A Real Estate Agent's Fraud and Its Aftermath

In Saul v Department of Fair Trading [2019] NSWCATAD 161, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard a case that highlights the key connection between ethical practice and public trust in the real estate sector. At the center of controversy was Maryellen Saul, an applicant whose concealed history resulted in the revocation of her license and a firm reminder of the code that applies to licensed practitioners.

The matter came under the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division of the tribunal, which had to ascertain if Saul was capable of being issued a real estate agent license. Disciplinary action was initiated by the respondent, Commissioner for Fair Trading, upon finding considerable differences and gaps in Saul's previous applications. What ensued was a judicial process that underscored the significance of openness, integrity, and ethical conduct in professions based on public trust.

Unethical Behavior and Cover-Up of Convictions

Saul had sought numerous licenses and certifications using her name as Maryellen Saul without revealing significant details regarding her past names and criminal convictions. In her 2007 application to become accredited as an auctioneer and obtain a real estate business agent license, Saul omitted her former names—Brady and Burling—and did not disclose her criminal record. This was not a small omission. Under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (PSBA), such convictions have to be disclosed by applicants. Her omission to do so was not only unethical but also illegal.

Certifying the forms as true, and leaving out information that would have altered the Fair Trading Commission's decision-making process, violated Section 192(1)(g) of the PSBA Act. This provision gives the tribunal the power to revoke licenses of those who are discovered to have provided false information. Saul's conduct was tantamount to giving false information, an offense under the Crimes Act 1900 that can be punished by a fine or imprisonment. The tribunal found this to be a serious violation of ethical and legal requirements.

Why Consumer Protection and Public Confidence Matter

The real estate business is a business in which consumer trust is paramount. Agents are not merely sales agents; they are trustees of clients' financial interests, frequently handling transactions that affect the course of a person's life. For that very reason, legislation governing real estate agents has been framed to be consumer-protective and to maintain the goodness of the profession. Honesty and disclosure are non-compromisable aspects of the licensing procedure.

By concealing her criminal history, Saul broke not just particular licensing rules but also the general principles of consumer protection. Her history involved a 1994 conviction for conspiracy to defraud and attempting to pervert the course of justice. This earned her a three-year custodial sentence—details she opted not to reveal in several license applications.

On August 30, 2018, the Commissioner for Fair Trading made a decision to cancel all licenses held by Saul. She was also made ineligible to possess or apply for any real estate, stock, or business agent license for seven years. She was further prohibited from operating or controlling any licensed business during those seven years.

Ethics, Licensing, and the Real Estate Code of Conduct

The legislative scheme is explicit: no individual shall practice as a real estate salesperson or agent without a current license or certificate of registration. The PSBA Act stipulates that any individual who has been convicted of an offence of dishonesty in the last decade will be disqualified to hold such licenses. Disciplinary measures in the case of such offenses can take the form of monetary penalties, suspension of a license, disqualification, and official reprimands.

Saul's refusal to divulge her convictions put her squarely in contravention of such provisions. Whilst she insisted on having defended the charges at trial and served sentence years earlier, her failure in all subsequent applications to include this background resulted in her downfall. The tribunal construed these omissions not as merely innocent errors but as deliberate attempts to mislead the licensing authority.

Tribunal's Approach and Options for Ethical Redress

In hearing the case, the tribunal was empowered to uphold, vary, or reverse the Commissioner's decision. Notably, it could replace its own decision or remit the case back for reconsideration. It eventually decided to uphold the disciplinary action, citing that the preferred and correct decision should consider both legal standards and ethical expectations.

The tribunal's ruling rested on its mandate to ensure that licensing decisions demonstrate a commitment to community protection. Its actions were not punitive per se—they were restorative, seeking to realign the industry with the principles of integrity and transparency.

Final Thoughts: A Cautionary Tale for Licensed Professionals

Maryellen Saul's case is a strong reminder of the high ethical standards that support professions based on public trust. Even though she tried to leave behind previous convictions and start anew in the real estate business, the decision to hide her legal past came at a great cost. The legal and regulatory system reacted not only to uphold the letter of the law but to reaffirm the ethical underpinnings of the real estate profession.

What might have been a story of redemption became a cautionary tale about the consequences of dishonesty and the critical importance of ethical disclosure. For those working in licensed fields, especially where consumers are vulnerable, Saul's case is a vivid illustration that professional conduct is not just about capability—it's about character.  If you want to explore more, head to desklib's website and explore more about this topic with our AI researcher tool.