Director sentenced after selling false invoices to an invoice financier for A$2.4m
Barnes Marketing Services Pty Ltd (FIFO Capital invoice finance) · Marketing services (invoice financing)
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Third-party confirmation
Would have had debtors confirm invoices directly.
Can mislead when: Counterparties can collude or ignore requests. A non-response is logged as a gap, never as a pass.
Document authenticity / direct pull
Would have pulled bank statements directly from the bank rather than accept copies.
Can mislead when: The company can refuse consent, and a refusal is itself a flag. Some banks and co-op banks are not on AA yet.
Counterparty existence
Would have tested that named debtors existed and had ordered services.
Can mislead when: Real companies can be used as pass-throughs. Existence does not prove a real trade, so C6 and C7 still apply.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Financial diligence
Offered in India- C4 Would have tested that named debtors existed and had ordered services.
- C5 Would have pulled bank statements directly from the bank rather than accept copies.
Verified Snapshot
Offered in India- C4 Would have tested that named debtors existed and had ordered services.
IC note
Offered in India- C5 Would have pulled bank statements directly from the bank rather than accept copies.
Valuation context
Offered in India- C4 Would have tested that named debtors existed and had ordered services.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.