VGI short, page-7

I'd recommend anyone who is interested to read the article. He accuses Pherous of lying about being a chartered accountant saying he wasn't one, while literally the next paragraph he acknowledges that he was a chartered accountant during the 1990s for a short period.

"pondering the astounding but established fact that Corporate Travel Management has for years represented its chief executive Jamie Pherous as a Chartered Accountant, while he wasn't and isn't."

"We have now established that Pherous was last a Chartered Accountant – and only briefly – in the early 1990's."

So in other words yes he was a chartered accountant and had the credentials and education as one. Giant cognitive dissonance here.

"The Australian Securities andInvestments Commission reminded us pointedly on Thursday that regulating theaccounting profession is not its purview, despite us only having asked afterthe ongoing, egregious misrepresentation by a public company director of hiseducation in contravention of Section 300 (10) of the Corporations Act."

Misrepresentation of his education, despite literally in the last paragraph admitting he had been a chartered accountant?

He admits:

"Similarly, the falsehood doesn't breach the ASX listing rule 3.1on materiality, so the bourse isn't interested."

And despite admitting that he was a chartered accountant and not being able to show specifically what has been breached or take it to someone who can deal with the legal issues:

"Pheroushas breached corporate law (as his powerless new chairman Ewen Crouch knows full well), but it's a crime without punishment. At least outside of this column. "

There's no such thing as a crime without punishment, he simply hasn't broken the law or made a misrepresentation that anyone in the real world would take seriously. If he's broken a law, find someone in the legal profession to point you out a specific law that's been broken and the right person to prosecute. Accusing someone of a crime that hasn't been committed is flat out defamation.