 11 August 2020, Sakr gave this money to El Zohbi who then gave it to Wehbe. Wehbe gave the money to Boga to reduce the loan.
On 23 October 2020, Sakr paid $25,000 into Wehbe’s account. Wehbe gave the money to Boga. Sakr says that his previous defence about making another $25,000 to Boga on the same day was wrong. He only made this one payment on 23 October 2020.
On 16 November 2020, Sakr withdrew $150,000 from the Broadmeadows Shopping Centre Commonwealth Bank branch.
On 17 November 2020, Sakr withdrew $30,000 from the Glenroy Commonwealth Bank branch.
On 20 November 2020, Sakr transferred $42,000 into Wehbe’s account and asked him to give that money to Boga. Sakr says that he did not pay this money directly to Boga.
On or around 21 November 2020, Sakr gave $180,000 in cash to El Zohbi so that he could give the money to Wehbe who would deliver it to Boga.
On 5 March 2021, Sakr withdrew $10,000 from the Glenroy Commonwealth Bank branch. On or about 6 March 2021, he gave the money to El Zohbi who gave it to Wehbe. He believes Wehbe gave that money to Boga.
In or about mid-July 2021, Sakr borrowed $43,000 from his wife’s friend, Emna. He asked either El Zohbi or Webhe or both to take a photo of the money since it was borrowed from Emna. El Zohbi did not take a photo of the money.

Wehbe is Sakr’s friend. In his affidavit dated 28 August 2024, he says that in or around 2017, Sakr called and asked him to collect some cash from Boga’s burger shop in Drummoyne. Wehbe collected the money and delivered it to someone whose name he could no longer recall.
Between 2019 and 2022, Sakr instructed Wehbe that El Zohbi would deliver cash to him so that he could then give it to Boga. Wehbe recalled that this happened around 12 times. Wehbe barely counted the money, but he estimated that the cash typically varied between $20,000 and $40,000. Wehbe recalls that there was one time that he had to deliver around $120,000 to Boga. He could recall this amount because it was delivered in a larger bag than the other ones.
The first few “cash” deliveries were made by Wehbe to Boga at his burger shop. The first delivery occurred in December 2019, when Sakr instructed Wehbe that El Zohbi would deliver cash to him that was to then be delivered to Boga. Either on the same day or the day after, Wehbe picked up the cash from outside of El Zohbi’s house and then drove to Boga’s burger shop and handed him the money. Wehbe could recall this delivery since it was around the time of his son’s first birthday in December 2019.
For the next few deliveries, Wehbe would deliver cash to Boga at his burger shop during the Covid-19 restrictions.
On 24 August 2020, Wehbe received some cash from El Zohbi. Wehbe told Boga about the cash. Boga then requested Wehbe deliver the money to his address at St Georges Crescent, Drummoyne. Wehbe produced text messages between himself and Boga dated 24 August 2020 showing the address Boga had sent him.
Between October 2020 and early-2021 Sakr, on three separate occasions, deposited money into Wehbe’s bank account for delivery to Boga. Wehbe kept the money in his account and paid Boga with his own cash.
On 23 October 2020, Sakr deposited money into Wehbe’s account. On the same day, Wehbe told Boga about the money. Boga then collected cash from Wehbe’s premises. Wehbe produced text messages between himself and Boga dated 23 October 2020 showing that he provided the address to Boga.
On 25 January 2021, Wehbe told Boga that he had $20,000 in cash for Boga. Boga then instructed him to drop the cash off to his wife at Chetwyn Road, Merrylands. Wehbe produced text messages between himself and Boga dated 25 January 2021 showing that Boga provided him this address.
On 21 July 2021, El Zohbi gave $43,000 in cash to Wehbe and instructed him to take a picture of the money as Sakr borrowed this money from another person. Wehbe cannot remember who that person was. On the same day, he delivered the money to Boga on the corner of Broughton Street and Gipps Street, Concord. Wehbe produced text messages between himself and Boga dated 21 July 2021 showing that Boga provided him this address.
Wehbe says that the above transactions are based on his best recollection and acknowledged that there is a possibility that he may have overlooked some transactions.

The credibility of all witnesses (excluding Seyhan) was seriously in dispute so resolving the issue in relation to each witness has been involved and lengthy.
As to the credibility of Sakr and his two witnesses, El Zohbi and Wehbe, Counsel for Boga submitted as follows.
El Zohbi was an unimpressive witness who kept no records and had scant recollection of dates and events. His evidence did not assist Sakr.
Wehbe’s evidence was that he delivered cash to Boga on occasions. This was not disputed by Boga who accepts that he received cash from Wehbe on six occasions and accounts for the monies when asserting what monies are owed to him. Wehbe, like El Zohbi was an unimpressive witness who kept no records and had scant recollection of dates and events. He was requested to take a photo of the $43,000 he is alleged to have delivered to Boga and the photo, he accepted in cross-examination, was of his money. His evidence did not assist Sakr, other than confirm that Boga received cash on six occasions.
After carefully observing both El Zohbi and Wehbe give evidence and be cross-examined, I have reluctantly formed the opinion that their evidence is unreliable. Except where their evidence is corroborated by Boga’s or some other item of firm evidence (such as bank records), I disregard it. Much of El Zohbi’s and Wehbe’s evidence concerns undocumented cash payments. Although not problematic in and of itself, both witnesses had a very vague recollection of the amount of cash that was delivered and the dates on which it was delivered (either to Boga or Boga’s wife).
Counsel for Boga submitted that the evidence given by Boga and his sons, Hakan and Seyhan should be accepted.
Boga as the plaintiff was a key witness and he set out his history and dealings with Sakr in a comprehensive and logical manner.
In cross-examination, his memory was tested and some facts not germane to the issues in the proceedings escaped him, but otherwise, Boga was not shaken during cross-examination and his evidence should be accepted on all issues in dispute, not least because, for the most part that evidence is substantiated by objective evidence.
Seyhan was a director of Mt Ridley Developments, and the tenor of his evidence was that the company bought the Craigieburn property, retained a planning consultant, obtained a development consent, sold the land for a profit, that Sakr was not involved in the company’s affairs once he sold his interest in February 2018, and that Anthill Construction did not do any work on the land.
Seyhan’s evidence was unexceptional, and it should be accepted. He presented as a person attempting to give truthful evidence, based on his recollections. I accept him as the only witness who gave credible evidence.
Hakan’s evidence was that he was a director of Semak, he executed contracts on the company’s behalf with Anthill Construction and then BCI to undertake building works on the Wollert property.
His credibility is attacked because he accepted that when he needed cash to fund Semak’s activities, he accepted Sakr’s offer to reduce Mt Ridley Developments’ tax liabilities by having Sakr prepare a false invoice and using it to reduce Mt Ridley Developments’ taxation obligations. The evidence places Hakan in a bad light but his admission is also to be considered.

Boga’s evidence is inconsistent with the contemporaneous record which shows that he and Sakr had agreed on a repayment of $556,500 before that money was transferred (CB 447). When Boga was taken to that message, he first apparently could not recollect the evidence that he had given to the Court a few minutes before concerning this further conversation that was not in his affidavit, and then could provide no explanation for that message (T61-62). This same implausibility affects the alleged advance of $20,000 on 31 March 2021, noting that Boga admits receiving either $20,000 (CB 27 at [78]) or $25,000 (CB 5 at 13C.K.) from Sakr the week prior. With respect to the alleged advance of $100,000 on 10 November 2020, the contemporaneous evidence shows that Sakr withdrew a total of $640,000 from his bank within 14 days of that date which strongly suggests he had no need for money at that particular time (CB 409, 411).
Fifth is the related evidence of Boga—given for the first time in cross-examination—that the cash advances totaling $130,000 were not part of the loan deed but formed a completely separate agreement. That is directly inconsistent with the amended statement of claim, which Boga accepted in cross-examination clearly identified the cash advances to form part of the loan (T73). He could also not give any cogent explanation for why he then included those alleged advances (and repayments) in his affidavit given that this suit only concerned the deed of loan. Nor could he give any explanation as to why the evidence he gave for the first time in cross-examination—that he did not keep any record of the cash payments and instead kept a mental tally against the cash advances—was absent in his affidavit evidence.
His affidavit evidence, however, not only sets out those cash advances but - directly inconsistent with his oral evidence - expressly includes those cash advances as being part of the loan under the deed. He includes the alleged cash advance of $45,000 in the running tally of the loan (CB 25 at [56]-[62]).
Sixth is the implausibility that those monies were not paid to Anthill Construction for construction works, given that only $890,800 was paid on Boga's case, and the works performed were obviously in excess of that. That the value of works was obviously more than that can, in addition to the reasons set out above, be seen in the fact that Semak entered into a contract with BCI for what was effectively only part of the fixings stage in the sum of $1,400,000, and it stretches credulity to breaking point to suggest that works to lock up for 14 townhouses would be less than $900,000, but the installation of kitchens, bathroom fittings and floor coverings would be $1,400,000. These matters together clearly show an intent on part of Boga to inflate the loan amount as far as possible.
Seventh is that the evidence of both Boga and Hakan is that Hakan entered into a contract for $1,400,000 with a builder they had never heard of, and not performed any enquiries in relation to. In cross-examination, Hakan accepted that his view at the time was that neither Anthill Construction nor Mr Sakr were reliable (T133) and yet he was apparently willing to commit Semak to significant contractual obligations simply on the word of Mr Sakr. Related in this regard is the evidence of Boga that BCI both did work which was defective (CB 262 at [33]) and that BCI had “basically done nothing” (T92 [31]-[32]).
Eighth is Hakan’s evidence that he asked for the creation of a "paid" invoice to reduce Mt Ridley Developments’ tax liability to meet an immediate need for cash. The invoice was for $272,727.27 (GST exclusive). The reduction in tax liability could only have amounted 30% of that sum (being the company tax rate), which amounts to $81,818.18. That sum of money relative to the monies obviously available to the Boga family at the time (and noting that the Craigieburn property had been sold for what on its face is a substantial profit) is minimal. Further, although Hakan had access to a line of credit, he also intentionally entered into a scheme to defraud the revenue for that sum—without even first checking to see if he had credit available (T141-142).
Ninth is Boga’s evidence that he made no enquiries with Hakan after allegedly finding out for the first time during the course of proceedings that Hakan had intentionally participated in a fraud on the tax revenue (T105-106). Interestingly, Boga did not adopt Seyhan’s excuse for not making enquiries (paraphrased, “my lawyer told me not to do it” which is itself implausible) and instead offered no explanation.
Finally**,** there is Boga’s evidence that he did not consider he had earned interest on the loan over the financial years ending 2020 and 2021, when objectively he made over $270,000 in that period. His evidence itself seems to contradict that position (T98 [37]-[40]):

Boga’s evidence is that, on 27 December 2019, Sakr rang Boga saying he was tight for money requesting another $450,000. Boga said that he felt comfortable transferring the additional funds to Sakr because of the deed and mortgage that was already in place over his property. On 27 December 2019, Boga transferred $450,000 directly from his St George bank account to Anthill Construction. Although Sakr had not fully repaid the loan on 27 December 2019, Boga says that he made a further payment of $450,000 to Sakr on that day. He produced a record of telegraphic transfer from St George Bank showing the transfer of $450,000 on 27 December 2019 to Anthill Construction (CB 138).
Counsel for Sakr submitted that it is unreasonable that Sakr asked Boga to borrow $450,000 on 27 December 2019 because Sakr had just made a payment of $556,000 to Boga on 23 December 2019.
Sakr denied the payment was a loan for him. Instead, he firstly claimed it was paid to Anthill Construction by Mt Ridley Developments for planning, designing and other development requirements for the Craigieburn property. He says that he gave a copy of the tax invoice dated 19 December 2019 to Boga at the Wollert property. Sakr then changed his evidence by saying that the invoice dated 19 December 2019 did not solely relate to works undertaken by Anthill Construction for the Craigieburn property. His explanation was that when he sold his share to Solak, Solak did not have sufficient funds, which left a shortfall of $150,000. In or around December 2019, Sakr called Boga and told him that Solak owed him $150,000 for the balance of his share in the Craigieburn property and the $300,000 for his “associate fee”. Sakr recalled that Boga told him that he would arrange payment of the $450,000 owed by Solak and requested Sakr to render an invoice to Semak and that it would be paid shortly after. Sakr then proceeded to render an invoice on behalf of Anthill Construction and addressed it to Semak.
Boga claimed that there was no agreement for Boga to pay a profit share to Sakr. The $450,000 was a loan requested by Sakr. Likewise, Seyhan denied the existence of the agreement that Boga would pay to Sakr $300,000 for his transfer of shares to Solak since it would not benefit Boga or Seyhan himself. Seyhan’s evidence is that his shareholding in Mt Ridley Developments remained unchanged when Solak and Mt Ridley Holdings purchased Sakr’s shares.
Sakr produced a copy of the handwritten tax invoice showing that Mt Ridley Developments owed Anthill Construction $300,000 for work completed and $150,000 for profit share (CB 449).
Boga, Seyhan and Hakan denied that they have ever seen this invoice.
Boga denied that he agreed to pay $300,000 as an associate fee. Seyhan gave evidence that Sakr wanted a fee for bringing the deal to them.

According to the settlement statement provided by Seyhan (CB 231-237), the purchase of the Craigieburn property occurred on or about 15 November 2018. According to the instrument search of the transfer of land (CB 576-577), the property was sold on or about 3 June 2021.
Sakr’s evidence was that the only development on the land of the Craigieburn property was for the application for the planning permit to develop a childcare centre with nine townhouses at the rear. Sakr’s evidence was that Anthill Construction was engaged by Mt Ridley Developments to complete works on its behalf. Anthill Construction liaised with the Council and worked alongside the architect being Chinh Mai of Planning Design. Boga would also contact Sakr for updates on council permits. Seyhan produced his text messages with Boga about the council permits (CB 588).
Seyhan’s evidence was that Chinh Mai was not involved with the Craigieburn property, he worked on the Wollert property only. Instead, Allister Saris of Saris International worked on the Craigieburn property. Anthill Construction was not involved in the Craigieburn property. Anthill Construction never completed work for the Craigieburn property. Seyhan’s evidence was that he had never seen that invoice dated 19 December 2019 before. On or about 1 June 2021, about 18 months later, the Craigieburn property was sold. The proceeds of the sale were split between Seyhan and Mt Ridley Holdings. There was no money owed to Sakr from this venture
Based on the parties’ evidence, it is still unclear whether on or around 27 December 2019 when Boga transferred the $450,000 to Sakr, Anthill Construction was doing any building works for Mt Ridley Development.
In May 2022, Hakan sent a text message to Sakr and requested Sakr to send an invoice to Mt Ridley Developments. In the text message, Hakan wrote: “For: civil works for [xx] Mt Ridley Rd Craigieburn, 8/9/20 300,000, invoice include gst please. Could you please have paid on the button and show zero balance owing.” (CB 580). On 20 May 2022, Sakr sent Hakan an invoice dated 20 May 2022 for the amount of $300,000 including GST as requested (CB 584).
This invoice is the key evidence as to whether Anthill Construction did some works for the Craigieburn property. However, the authenticity of the invoice is in dispute.
In cross-examination, Sakr gave evidence as follows:

Sakr’s evidence is that during Covid-19 period, instead of paying Boga directly, on several occasions he used third parties to make the repayments to Boga. There are two steps involved in these repayments: firstly, Sakr withdrew the cash or transferred the money from his bank account to either El Zohbi who then gave that money to Wehbe, or the money was given to Wehbe directly; and secondly, Wehbe would then give that money to Boga. It should be mentioned that these two steps often occurred on different dates.
For the first step referred to above, Sakr’s evidence is that he gave money to either El Zohbi or Webhe who then gave that money to Boga on the following occasions:
On 9 December 2019, Sakr withdrew $30,000 and on 20 December 2019, Sakr withdrew $20,000 (Sakr produced his bank statement showing these two withdrawals (CB 403)). Along with $9,000 Sakr already had in his possession, Sakr gave in total $59,000 in cash to El Zohbi who gave it to Wehbe who then gave it to Boga (CB 423 at [38]);
On 24 July 2020, Sakr withdrew $20,000 and on 27 July 2020, Sakr withdrew $20,000 (Sakr produced his bank statement showing these two withdrawals (CB 405)). On 28 July 2020, Sakr gave in total $40,000 in cash to El Zohbi who gave it to Wehbe who then gave it to Boga (CB 423 at [42]).
On 4 August 2020, Sakr withdrew $51,500 (Sakr produced his bank statement showing this withdrawal (CB 407)). On 10 or 11 August 2020, he gave the case to El Zohbi who gave it to Wehbe who then gave it to Boga (CB 423 at [43]; CB 424 at [44]);
On 20 November 2020, Sakr transferred $42,000 directly to Wehbe who gave it to Boga (CB 424 at [50]). Sakr produced his bank statement showing this transfer (CB 411);
On or around 21 November 2020, Sakr gave $180,000 in cash to El Zohbi who gave it to Wehbe who then gave it to Boga (CB 424 at [51]);
On 24 November 2020, Sakr transferred $34,000 to Wehbe who gave it to Boga (CB 424 at [52]). Sakr produced his bank statement showing this transfer (CB 411);
On 5 March 2021, Sakr withdrew $10,000 (Sakr produced his bank statement showing this withdrawal (CB 415)) and gave it to El Zohbi on 6 March 2021, who gave it to Wehbe who then gave it to Boga (CB 425 at [53]-[54]); and
On 15 July 2021, Sakr borrowed $43,000 in cash from Emna and gave the cash to El Zohbi who gave it to Wehbe who then gave it to Boga. Sakr instructed El Zohbi and Wehbe that Wehbe needed to take a picture of the money (CB 425 at [55]).
In total, Sakr deposed that he gave $459,500 either in cash or by electronic transfer to El Zohbi or to Wehbe to give to Boga.
For the second step referred to as above, Boga agreed that he has received cash from Wehbe in the following six occasions:
On 24 August 2020, $20,000 (Wehbe as per Sakr’s instruction gave cash to Boga - CB 26 at [65]);
On 23 October 2020, $25,000 (Wehbe as per Boga’s instructions gave the cash to Boga - CB 26 at [68] - however, Boga denied the payment in closing submissions);
On 25 January 2021, $20,000 (Wehbe as per Sakr’s instruction gave it to Boga's wife - CB 26 at [76]);
On 24 February 2021, $25,000 (Wehbe as per Sakr’s instruction gave cash to Boga - CB 27 at [77]);
On 24 March 2021, $20,000 (Wehbe as per Sakr’s instruction gave cash to Boga - CB 27 at [78]); and
On 21 July 2021, $20,000 (Wehbe as per Sakr’s instruction gave cash to Boga - CB 28 at [88])
In total, Boga’s evidence is that he has received $130,000 from Wehbe.
That leaves a $329,500 in the gap between the amount of money that Sakr says he gave to either El Zohbi or Webhe who then gave that money to Boga and the amount of money that Boga claimed that he received via this cash payment method.
In the amended statement of claim, Boga deposed that he received a repayment of $25,000 on 24 March 2021 (CB5 at [13C(K)]). However, in his affidavit dated 5 March 2024, he claimed that he received a cash repayment of $20,000 on 24 March 2021 from Wehbe (CB 27 at [78]). There is a difference between the parties in the sum of $5,000. During cross-examination and re-examination, Boga did not clarify whether he received $20,000 or $25,000 in cash from Wehbe on 24 March 2021. Instead, he claimed that the money he received from Wehbe on 25 January, 24 February and 24 March 2021 should have totalled $65,000 as it was repayment of the $65,000 he lent Sakr on 29 November 2020. Boga’s evidence is that the $20,000 and $25,000 he received from Wehbe on 24 August and 23 October 2020 respectively, were repayments of the $45,000 that he lent Sakr on 23 February 2020. Finally, the $20,000 he received from Wehbe on 21 July 2021 was the repayment of the $20,000 that he lent Sakr on 31 March 2021 (T108-110).
Boga claimed that he has only received cash from Wehbe on the six occasions mentioned above.
However, Wehbe says that he dropped cash off to Boga on twelve occasions between 2019 and 2022. Both Wehbe and El Zohbi did not keep any record for the cash deliveries.
Counsel for Boga submitted that Sakr paid $45,000 on 24 March 2021. Boga also received $20,000 in cash on 24 August 2020 and $25,000 in cash on 23 October 2020 that were repayments of the $45,000 loan that Boga lent Sakr on 23 February 2020. On 21 July 2021, Boga received $20,000 cash from Wehbe on behalf of Boga that was a repayment of a loan that Boga made to Sakr on 31 March 2021. These cash repayments total $110,000. The difficulty that arises is whether these repayments were in relation to the loan agreement. Boga gave evidence that not all these repayments were repayments of the loan, but rather further advances and repayments given outside the loan. He described it as a “round robin” arrangement:

Boga v 15 Glenburnie Rd Pty Ltd

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Email me a plain-English summary of this case

Catchwords

Judgment

JUDGMENT

Background facts

The Wollert property

The Craigieburn property

The pleading framework

Amended Statement of Claim dated 9 May 2024

The loan agreement dated 28 October 2019

Amended defence dated 5 September 2024

Common ground – total advances and total repayments

Amounts in dispute – total advances in dispute and total repayments in dispute

Involvement of Webhe and El Zohbi

The plaintiff and his witnesses’ evidence

The defendants’ evidence

The relationship between Boga and Sakr

Boga’s version of events

Sakr’s version of events

The loan and payments

Evidence of Boga

Evidence of Sakr

Reply to Sakr

Sakr’s reply to Boga

The Wollert property

Boga’s version of events

Hakan’s version of events

Sakr’s version of events

Hakan’s reply to Sakr

Sakr’s reply to Hakan

The Craigieburn property

Boga’s version of events

Seyhan’s version of events

Sakr’s version of events

Seyhan’s reply to Sakr

Sakr’s reply to Seyhan

Seyhan’s reply to Sakr

Cash repayments involving El Zohbi and Wehbe

Boga’s version of events

Sakr’s version of events

El Zobhi’s version of events

Wehbe’s version of events

Boga’s reply to Wehbe

Credibility of parties and witnesses

Counsel for Sark’s submissions on the credibility of Boga and Hakan

Resolution

Counsel for Boga’s submissions as to Sakr’s credibility

Resolution

Jones v Dunkel Inferences – Saly and Hakan

Boga’s submissions in relation to Saly

Sakr’s submissions in relation to Saly

Resolution

Findings – advances and repayments in dispute

Advances in dispute

(1) 27 December 2019 - $450,000 (Invoice dated 19 December 2019)

Resolution

(2) 23 February 2020 – $45,000

Resolution

(3) 10 November 2020 - $100,000

Resolution

(4) 29 November 2020 - $65,000

Resolution

(5) 31 March 2021 - $20,000

Resolution

(6) 19 July 2021 - $150,000

Resolution

Repayments in Dispute 1

(1) 11 November 2020 - $34,000

Resolution

Repayments in Dispute 2 – three repayments to Anthill Construction

(1) 2 June 2020 - $25,000

Resolution

(2) 8 January 2021 - $300,000