Roxy Jacenko refunds $76,000 after failed $10million house lottery

Roxy Jacenko is said to have paid out $76,000 in refunds to disgruntled entrants of her highly-controversial and failed $10million house lottery. 

The PR mogul, 44, partnered with businessmen Youssef Tleis and Kassim Alaouie on her Brand Bootcamp online business course and the trio launched a promotion offering new customers the chance to win three epic prizes.

The prizes included a $10million waterfront Cronulla home – owned by Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie, a Birkin bag and a Rolex timepiece and the promotion was due to be drawn last month, before it was halted.

Jacenko took to social media at the time to claim she was leaving after discovering a ‘shortfall’ in the prize money pool and insisted she would offer customers’ refunds out of her own pocket.

‘I stand by my offer to refund customers and as a result of this, $684,000 of my own personal funds remain in my solicitor’s trust account,’ she told Daily Mail Australia at the time.

Now, Jacenko has issued $76,019 in refunds to entrants of the aborted giveaway, just over 10 per cent of the money she claimed to have set aside for the repayments, The Daily Telegraph reported.

A total of 7,489 people had paid between $29 and $499 to sign up for the boot camp, but it has been estimated that some 90 per cent of participants remain out of pocket after the refunds.

Only participants who lodged a refund request within a seven-day window from June 9 until June 15 were eligible to receive any refund from Jacenko.

After Jacenko came under fire for the brief refund window, she clapped back at critics on social media, claiming she wasn’t even required to offer it. 

‘I’m now processing refunds from my personal bank account. As you know, I entered into a partnership with two others, which was a dismal f**king failure,’ she began.

‘If you’re an honourable person, you put your hand in your pocket and refund people, which is what I am doing commencing this week. Refunds remain open until today.’

‘One thing about the refund window, you don’t go to Woolworths and buy Nutri-Grain and then in three months time suggest they should take it back and swap it or give you a full refund,’ she added.

‘A seven-day window is not an unusual offer, it is not even something I had to do. I chose to refund those who applied from my own pocket.’ 

It has been claimed Jacenko is pushing to have the $76,000 in refunds repaid from liquidators – after Roxy Bootcamp was ordered to be wound up last week.

Jacenko’s lawyers have reportedly also informed her former business partners that she plans to keep the Birkin bag and Rolex watch she purchased as part of her investment in the giveaway.

After the failed business venture, the NSW Supreme Court has called in liquidators on the company – from which Jacenko resigned as a director last month.

Jacenko originally sought the appointment of provisional liquidators due to, among other reasons, allegations that Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie had engaged in ‘misleading conduct’ during the promotion, due to a sub-clause which stated the prizes would only be delivered if the competition achieved more than $11.5million in revenue.

But the conditions were never made public by Jacenko during a whirlwind of publicity and the clause was also missing from the competition’s formal terms and conditions on the Roxy’s Bootcamp website.  

In another update in the highly-publicised saga, last week, Supreme Court Justice Anthony McGrath reportedly rejected Jacenko’s bid to have her legal costs paid.

‘I do not consider it was unreasonable conduct of the proceedings by Mr Tleis to have opposed the application for a provisional liquidator on the basis the reputation of the company and Tleis Investments might be harmed,’ Justice McGrath said.

‘Nothing done by Mr Tleis in opposing the appointment of provisional liquidators and subsequently consenting provides justification for a finding that their conduct was unreasonable.’

Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie previously argued the promotion should proceed with a $250,000 cash prize, a Birkin handbag and a Rolex watch – after not reaching the $11.5million minimum for the house giveaway.

Daily Mail Australia has contacted Jacenko’s representatives for comment.

Last month, Jacenko said she committed to personally refunding all 7,489 people who signed up to her highly-publicised brand boot camp after the bitter dispute.

‘The company account did not have enough to pay the First Prize winner, so I personally loaned the company money so that it could pay off substantial creditors and so that sufficient funds were held in the company’s accounts to pay out the $250,000 prize,’ she claimed at the time.

‘I loaned the company in excess of $100,000 in order to ensure that sufficient funds were available to the company.’

‘I could not issue refunds from Shopify as Mr Tleis is the only one with access to the NAB account which holds funds – he revoked my access to the company bank account,’ she added.

While Jacenko expressed her regret at entering the business venture, Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie also issued an apology to social media at the time of the failed giveaway.

‘Our primary concern has always been you, the public, especially those who participated and purchased an entry into this promotion,’ they stated.

‘We sincerely apologise to you all. We fought as hard as we could and were even willing to give personal undertakings to support our fight.

‘We want to express our deepest regret for entering into this partnership with Ms Jacenko. It has been an incredibly challenging and eye-opening experience. We sincerely apologise.’

Upon adopting provisional liquidator Cathro & Partners to the company last month, Justice McGrath described the promotion scheme as ‘highly questionable’.

‘The competing interlocutory applications arise in the extraordinary circumstances of the rapid creation and almost equally rapid deterioration in the relationships between Ms Jacenko, Mr Tleis and Mr Alaouie over a business venture involving the promoting of training courses offered by Ms Jacenko to the public using a highly questionable promotion scheme,’ he said.

‘On any view, the promotion has attracted significant adverse publicity… this has led to online commentary which has been extremely derogatory about the promotion itself and those involved in it.’

Click here to resize this module