Welcome to Wikifrauds                                            

                                                                                                      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
 If anyone has had, or is contemplating, dealings with this person, or anyone associated with this company, please contact Wikifrauds urgently. 

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




[1997] QCA 329


CA No 214 of 1997 



..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 Wilson with a proposal to build 28 units. Mr Wilson was to provide the finance and the applicant to act as site supervisor. They were to share the profits equally after Mr Wilson recovered his $500,000 outlay for the 260897 T17/HMH8 M/T COA19/97

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.


McPHERSON JA: I agree.


                                                                             Contact us                                            home