From Dubai: When Dominique Grubisa shut down one company after facing legal action, she did not retreat from the property education business. Instead, she pivoted, shifting operations to places like Hong Kong and Wyoming. Her latest ventures feature anonymous directors in tax havens, insulating her from regulatory scrutiny even as courts have found her conduct deliberate and dishonest.
The pattern reveals a troubling gap in Australia's regulatory framework. Despite sustained legal victories against Grubisa, despite findings of breach of consumer law, and despite one determined whistleblower battling for seven years, she has managed to keep operating, repackaging essentially the same misleading products under new corporate structures.
In April 2024, the Federal Court found that DG Institute made false or misleading representations to consumers in promoting two education programs called Real Estate Rescue and Master Wealth Control between April 2017 and November 2022. Well over 3,000 students enrolled in the programs, each paying between $4,500 and $9,200.
Justice Ian Jackman's findings were unsparing. The judge found that Grubisa, given her legal qualifications and time in legal practice, "must have known that the representations she was making were not true"." He described her conduct as deliberate and dishonest and noted there was no contrition from Grubisa or her company.
The court ordered substantial penalties. Justice Jackman imposed a $5 million fine on DG Institute, a $1 million fine on Grubisa and banned her from managing corporations for five years. Additionally, he ordered DG Institute to offer refunds for people who bought the asset protection product between April 2017 to November 2022, totalling approximately $14.7 million.
Two key claims lay at the heart of the deception. First, Grubisa taught that property buyers could negotiate dramatically below market prices by targeting "motivated" sellers, such as people facing repossession, bankruptcy or bereavement. She framed this predatory approach as helping these distressed sellers, who would supposedly be better off receiving even minimal payments.
Second, she promoted a "Vestey Trust" as bulletproof protection against creditors. The court found that the 'Vestey Trust' system promoted by DG Institute had been tested and upheld as effective by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in a case called 'Sharrment', when in fact this was not the case.
Behind the scenes, the Privacy Commissioner found that scraping data to target vulnerable people by companies connected to DG Institute was unlawful and interfered with the privacy of individuals. The strategy was deliberate: attract vulnerable people at their lowest point, then sell them expensive courses and complex trust documents.
Through this operation, DG Institute earned $8.9 million from the Real Estate Rescue program between 2018 and 2021, and $9.2 million from the Master Wealth Control program over the same period.
One former executive described the sales culture as built on fear and manipulation, with staff working entirely on commission and many lasting less than a week. Sales targets came first; whether the products actually worked came second.
Yet even as the Federal Court's judgment landed in July 2024, Grubisa's operation did not stop. After the ACCC commenced litigation, Grubisa continued to market the asset protection product through Property Lovers, a company of which her husband Kevin is sole director. The product continued to be sold through 2023, long after proceedings began.
Now, as Australian regulators tighten their grip, her latest ventures have gone offshore. A Hong Kong company appeared promising to help Australians flip property; its sole director lives in Belize, a Central American nation known for its lax tax regime. A related company popped up in Wyoming, another tax haven, offering online property mentoring. These structures appear designed to place Grubisa at arm's length from direct liability while maintaining the same business model.
Grubisa's own background suggests a family pattern. Her father, Christopher Ronald Fitzsimons, was a solicitor who misappropriated millions from clients' trusts, from deceased estates and charities, losing it all on horses. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Her mother, Maria, was struck off for her role in his crimes. Both later worked as unnamed "consultants" in their daughter's legal practice, providing advice despite being disqualified from the profession.
Standing against Grubisa for seven years has been a lone whistleblower. Chris Baker, a former property lawyer, became the public face of resistance after Grubisa's conduct affected his own practice. More than 600 of her victims sought his help. In response, the evidence established that Grubisa "knew of and authorised the methods used by investigators to deceive the solicitor". She hired private investigators to target Baker, then lied about it under examination.
Baker's goal remains modest. He simply wants regulators to act decisively: "I just wish to not take calls from acutely suicidal people. I want the harm stopped. Nothing more."
The regulatory response has been fragmented. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal found Dominique Grubisa guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct, and recommended her removal from the roll of solicitors. She no longer holds an Australian legal practising certificate. Yet between court orders and tribunal findings, she has managed to pivot repeatedly, changing company names and structures, morphing the same misleading products into new entities.
For Australian policymakers concerned with fiscal responsibility and institutional accountability, Grubisa's case exposes a real problem. Multiple regulators have acted. Courts have issued binding judgments. Yet the speed of regulatory action has been glacial, and the regulatory tools have proven inadequate to contain someone willing to operate across jurisdictional lines. By the time one enforcement action concludes, the offender has already restructured her business to continue the same conduct under a different corporate skin.
A 2024 ACCC media statement confirmed that Grubisa's appeals were dismissed and penalties stood. The Privacy Commissioner's office issued findings of unlawful data scraping. And Justice Jackman's penalty judgment is available through the Federal Court.
The question facing Australian regulators now is whether the existing enforcement model can keep pace with someone as persistent and willing to exploit jurisdictional gaps as Dominique Grubisa. The court system has spoken. The question is whether it will be enough.