Warning !
This company (and it's sole director) is a fraud.
PL Securities Pty Ltd, registered in Australia
"Dr" Peter (Pierino) Liva, QLD Australia. (Currently in Brussels)
Date: November 3, 2012
Pierino John Liva, or Dr Peter Liva as he prefers to be known as, is a cheap fraudster from Australia with a long and very bad credit history. We have a list of around twenty or so people from whom he and his former company Facultus Pty Ltd, has snaffled somewhere between $2M and $3M over the last two years, using fake documents to con unwitting people with his Morgan Tsvangirai scam plot. He is currently (as of October) still in Brussels staying at the Novatel - on other people's money we might add. Now he's trying it all over again with this new company PL Securities, and we have the documents to prove it. More details coming soon.
Liva's current whereabouts: Liva has been in Brussels since March this year - living at other people's expense. He is virtually a full-time resident at the Novatel. Here are all the details - note that he rarely moves more than a few metres from the hotel which has become his comfort zone.
Hotel: Novatel Grand Palace
Rue du Marché aux Herbes 120 1000 City of Brussels, Belgium 02 514 33 33
Dines: Mostly frequents Giuseppe Pizzaeria,
Rue du Marché aux Fromages 33, 1000 City of Brussels, Belgium
After: Sphinx Nightclub
20 Kaasmarrt 1000 Brussels
Credit History: Obtained from Veda Advantage as results of a Multi-Power Express search on Facultus Pty Ltd.
Pierino John Liva, D.O.B. 31 October, 1966, Werribee Victoria.
Current Address: 12 Winterhaven Key, Broadbeach Waters QLD 4218 (The Gold Coast)
Court Judgements: 19/4/2011 Creditor SOVEREIGN PROPERTIES PTY LTD Magistrates Court Judgement $7015
24/6/2008 Creditor TOWNHOUSE REMOVALS AND STORAGE PTY LTD Local Court Judgement $1674
26/3/2007 Creditor CHRISTOPHER MARK STANLEY Local Court Judgement $4789
23/2/2007 Creditor UNIQUE LOANS PTY LTD Local Court Judgement $9380
Facultus Pty Ltd
Court Judgement: 24/8/2011 Creditor SENSIS PTY LTD Magistrates Court Judgement $36327
Court Action - Current Creditor CHRISTOPHER JOHN CLARKE Supreme Court Victoria $43000
Facultus Pty Ltd ordered into liquidation. Action not defended by Liva.
Business History
Start: Mar 1987 Director Talia Property Investment Pty Ltd Deregistered Sep 1987
Start: April 1988 Director/Secretary Multilec Services Pty Ltd Derigistered Jun 1993
Start: May 1996 Director/Secretary Livacomp Pty Ltd Deregistered Mar 2004
Start: Aug 1987 Director/Secretary Cantala Pty Ltd Deregistered Dec 1992
Start: Jun 1997 Director/Secretary Brewco Holdings Pty Ltd Deregistered Jun 1998
Start: Mar 1987 Director Bromac Investments Pty Ltd Deregistered Sep 1997
Start: Jun 2000 Director/Secretary Premier Focus Pty Ltd Deregistered Dec 2005
Start: Jan 2004 Director/Secretary Corplink Services Pty Ltd Deregistered Jul 2007
Start: May 2002 Sales Consultant ANM Curtains
LESLIE MATTHEW CHEERS
COURT OF APPEAL
[1997]
QCA 329
MACROSSAN CJ McPHERSON JA de JERSEY J
CA No 214 of 1997
THE QUEEN
v.
|
LESLIE MATTHEW CHEERS |
Applicant |
..DATE 26/08/97
260897 T17/HMH8 M/T COA19/97
de JERSEY J: The applicant is a 54-year-old man who has sought
leave to appeal against an effective sentence for offences of
dishonesty of seven years with parole recommended after two and
a half years. He pleaded guilty to the charges which explains
in part the parole recommendation. The head sentence is partly
referable to his prior criminal history, convictions for other
dishonesty which had led to three years probation and, of
course, to the circumstances of the particular offences.
The charges were spread over two indictments. The first contained
a count of misappropriation with a circumstance of aggravation for which he was
imprisoned for six years, seven counts of false pretences each of which
attracted three years imprisonment, 11 counts of forgery with a circumstance of
aggravation for which he imprisoned for seven years, and another seven counts
of uttering with a circumstance of aggravation which attracted seven years.
A second indictment presented ex officio charged 31 counts of
passing valueless cheques for which he was imprisoned for two years and eight
counts of false pretences for which terms of three years were imposed. All of
the sentences were to be served concurrently with an overall recommendation for
release after two-and-a-half years.
The offences arose in these circumstances. The applicant in August
1992 approached one
Purchase of the land.
The building commenced in March 1993 and Mr Wilson was the
authorised signatory for cheques to pay for services and materials. The
applicant provided certified copies of invoices and, acting on that
certification, Mr Wilson would provide him with a cheque for payment for the
invoice on the basis that he would then pass the cheque on to the provider of
the goods and services.
As an example of what happened, on 17 March 1993 Mr Wilson was
given a photocopy of an invoice from Why Wait Plumbing for $7,954.30 and wrote
out a cheque for that amount. The invoice was false, no materials had been
provided. The applicant went to his solicitor's office with the cheque which
had a forged endorsement for the applicant's company. The applicant asked the
solicitor to clear the cheque through his trust account because he said he did
not have a banking account. The cheque was cleared and the applicant received a
bank cheque.
On 8 April 1993 the applicant gave Mr Wilson an invoice from M L M
Cartage for $2,342.50 and received a cheque from him in return. That invoice in
fact related to work done at another site in which the applicant had an
interest. Using the same procedure, he obtained a bank cheque from the solicitor.
This was the general pattern relating to these offences, although there were
variants. In the end, $41,790.78 was lost to the victims of these offences of
dishonesty.
The second indictment
related to a period August 1992 to May
260897 T17/HMH8 M/T COA19/97
1994 during which the applicant conducted 39 transactions on
cheque accounts with six different financial institutions. The
cheques were used to obtain goods and services which he used in
his building enterprises or for goods and services used in fish
and chips shops he conducted or to pay debts relating to his
building enterprises. None of the cheques was met on
presentation and the suppliers have never been paid. The total
amount outstanding in respect of that indictment is $131,535.59
so that the aggregate loss is $173,326.37.
There are two other features which bear mention relating to the
applicant. The first is that he was an undischarged bankrupt throughout these
periods. The second is that the offences committed after 1 September 1993 in
respect of the second indictment occurred while he was on bail.
He pleaded guilty, although the plea in relation to the first
indictment came only on the morning set for the trial. The sentencing was
thereafter adjourned twice in the hope that some restitution could be arranged.
It was first adjourned on 17 October 1996 until 17 April 1997, and then later
from 17 April 1997 to 2 May 1997. Neither adjournment produced any financial
relief for the victims so that that total amount remains outstanding.
Counsel for the Crown properly points out that the offences were
serious and that they involved a deliberate and systematic course of dishonest
conduct for almost two years involving 65 separate transactions. In all of
these circumstances, a sentence of seven years with consideration for parole
260897 T17/HMH8 M/T COA19/97 recommended after two-and-a-half could not be
described as manifestly excessive. The two cases to which we have been
referred, Taylor, CA406 of 1994, and Keogh, CA408 of 1994, in each of which the
ultimate sentence imposed was the same as here, provide ample support for the
sentence which was imposed here, the circumstances of those particular cases
being roughly comparable.
The applicant sought an adjournment of the hearing of this
application and the circumstances which led the Court to decline to adjourn
will appear sufficiently from the transcript of what has preceded this judgment
this morning. When asked to argue the merits of his application, he referred
only to a future possibility of restitution. The vagueness of that, accepting
for argument's sake its relevance, is of course reminiscent of the vagueness
apparently of prospects of restitution when raised before the learned
sentencing Judge on the occasions which led to the adjournment of the
sentencing process from 17 October 1996 ultimately to 2 May 1997. I would
refuse the application.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I agree.
McPHERSON JA: I agree.