Q$1.$ Identify and explain the unethical real estate practice that has occured. Q$2.$ Explain how the unethical practice relates to consumer protection requirements. Q$3.$Identify and explain three $(3)$ Identify and explain the outcome including any penalties imposed on the agency and the individual agents Q$4.$ List, if any, the core rules of conduct and sources of specialist advice that the Agent could have referred to$,$ to help rectify the unethical practice. PROSECUTION CASE STUDY: $(1)$ With respect to Mahevi Pty Ltd$,$ that it: i$.$ misrepresented the sale of $6$ Collins St North Ryde by the concealment of a material fact namely the non$-$disclosure of murders which occurred on the property $$ s$\mathrm{.}52(1)$ of the PSB Act; The Conduct in Issue $9$ The following acts $($either agreed or made by way of findings of the Tribunal$)$ are not in dispute: $($a$)$ On or about $10$ July $2001$ the owners of the property $6$ Collins Street North Ryde, Mr and Mrs Gonzales as well as their daughter Clodine, were murdered in their dwelling. The murders received extensive publicity stimulated in part by the statements and conduct of the surviving son Sef $($who had attracted suspicion as the possible murderer$).$ Some time later he was arrested and charged but he continued to protest his innocence and pleaded not guilty. On $20$ May $2004$ he was subsequently found guilty of all murders and ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment. $($b$)$ In or about July $2004$ the executrix of the will of Mr and Mrs Gonzales gave instructions to Mr Hinton to offer the property for sale. She informed Mr Hinton of the background circumstances giving rise to the sale and she and Mr Hinton discussed a selling strategy including whether the crimes would affect the saleability of the house. Mr Hinton sought advice from a solicitor as to whether it was necessary to disclose to prospective purchasers the fact that the property had been owned by the Gonzales$$ family and was the site of the murders and was advised that it was not required. The executrix agreed to a selling strategy which involved advertising the property in a low key way. It was decided that purchasers would be told the property was a deceased estate with the beneficiaries in the Philippines deciding that they did not want the property. $($c$)$ Ms Hinton was responsible for dealing with enquiries, inspections and prospective purchasers. Some potential purchasers recognised the property as the site of the Gonzales murders and decided not to pursue their enquiry any further. $($d$)$ Following negotiations and discussions with Ms Hinton, a contract for sale was entered into with Mr Kwok and Ms Lin on $31$ August $2004.$ They paid a deposit of $10\%.$ They then learnt that the property had been the site of the Gonzales murders. They complained to the agency and to the Commissioner of Fair Trading. There is no dispute that in their minds at least the non$-$disclosure of this history was a material fact. They sought release from the contract, and return of the deposit; or$,$ as a compromise, release from the contract and return of half the deposit. Eventually the executrix decided to release them from the contract and return the whole of the deposit. $($e$)$ Subsequently several months later a purchaser was found for the property. The price was a lower one $($$$720,000)$ than had been agreed by the Kwoks $($$$800,000).$ We should note that no emphasis was given in the case put by the Commissioner as to this difference. The Commissioner acknowledged that the difference may well be explained by general market factors $($the Sydney real estate market may have been in decline over the months that followed the failed sale to Mr Kwok and Ms Lin$)$ rather than any $$discount$$ that might be said to apply by reason of there being fewer interested purchasers for a property that was the site of notorious crimes.