Allegations of bribery and intimidation levelled at Timbercorp
A soil scientist who was formerly employed by Timbercorp has alleged the group attempted to bribe him to make certain assessments about soil in its developments that would “impress investors”.
Ivo Rasic, also known as John Rasic, describes himself as a professional soil scientist in his submission to the parliamentary joint committee inquiry currently examining managed investment schemes in the wake of the collapse of Timbercorp and Great Southern.
Rasic said he was contracted by Timbercorp between December 1999 and July 2002 to carry out soil surveys to “evaluate soil suitability” for the group’s horticultural and forest developments at various locations across Victoria and South Australia.
Rasic said his service was “abruptly terminated” in 2002 because he “refused to accept a bribe” that would have required him to “ignore the facts about soil-related issues and instead provide false information”.
Rasic said the group had undertaken “deliberate engagement” of unskilled or poorly trained soil surveyors and site managers, while rejecting the recommendations of trained professionals. He believes the majority of the soil survey and management work undertaken for Timbercorp was carried out by contractors with “only a few days of formal training in soil science” and who lacked the appropriate accreditation.
He said the soil consultants retained by the group were pressured to “ignore the facts and fabricate the data in order to impress investors”, and that the repercussions for him not doing so were personally “severe”.
Rasic said in his opinion the main factors influencing the poor performance of various Timbercorp plantations related to issues around soil preparation and poor irrigation system design, as well as “attempted bribery and intimidation” by the group.
Recommended for you
ASIC has released the results of its first adviser exam to be held in 2025, with 241 candidates attempting the test.
Quarterly Wealth Data analysis has uncovered positive improvements in financial adviser numbers compared with losses in the prior corresponding period.
Holding portfolios that are too complex or personalised can be a detractor for acquirers of financial advice firms as they require too much effort to maintain post-acquisition.
As the financial advice profession continues to wait on further DBFO legislation, industry commentators have encouraged advisers to act now in driving practice efficiency.
