Owner of scandal-plagued Panthera Finance tells court it was not technically operating illegally in Victoria | Debt collection

One of Australia’s biggest debt collection companies has claimed scandal-plagued Panthera Finance is not technically banned from operating in Victoria after it was blacklisted by the state’s consumer watchdog.

Consumer Affairs Victoria initiated legal action The lawsuit was filed against Panthera Finance last year, alleging that it was operating illegally in the state following the federal court’s decision in 2020 and despite warnings that this could constitute a crime.

Panthera was accused of violating the law 15 times in relation to consumer debt linked to energy retailer Momentum Energy.

Appearing before Melbourne magistrates court on Monday, legal counsel for Francom, which bought Panthera Finance in December 2024, explained why he believes he should not be sued by Consumer Affairs Victoria for allegedly breaching the ban.

_{Sign up: AÜ Breaking News email}

Panthera sought to recover more than 200,000 individual debts in Victoria between May 2022 and June 2024, relying on an associated entity to continue “business as usual” in the state, Guardian Australia revealed on Monday.

In his statements to the court, Dan Star KC argued that Panthera could not be a “prohibited person” as claimed by the prosecution, because the company was not technically engaged in debt collection according to the relevant legal definition.

Under section 3 of the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act, a debt collector is defined as a person who “for a fee or reward” will “collect, attempt to collect or demand payment of debts owed to another person”.

Francom argued that Panthera Finance was not technically engaged in the collection of debts owed to a third party because it “purchased” the debts. Instead, Francom claimed that Panthera Finance was collecting the debt it now owes.

The Victorian ban comes after a 2020 federal court ruling found Panthera wrongfully harassed three consumers over their debts and was fined $500,000. Consumer Affairs Victoria claims the court’s decision that Panthera Finance breached this section of federal consumer law makes Panthera Finance a “prohibited person” under state law debt collection laws.

But the Star argued that merely violating federal law is not enough to be considered a prohibited person, and that the definition in state law includes “while collecting debts.”

“This statement is very important,” Star said.

“There is a certain definition; there are things that happen on one side of the line, and there are things that happen on the other side.

“The prosecution does not present a single piece of evidence in the federal court hearings as to whether it relates to debts owed to another person.”

Star argued that when Panthera violated the law, it did so in relation to a debt it had, not a debt owed to a third party.

“We say there is a complete absence of any evidence that the defendant is a prohibited person,” Star said.

But Consumer Affairs Victoria lawyer Oren Bigos KC said the wording of the law was broad enough to cover debts “owed or owed to another person”.

The federal court case cited witness statements about Panthera’s pursuit of debts owed by individuals to utilities such as Origin, Telstra and AGL.

Judge Michelle Hodgson told the court she would consider the applications and make a decision next Tuesday on whether the case should go to trial.