BACKGROUND
6 On 16 December 2010, in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Securities and Investments Commission; in the matter of Civic Finance Pty Limited (Deregistered) [2010] FCA 1411, on the application of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, Jagot J made orders reinstating the Companies, which had been deregistered in 2007. Jagot J also made orders that both Companies be wound up, and Mr Donnelly was appointed liquidator of the Companies at that time.
7 Mr Donnelly deposes that his investigations reveal that Mr Emil Binetter controlled both of the Companies from the time of their registration (Advance in 1997 and Civic in 1999) until their deregistration in 2007. He says that Mr Gary Binetter was involved in the management of the Companies in a limited way.
8 Mr Donnelly has been investigating a number of transactions which were disclosed through AUSTRAC transaction reports, which are summarised in Mr Donnelly's affidavit. Mr Donnelly has sought explanations from Mr Emil Binetter about them in relation to both Advance and Civic.
9 Mr Donnelly summarises Mr Emil Binetter's claims as:
(a) In 1997 Advance borrowed $4 million from Mercantile Discount Bank Limited (MDB). He says that Advance on-lent $2 million to each of Milgerd Nominees Pty Limited (as trustee of the family trust) and Ligon 159 (as trustee of another trust) in 1997; Advance remitted interest to MDB for several years; and in 2000 Advance reduced the principal of the loan from MDB to $1 million after receiving $3 million from Ligon 159 from the proceeds of sale of an investment. Mr Binetter produced the statutory declaration of Mr Zamir in support of his claims.
(b) In 2004, Advance borrowed $2.5 million from MDB and on lent it to another company controlled by him (BCI Finances Pty Ltd (BCI)) so that BCI could repay a loan to it from another Israeli bank. In June 2005, Advance repaid its total indebtedness of $3.5 million to MDB from monies received by Ligon 159 from the sale of investments. Mr Binetter produced in support of his claims the statutory declaration of Mr Loewbeer and the IDB computer printouts exhibited to Mr Donnelly's affidavit.
10 In summary, Mr Donnelly says that he is not satisfied with Mr Emil Binetter's claims or the documentary evidence of loans which he has produced because:
(a) no bank statements have been produced in relation to the loans from the Banks to either of the Companies setting up the movement of funds into and out of the loan accounts;
(b) no loan agreements between the Companies and the Banks have been provided;
(c) no evidence has been provided of the Banks taking any security over the assets of Advance or Civic or third parties; and
(d) there is no documentary evidence of loans from Advance or Civic to any related entities.
11 Mr Donnelly therefore wishes to see copies of all loan agreements, bank statements and other bank records between Advance and MDB in order to verify that the transactions referred to by Mr Emil Binetter do in fact relate to loans by Banks to the Companies and are not transfers of either Company's own funds to the Banks.
12 Mr Donnelly commenced proceedings in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa for recognition of the orders made by this Court in 2010 to wind up Advance and Civic. He also sought production of documents and information by MDB, IDB and another Israeli bank relating to the alleged loans to Advance and Civic and any accounts held by either of the Companies with the Banks. (Mr Donnelly discontinued proceedings against the other Israeli bank). Mr Donnelly had brought the proceedings under s 11 of the Enforcement of Foreign Judgements 1958 law of Israel (Law). Mr Donnelly provided evidence of the proceedings before the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa by way of translation of documents by his Israeli attorney.
13 The proceedings in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa were heard on 21 October 2012 before Judge Eitan Orenstein. Judge Orenstein said:
After reviewing the judicial documents and hearing attorneys arguments, I concluded that it is appropriate that the Court will initially review the documents that, according to the banks, may harm third parties, so the Court could have a direct impression of those documents, and thereafter will give its orders.
Regardless, and in order to overcome obstacles in granting the claim, considering provisions 11 (a) and (b) of The Law, the applicants advised to convert the application to an enforcement motion in accordance with provision 3 of the law. In order to achieve this, the applicant should receive an enforcement order of the authorized Australian court and it may be assumed that this will pave the road to grant the motion.
14 The Banks were required to provide documents sought by Mr Donnelly within 30 days in a sealed envelope for Judge Orenstein to review. The attorneys for Mr Donnelly were required to notify the District Court within 60 days of the receipt of an enforcement order by the Australian court.
15 In the absence of the parties, Judge Orenstein made further orders on 18 November 2012 allowing Mr Donnelly access to some pages of the documents and requiring steps to be taken to get the consent of third parties to the disclosure of other documents.
16 On 24 February 2013, Milgerd and Messrs Emil Binetter and Gary Binetter filed a motion in proceedings in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa seeking a stay of execution of Judge Orenstein's orders and for them to be revoked. Mr Gary Binetter's affidavit was filed in support of that motion. There are a number of grounds on which the motion is made. Most notably in this context is an argument which suggests that the Foreign Judgements Enforcement Law was designed to enforce judgements in civil matters and not "for the conduction of investigations by foreign tax authorities within Israeli territory, while severely infringing its sovereign territory." The motion went on to say:
The documents, which were enclosed to his Motion to receive the documents, include many characteristics indicating that Mr. Donnelly's petition to the honourable Court is in fact concealment an investigation that is being conducted by the Australian Taxation Office.
And
The above stated is sufficient in order to conclude that we do not stand before a "civil matter" regarding the enforcement of a judgment but rather an investigation by the Australian Taxation Office, which in lieu of respecting the sovereignty of the State of Israel, wishes to conduct an investigation in regard to taxation matters within the boundaries of the State of Israel, while hiding behind the Companies' liquidator and without receiving any permission to do so.
17 The motion then suggests that the appropriate procedure to be followed lies in the Legal Assistance between States law of Israel which is designed to deal with investigations by an authority such as the Australian Taxation Office.
18 Mr Donnelly wishes to examine Mr Emil Binetter and Mr Gary Binetter under s 596A of the Corporations Act in their capacity as officers of Advance and Civic and summonses had been issued by the Federal Court for their examination on 28 August 2013.