Randall Pearson Jailed After $1.6 Million Progress Payment Fraud

A Redevelopment That Hid a Serious Secret

The case of Randall Mark Pearson began with an apartment redevelopment in Frankston, managed through companies he co-directed. While construction appeared to be underway, Pearson was submitting falsified paperwork to secure early progress payments. La Trobe Financial later discovered the documents he provided did not match their own records, setting off a detailed investigation into the project.

How the Fraud Was Carried Out

Between April and December 2019, Pearson obtained about 1.6 million dollars in payments using fabricated material. The court was told he lodged imitation bank receipts, false compliance certificates and statutory declarations. He also supplied altered photos of construction works to create the impression that concrete pours and piling stages had occurred. On one occasion, he even asked his daughter to edit an image to make unfinished works appear complete.

A Builder with Deep Community Ties

Pearson came from a well-known local football family, with both his father and grandfather deeply involved in the Seaford Football Club during the 1970s. He had worked as a site supervisor and construction manager for major companies and was active in community sport and charity organisations. By 2024, he had been made bankrupt after La Trobe Financial pursued him as guarantor for the construction loan.

The Investigation That Stopped the Build

Pearson’s scheme began to unravel in early 2020 when South East Water identified inconsistencies in the documents he submitted. Officials found that a notice of agreement and other paperwork did not align with legitimate records, prompting immediate suspension of the redevelopment. Pearson later acknowledged that he was trying to deal with cost overruns and cash flow pressure by obtaining payments earlier than permitted under the contract.

Criminal Charges and Time Behind Bars

Pearson was arrested at his Langwarrin home in July 2020 and later pleaded guilty to six charges of using a false document. He received a sentence of six months’ imprisonment followed by an eighteen-month community corrections order. The court also noted that he had submitted a false inspection record for basement piling and a fabricated certificate of compliance after concerns were raised about the standard of the work.