The Snitch: Ashlyn Nassif’s ban on practising law extended

Why has Jean Nassif’s daughter had her legal ban extended? Which Waterhouse is facing bankruptcy? And is Stuart MacGill a beneficiary of ‘The Baggy Green Effect’? The Snitch is here.

The daughter of fugitive property developer Jean Nassif has had her banishment from practising as a lawyer extended for an extra year.

Last week, the NSW Law Society lengthened the suspension faced by lawyer Ashlyn Nassif as she contests fraud charges that came about through work she did for her father.

In 2023, Ashlyn was charged with dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception over allegations that she submitted fake contracts to obtain a $150 million loan to pump into her father’s disastrous property ventures.

Ashlyn Nassif leaving Burwood Local Court with lawyer Warwick Korn. Picture: Thomas Lisson

Property developer Jean Nassif fled to Lebanon, leaving a trail of debts and unfinished projects.

Police allege the 30-year-old falsified documents to meet a $10.5m pre-sale condition for three towers of the Skyview apartments complex in Castle Hill before her father left investors in the lurch by abandoning the development.

Jean Nassif is believed to be hiding in Lebanon and police have issued a warrant for his arrest.

Meanwhile, his glamorous daughter has been left to cop the heat in Sydney.

In 2023, the Law Society suspended her practising certificate after she was charged.

Last week, the legal professional body extended her suspension until June 30 next year.

WATERHOUSE BANKRUPTCY BRAWL

Sydney bookmaking dynasty descendant Martin Waterhouse is facing bankruptcy over his long-running battle to prove a corrupt NSW politician influenced a court case over his father’s estate.

Martin, a solicitor who is the son of bookie Charles Waterhouse, has dedicated a large section of his life to fighting the wider internal family feud over his father’s estate.

Almost three decades after Charles’ death in 1954, Martin launched legal action against his uncles, famed bookmaker Bill Waterhouse and John (Jack) Knight Waterhouse, accusing them of pocketing wealth from his father’s estate.

Martin Waterhouse launched legal action against his uncles, including bookmaker Bill Waterhouse (pictured).

In 1991, Justice John Kearney rejected the claim that Martin’s uncles were involved in fraud.

Martin took further action in the NSW Supreme Court against the Independent Commission Against Corruption in an attempt to force it to investigate his claim that the corrupt politician influenced the case.

But that case was rejected too and he was ordered to pay ICAC’s court costs.

It appears that has not happened and ICAC has taken action in the Federal Court of Australia to bankrupt Martin.

The case has been set down for hearing on August 12.

THE BAGGY GREEN EFFECT

Lawyer Greg Goold raised a pretty obvious question about the issue of cricketer Stuart MacGill’s frequently missing mobile phone in court last week.

The men accused of kidnapping the former Test leg spinner over a failed cocaine deal in 2021 are edging closer to standing trial.

And one of the key pieces of evidence in the case is the contents of MacGill’s mobile phone – which is now missing for a second time.

Lawyer Greg Goold. Picture: Richard Dobson

This person delivered Stuart MacGill’s phone to The Tele’s office.

The phone was taken from MacGill when he was taken to a shed on a Bringelly farm over a failed cocaine deal in 2021.

It was later thrown through the front door of The Sunday Telegraph’s Surry Hills headquarters before we handed it over to the cops.

From what we saw, there was evidence relevant to the case on the device.

But the police fronted up to court last year and told the court they had lost the USB containing the download of the contents of the phone.

The package that contained MacGill’s phone.

It is unlikely that MacGill sent the phone.

MacGill in action in 2004. Picture: Phil Hillyard

In the Sydney District Court last week, Mr Goold, who is representing one of the accused kidnappers, questioned how there could not be another copy of the phone download ready to go.

“It raises the question of what has happened to the computer that the extraction of the phone’s contents was downloaded to,” Mr Goold told Judge Stephen Hanley SC.

Mr Goold questioned how there could not be a backup or a cloud copy of the download of the phone, given that it would have been done using a computer.

“You don’t plug the USB stick straight into the phone, it doesn’t work like that,” he told the court.

Mr Goold questioned whether it could be chalked up to the “The Baggy Green effect”, or some attempt to protect the cricketer, who was found guilty last May of facilitating a cocaine deal through his restaurant on Sydney’s North Shore in 2021.

Got a Snitch? Email [e-mail]