ASIC Charges Gold Coast Property Developer Over $10 Million NDIS Fraud: What Queensland Investors and Directors Need to Know

On 22 June 2026, a Gold Coast property developer stepped into the Southport Magistrates Court to face 13 criminal charges. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission alleges that David McWilliams — co-owner and director of ALAMMC Developments Pty Ltd and related companies — dishonestly used over $10 million of investor funds that were meant to fund the construction of specialist disability accommodation for NDIS participants in Queensland and Western Australia.

Instead, ASIC alleges, those funds were spent on an Aston Martin luxury vehicle, cryptocurrency, a pub in Whyalla, investments in a litigation funder based in the Seychelles, and a luxury high-rise apartment in Surfers Paradise.

The matter is proceeding before Southport Magistrates Court, with a further mention having occurred on 3 August 2026. A separate criminal contempt trial — arising from alleged breaches of Federal Court freezing orders — concluded a four-day hearing in June 2026 with judgment reserved.

This case raises serious questions for two groups: investors who put money into NDIS property development schemes — and directors of investment vehicles who need to understand exactly how far ASIC will pursue dishonest conduct.

What Happened: The ALAMMC Collapse

The ALAMMC group of companies raised more than $90 million from over 500 investors, ostensibly for the purpose of developing specialist disability accommodation (SDA) for NDIS participants.

ASIC's investigation — commenced on 17 July 2024 following a referral from the Queensland Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation — found that Mr McWilliams was allegedly gambling significant sums of investor money at the Star Casino on the Gold Coast.

ASIC alleges that between July 2021 and 23 October 2023, McWilliams spent over $10 million of investor funds on purposes entirely unrelated to the disability housing projects. Of the six SDA projects associated with the charges, construction commenced on only one. None were completed.

ASIC's response was swift and comprehensive:

• September 2024: Federal Court granted freezing orders against McWilliams, his wife Laura Fullarton, ALAMMC Developments and related parties
• October 2025: Federal Court ordered the ALAMMC companies wound up on just and equitable grounds (s461(1)(k) Corporations Act)
• November 2025: ASIC filed criminal contempt proceedings against McWilliams and Fullarton over alleged breaches of the freezing orders
• June 2026: Criminal contempt trial held over four days; judgment reserved
• 22 June 2026: McWilliams appeared in Southport Magistrates Court on 13 criminal charges
• 3 August 2026: Further mention; criminal proceedings continuing

The matter is being prosecuted by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) following ASIC's investigation.

The Legal Framework: What Is McWilliams Charged With?

The 13 criminal charges involve three distinct types of conduct under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth):

• Seven counts: Dishonestly causing detriment to the ALAMMC companies (s184(2)(b))
• Five counts: Dishonest application of another's property — investor funds misapplied to personal benefit (s184(2)(a))
• One count: False or misleading statement inducing investment in one SDA project

Section 184 — The Director Criminal Liability Provision

Section 184(2) of the Corporations Act makes it a criminal offence for a director or officer to use their position dishonestly — with the intention of directly or indirectly gaining an advantage for themselves or someone else, or with the intention of causing detriment to the corporation.

This is distinct from the civil duty under s182 (which also prohibits improper use of position but requires a lower standard of proof). The criminal variant under s184 requires proof of dishonest intent and carries a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment, 2,000 penalty units ($444,000), or both — per charge. The maximum total exposure for McWilliams across 13 charges is up to 20 years' imprisonment.

This case illustrates an important principle: ASIC does not need to wait for a company to collapse before it investigates. The investigation commenced in July 2024 after a referral from the gaming regulator — well before any formal insolvency appointment. Directors who misuse company funds are exposed to both civil and criminal liability from the moment the conduct occurs.

What This Means for Queensland Property Investors

1. Conduct due diligence on the director, not just the project

The ALAMMC group raised $90 million from over 500 investors. Many investors will have assessed the project — the disability housing market, the NDIS funding model — but not the director responsible for deploying the capital. Queensland investors can search ASIC's register to check a director's history, any prior disqualification orders, and whether a company has outstanding court orders against it.

2. Freezing orders can preserve assets — but only if you act quickly

ASIC obtained Federal Court freezing orders within six weeks of commencing its investigation. For investors who suspect misuse of funds by a director or promoter, speed is critical. An application for an urgent freezing order (Mareva injunction) can be made ex parte — without notice to the respondent — if there is a real risk that assets will be dissipated before a contradictory hearing.

3. Winding up on just and equitable grounds is available to investors

A company can be wound up by the Federal Court on "just and equitable" grounds under s461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act. This does not require proof of insolvency. Investors who have contributed capital to a scheme where the director is engaging in misconduct — but the company is not yet insolvent — can apply to court for winding up on just and equitable grounds. This triggers appointment of a liquidator who can investigate transactions and pursue voidable transactions.

What This Means for Queensland Directors

1. Criminal contempt is a separate and serious exposure

The McWilliams case involves not only the underlying charges but a separate criminal contempt action arising from alleged breach of the Federal Court's freezing orders. A director who is subject to court orders — injunctions, freezing orders, undertakings — and then breaches them faces prosecution for criminal contempt of court, which carries its own custodial risk independent of the underlying charges.

2. ASIC investigates from the moment it suspects misconduct

ASIC commenced its investigation in July 2024 — over a year before the ALAMMC companies were wound up, and nearly two years before criminal charges were laid. The regulator does not wait for a liquidator's report. It acts on intelligence from other government agencies, creditor complaints, and whistleblowers. Directors who believe they are under scrutiny should obtain legal advice before contact is made, not after.

3. Personal liability attaches to the director, not just the company

Criminal charges are brought against McWilliams personally, not the company. Receivership and winding up of the ALAMMC group does not resolve or discharge the criminal liability of its director. Directors of investment vehicles, property syndicates, and structures that raise capital from third parties carry a heavy statutory obligation under s184 of the Corporations Act.

Lessons and Action Points

If you are an investor in an NDIS scheme or property syndicate:

1. Review annual accounts and distribution reports — delays or irregularities in reporting are early warning signs
2. Search ASIC Connect to check whether the responsible entity or director has any outstanding court orders or enforcement history
3. If you suspect funds have been misused, contact a commercial litigation lawyer promptly — the window to obtain freezing orders before assets are dissipated can be very short
4. Register as a creditor in any insolvency proceeding to participate in meetings and receive liquidator's reports
5. Understand that ASIC's involvement does not mean your recovery is assured — civil remedies may need to be pursued separately from criminal proceedings

If you are a director of a company that raises investor funds:

1. Maintain strict segregation of investor funds — commingling with operating or personal accounts is a red flag in any ASIC investigation
2. Any departure from the stated use of investor funds must be authorised in writing by the board and disclosed to investors
3. If you are the subject of court orders (injunctions, freezing orders, undertakings), comply strictly — criminal contempt is a separate and serious exposure
4. Document your decision-making — contemporaneous records demonstrating genuine commercial reasoning are your protection against a dishonest intent allegation
5. Seek immediate legal advice if you receive a notice from ASIC, a compulsory examination summons (s596AB Corporations Act), or any court application involving your company

How Boss Lawyers Can Help

We regularly act for Queensland directors, investors, and creditors navigating ASIC investigations, corporate insolvency proceedings, and commercial disputes involving misuse of company funds.

If you are a director who is under investigation or has received an ASIC notice, we can advise you on your obligations, your rights in compulsory examinations, and your exposure under the Corporations Act before you make any response.

If you are an investor who has contributed capital to a scheme and suspects misuse of those funds, we can advise on urgent remedies including freezing orders, winding up applications, and civil recovery proceedings.

For strategic commercial legal advice, contact Mark Harley on 1300 267 711 or via bosslawyers.com.au/contact.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is section 184 of the Corporations Act?

Section 184 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) makes it a criminal offence for a director or officer to use their position or the company's information dishonestly — either to gain an advantage for themselves or others, or to cause detriment to the corporation. Unlike the civil duty under s182, s184 requires proof of dishonest intent and carries a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment, 2,000 penalty units ($444,000), or both — per charge.

What can investors do if a company director misuses their investment funds?

Investors have several options: (1) apply to the Federal Court for urgent freezing orders to preserve assets; (2) apply to wind up the company on just and equitable grounds under s461(1)(k) of the Corporations Act; (3) report the conduct to ASIC; (4) pursue civil proceedings for compensation directly against the director under s183 or s184(2). Time is critical — seek legal advice promptly if you suspect fund misuse.

What is a criminal contempt of court charge in ASIC proceedings?

A criminal contempt of court charge arises when a person wilfully disobeys a court order. In ASIC enforcement proceedings, this typically occurs when a director breaches a freezing order, injunction, or undertaking given to the court. Criminal contempt is prosecuted separately from the underlying charges and can result in imprisonment or substantial fines — independent of the underlying criminal liability.

---

This is general information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain professional advice specific to your circumstances.

Written by Mark Harley, Principal Solicitor, Boss Lawyers Pty Ltd. Mark has 17+ years' experience acting for directors, investors, and creditors in complex commercial and insolvency matters.