Clive Palmer hit by $548m asset freeze

More than $548 million in assets controlled by Clive Palmer have been ordered frozen by the Queensland Supreme Court.

Clive Palmer leaves the Supreme Court in Brisbane yesterday. Picture: Liam Kidston.

More than $548 million in assets controlled by Clive Palmer have been ordered frozen by the Queensland Supreme Court, which yesterday found the possibility of the businessman making “colourable transactions” was a “real risk” to the course of justice.

The asset freeze is the latest turn in the legal saga following the 2016 collapse of Mr Palmer’s Queensland Nickel company, which cost nearly 800 workers their jobs. Liquidators are now trying to claw back hundreds of millions of dollars owed to creditors, including the federal government, which paid $70m under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee safety net scheme to cover workers’ redundancy payments.

Assets to be frozen include suspicious payments between Queensland Nickel and other Palmer-linked companies, the value of a Mercedes Benz purchased with Queensland Nickel funds, and multi-million-dollar “representation fees” to individuals such as Kyrgyzstani woman Evgenia Bednova, Mr Palmer’s former neighbour Zhenghong Zhang, and his father-in-law Alexander Sokolov. Unless the court alters the ­orders, the freeze will remain in place until the final judgment is handed down in the long-running case.

Defence barrister Dominic O’Sullivan QC tried to delay the court’s order taking effect, saying Mr Palmer was “honourable” and even trying to submit the BRW Rich List as evidence of his client’s ­capacity to pay should he lose the case. Judge John Bond dismissed the attempt to submit the Rich List, which estimates Mr Palmer’s total wealth at $2.84 billion, saying it was merely “something a journalist has written”.

Mr O’Sullivan replied: “That’s right, but we ask your honour to have regard to the figure that the journalist has written.”

The judge replied: “Mr O’Sullivan, is that a serious proposition? … I reject the application.”

Justice Bond doubted Mr Palmer, the federal MP for Fairfax between 2013 and 2016, would ­abscond. However, he said: “There is a real risk of Mr Palmer entering into colourable transactions which, when discovered, would operate to inhibit or to frustrate the enforcement or execution processes. A prudent, sensible commercial person could properly infer that the evidence suggested Mr Palmer had, and acted on, a positive intention to frustrate the possibility of any judgment against himself … and that he had, and acted on, a willingness to do so by illegitimate means.”

Mr O’Sullivan at one point suggested that Mr Palmer’s flagship company, Mineralogy, transfer money into a bank account that could be controlled by the court. The offer was later withdrawn following instructions from Mr Palmer, who wanted to seek ­advice before proceeding.

However, the judge ruled that, unless Mr Palmer was willing to give a more substantial undertaking, the evidence suggested the risks of staying the order were too high. The asset freeze will not prohibit the businessman conducting “ordinary and proper” business, including paying for legitimate ­expenses.