The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) says DG Institute was found to have made false or misleading representations to consumers in the promotion and sale of two education programs called Real Estate Rescue (RER) and Master Wealth Control (MWC) between April 2017 and November 2022 - and in that period well over 3000 students enrolled in the programs, and each paid between $4,500 and $9,200 to participate.

The Court found that Grubisa was knowingly concerned in DG Institute’s contraventions through her role in making the statements on video in promotional materials and program materials, and in drafting, reviewing, editing and/or approving content for these materials - and also found that Grubisa knew that the representations she made about both programs were in fact false and misleading.

“This case is another reminder that businesses must ensure statements they make when promoting products or services to consumers are accurate and not misleading,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.

“It should also serve as a strong reminder to company directors that they may be held liable for their involvement in false or misleading representations made by the company in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.”

“We received a significant number of complaints from students of DG Institute about the courses and the promotional materials,” Carver said.

Specifically, the Court found that the following statements about the programs were false or misleading:

• Students of the RER program would be able to assist distressed homeowners to sell their home and retain some of the equity, whereas if a mortgagee was to repossess the property, the homeowner would lose any remaining equity in the property – including because “banks don’t give change”. In fact, a mortgagee is only entitled to amounts owed to it, plus any reasonable costs of recovery.
• Students of the MWC program could completely protect all of their assets from creditors by setting up a specific trust DG Institute called a ‘ Vestey Trust’ using transaction documents provided by DG Institute. In fact, the transaction documents provided did not provide the level of protection from creditors promised.
• the ‘Vestey Trust’ system promoted by DG Institute had been tested and upheld as effective by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in the ‘Sharrment’ case, when in fact this was not the case.

A hearing on the relief orders sought by the ACCC, including penalties, will be held at a later date. The ACCC is seeking injunctions, penalties, consumer redress, costs and an order against Grubisa disqualifying her from managing corporations.

The ACCC commenced legal action against Master Wealth Control and Ms Grubisa in December 2022.