# DecoNetwork CEO Arrested!



## TenYardFight (Jun 28, 2017)

Any news from DecoNetwork on the arrest of CEO Neil Pentland on murder charges yesterday? 

No Cookies | The Courier Mail


----------



## jennGO (Mar 11, 2014)

Crazy! I'm curious what evidence they found that finally allowed them to bring him in. I imagine some sort of DNA evidence since DNA tech has jumped light years since. Creeps are a dime a dozen unfortunately and this just shows rich creeps are no less creepy than the other creeps. Must have offed the guy as a result of some sort of business dispute and so he wouldn't have to share any money 

This probably belongs in the off-topic section haha 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brenden (Dec 11, 2008)

Hi all,

As you can imagine we are all equally shocked by these allegations. I can assure everyone this will have no impact on the company or running of the business. Our business has always been run from within by our core team of visionaries of which I am one.

The board has released a statement explaining the situation and we'd like to share that in the link below https://www.deconetwork.com/statement-regarding-neil-pentland.


As you can image the family request some privacy during this time, but I can assure you our ship is sailing straight and strong.

Cheers,
Brenden


----------



## JasonBatmoo (Jun 30, 2017)

You have to be joking if you think this is 'business as normal' - the guy built a business on the back of murdering his business partner!! And he claimed the keyman insurance didn't he?? surely that will bankrupt the business when you have to pay it back with interest?

seen your statement, one word... disgusted!


----------



## jennGO (Mar 11, 2014)

JasonBatmoo said:


> You have to be joking if you think this is 'business as normal' - the guy built a business on the back of murdering his business partner!! And he claimed the keyman insurance didn't he?? surely that will bankrupt the business when you have to pay it back with interest?
> 
> 
> 
> seen your statement, one word... disgusted!



I am pretty sure legally the only person required to pay money back in some sort of insurance fraud case is going to be the person who committed the fraud unless a company or other person is explicitly listed as the person to payout. 

I'm sure this will have little effect on their business since I imagine a lot of people already invested a lot into their system and backing out would result in money loss. 

Now there only problem will be if anyone googles their name and digs up tales of murder. But then they can just change their name and SEO it away 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brenden (Dec 11, 2008)

Hi Jason,

Neil was a minor shareholder and employee at DecoNetwork. He did not own the business. The company is owned by a board of directors and shareholders. I hope this clarifies the concerns of ownership and liability. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## into the T (Aug 22, 2015)

does anyone with photoshop believe those pics are legit?

the one with the police tape is obvious

look at the hinges on the door, why are people walking into a door that opens towards them

after 20 years they are pulling fingerprints off a door?
what are the chances it is even the same door, let alone pulling usable prints after two decades

this stinks


----------



## jennGO (Mar 11, 2014)

Don't see a pic with a door and fingerprints but yeah the police tape is a "file picture" meaning some random sinister looking thing they added. Anyways I read an article a few days ago and the reason they arrested him is because there is apparently improved technology to assess ballistics and the bullet used in the crime which I suppose they had kept after all of these years. So I doubt fingerprints is what did him in 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TenYardFight (Jun 28, 2017)

brenden said:


> Neil was a minor shareholder and employee at DecoNetwork. He did not own the business. The company is owned by a board of directors and shareholders. I hope this clarifies the concerns of ownership and liability.


From the DecoNetwork website (cached): 

"With his three sons Adam, Mark and Greg and his wife Dianne (also charged in relation to the crime), he (Neil Pentland) founded Golden Orb Technologies in 1996. In 2005 Golden Orb technologies won the Australian national IT Award for Pikipimp. Today Pikipimp has evolved into DecoNetwork."

According to an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin dated June 28, Golden Orb was the beneficiary of Phillip Carlyle's life insurance policy.

Given all this, I think it's reasonable to wonder what percentage of DecoNetwork is owned cumulatively by the Pentland family?


----------



## jennGO (Mar 11, 2014)

Too funny they deleted their board of directors page since the link is redirecting to a 404. 

But the internet is forever. From the wayback machine 

All of this being said technically 49% ownership can be considered a minority share so it is all just optics at this point. It is a private company as far as I'm aware so unfortunately the details of their ownership isn't freely available. 



> Neil Pentland - Chairman & CEO
> 
> Neil is a co-founder and original CEO of DecoNetwork. Neil has more 40 years experience of running companies he has created. His passion has been in the IT industry since 1982. At that time he started a consulting business and provided services for small to larger businesses to address their computing and IT needs. With his three sons Adam, Mark and Greg and his wife Dianne, he founded Golden Orb Technologies in 1996. This company developed an e-commerce application in 1997 that was called website weaver. This application won the APICTA award as the best business application in 2000. Golden Orb Technologies in 2003 had 24 programmers providing very scalable solutions for Medium to Large Enterprises. In 2005 Golden Orb technologies won the Australian national IT Award for best media product with an internet application called Pikipimp. Today Pikipimp has evolved into DecoNetwork.
> Neil has sat on many University and Industry advisory boards and was the president of the Gold Coast IT Forum for three years. His passion, besides his family and golf, is technology. That passion and innovative nature is now focussed entirely upon DecoNetwork’s vision: To create and be the world’s enduring business technology of choice for the Custom Decoration Industry.
> ...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JasonBatmoo (Jun 30, 2017)

I'm no legal expert but I cannot see how this would not adversely affect the companies financials as the company were the claimants of the insurance policy, were they not? If I were the insurance company I would pursue the company for the monies and interest, not the dishonest guy behind bars!!

A bigger issue here is that Neil apparently did do it, did fraudulently claim insurance, and did go on to setup DecoNetwork, probably with the substantial extra cash! There is an ethical issue here relating to how much the family, also involved in the business, knew about his involvement in the murder. His wife obviously arrested for telling lies too, so she obviously knew! How dishonest is this family?

Deco Network customers have been lining the pockets of a murderer for years now, which also makes me wonder what other dishonest things this guy was up to.. were deconetwork customers funding anything else dodgy??

there is a huge trust issue here, a huge ethical issue, and the potential of financial doom for the company.. right?


----------



## Signature Series (Jun 11, 2016)

You make a ton of assumptions and in this country we are given the rights to be innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## into the T (Aug 22, 2015)

Jason seems to have a personal axe to grind


----------



## Signature Series (Jun 11, 2016)

TenYardFight said:


> From the DecoNetwork website (cached):
> 
> "With his three sons Adam, Mark and Greg and his wife Dianne (also charged in relation to the crime), he (Neil Pentland) founded Golden Orb Technologies in 1996. In 2005 Golden Orb technologies won the Australian national IT Award for Pikipimp. Today Pikipimp has evolved into DecoNetwork."
> 
> ...


I clearly have no clue what percent any one person or groups own but DecoNetwork has gone through ownership changes over the years. We we first became customers it was called PikiWare. Never heard the name PikiPimp. We dealt a lot withy Greg beta testing and a few contacts with Neil. The software was then sold to Wilcom and renamed Deconetwork. Few years later Wilcom sells Deconetwork. So during these changes of ownership does the Pentland family own a large share? Who knows.


----------



## jennGO (Mar 11, 2014)

It wasn't paid out to DecoNetwork it was paid out to their former company Golden Orb which had some financial trouble at the time. (All statements alleged per news articles). 

Often I think we (non-lawyers) see things from a moralistic perspective instead of a legal perspective... 

I agree that murdering your business partner for cash is amoral and evil. But in this case I don't think DecoNetwork is at fault legally--if he is guilty of course. 

I can only imagine that civilly Pentland may have to pay back some (all?) of the payout from the insurance if found guilty. Not sure on the statute of limitations on that. I'm sure DecoNetwork is incorporated so I can't imagine any situation where they would be required to absolve all of their assets due to the misdeeds of a shareholder. 

I don't think Jason has an axe to grind. It is just an interesting topic from a legal standpoint. Insurance schemes are often the more crazy episodes on TrueTV or whatever that channel is called now 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## into the T (Aug 22, 2015)

jennGO said:


> I don't think Jason has an axe to grind.


he's made a total of two posts on the entire forum,
both here in this thread, both equating deco network with the actions of an individual

so he joined specifically for this thread (barely related to t-shirts), 
to basically become judge, jury and executioner

here's some of his quotes:


> ...the guy built a business on the back of murdering his business partner!!





> There is an ethical issue here relating to how much the family, also involved in the business, knew about his involvement in the murder. His wife obviously arrested for telling lies too, so she obviously knew! How dishonest is this family?





> Deco Network customers have been lining the pockets of a murderer for years now, which also makes me wonder what other dishonest things this guy was up to.. were deconetwork customers funding anything else dodgy??



nope, not personal
nope, no axe to grind
just a simple t-shirt aficionado/merchant, i look forward to his contributions in the other forums here (i'll wait)


----------



## PMJames (Jul 20, 2017)

> The software was then sold to Wilcom and renamed Deconetwork.


Not true. 



> Few years later Wilcom sells Deconetwork.


Not true - it was never Wilcom's to sell.



> So during these changes of ownership does the Pentland family own a large share? Who knows.


Yes, they are and have always been majority shareholders. I imagine Neil's, and possibly Dianne's stake in the business have been handed off to his children. 

If this is inaccurate, I'm sure it'd be a trivial matter to prove me wrong, particularly given how active the company is on this board.


----------



## jennGO (Mar 11, 2014)

into the T said:


> he's made a total of two posts on the entire forum,
> both here in this thread, both equating deco network with the actions of an individual
> 
> so he joined specifically for this thread (barely related to t-shirts),
> ...




Lollll I didn't bother checking his post count. And waiting for a company to discuss their financial matters on a public forum in the middle of a crazy murder case cracks me up. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JasonBatmoo (Jun 30, 2017)

You can use a forum to get help without ever posting right? I've actually used it frequently to seek advice but never really needed to contribute because I class myself as a newbie in this industry. 

I've no personal axe to grind, just read it on the day and thought it was disgusting. I think you may be surprised at how many people are talking about this, and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, as it should!

You can tell all the lies you want about ownership, or how the company has gone from entity to entity, the point was made that the business was built by this murderer, and probably on the back of the money he illegally gained from doing it - full stop!

I don't really care about you or your business frankly. I just thought it was disgusting to try to defend this business owner / family / business - whatever you want to call it here, or anywhere!

I appreciate innocent until 'proven' guilty but wasn't he grassed-up by his mechanic mates partner, who knew he borrowed the gun on that night, which happened to have the specialised Swedish bullets right? As I understand it there is no doubt over his guilt, his accomplice, his lying wife, etc. How many people knew he was guilty? What about the poor man's family who have had to wait so long to then learn it was his business partner? dreadful!

I apologise if you are offended by my comments, but frankly I feel for the family of the victim, and think if anything they should be handed any business, assets, monies, that Neil and his family made on the back of this horrific and deceitful act.

I've had my say and I'll say no more other than this.. I looked at this system recently and considered it, but will never have anything to do with anything made/run/managed by Neil's family. Peace!


----------



## Signature Series (Jun 11, 2016)

PMJames said:


> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Once again we have an account created specifically for this thread which would tend to make wonder why a person is trying to hide their identity. Unfortunately we keep emails only 5 years so I cannot go back and get emails regarding this issue from Greg or Neil. 

What I do have is an email shortly after some transaction whereas Wilcom took control of the software and the development of such. This is taken off from an email date 2-21-12 . . . . 

This email contains important information about your Wilcom DecoNetwork account. Please keep a copy for future reference.


----------



## JasonBatmoo (Jun 30, 2017)

in my experience, when people want to say something frank which can be construed as offensive if the person reading it is the person/company it's aimed at, you don't use your usual account right?? as that would just cause a personal argument, particularly if you know someone from said company!

Perhaps instead of trying to deflect the argument you should think about the points raised.

Also, people use forums all of the time to look to see if anyone else has had an issue, or to look for advice on some problem they have encountered, but they don't necessarily contribute or ask questions. 

By all means defend the guy or the company in some way, but stop crying about .. oooohh he's just joined to post this thread.. get over yourself, he's (me) created this post because he's disgusted at this awful man, and is trying to bring some attention to something that may well be an issue for deco network users.

he is also disgusted at the previous attempts to say .. "everything is fine"

yes i looked at deco network recently, but having learned what I've learned I'd never go near it, or anything to do with that family, ever!

You say innocent until proven guilty.. yes we've all heard that one.. but he was grassed on by his mechanic mate's partner, who knew he used the gun that night, and it had the specialised Swedish bullets right? As i understand it his wife lied for him to give him an alibi too. Come on man, they have him bang to rights don't they? and if this is the case how does that make you feel about his victims family? They waited all these years, and watched this guy and his family take insurance money and build a business.. awful, dishonest family, that's what it tells me.

the victim's family should get everything that was done with that money, and interest.

axe to grind.. not really a good analogy in a murder case but let's go with it. Uh not really as I didn't ever sign up for the deco network site, but if I had I would be furious that my money would have gone towards this murderer and his family. I understand what you mean though and yes I certainly come across angry, because I am, and so should anybody who is human right? this is a disgusting act, a foul man, and there are questions about how much his family knew that he did it.

I won't apologise if my comments offend you because we're all adults here and we're talking about a 'real' life issue, so get over yourself if you're offended, and perhaps think about how the victim's family feel right now.

If you are related to this company or man, and you say here.. 'we will not encounter financial issues as a result of this', or 'it will not affect the company'.. i strongly believe you are lying, but in fairness your association with this company will mean I don't trust you by default, so it's a tough battle for you to convince me otherwise.

keep trying to slag me off about raising this issue and I'll take to other forums and social media to make my point. I have kept it here because it's relevant to this forum and it's members. And I did not start this thread, I just commented after someone attempted to defend the company, which I think is wrong!


----------



## into the T (Aug 22, 2015)

JasonBatmoo said:


> keep trying to slag me off about raising this issue and I'll take to other forums and social media to make my point.


you keep tipping your hand

if you truly are just an outside observer your words would not constantly betray you,
your posts are dripping with emotional/personal attachment


----------



## into the T (Aug 22, 2015)

JasonBatmoo said:


> in my experience, when people want to say something frank which can be construed as offensive if the person reading it is the person/company it's aimed at, *you don't use your usual account right??*


that is called a sock account and is generally frowned upon


----------



## JasonBatmoo (Jun 30, 2017)

good argument .. same argument.. yawn!


----------



## Signature Series (Jun 11, 2016)

This Jason guy has totally exposed himself. First, I do not know nor have I ever met anyone at Piki /Deco. When someone brought up the issue of ownership I simply stated what I believed to be facts on Piki becoming Deco, being acquired by Wilcom and than later bought from Wilcom. Jason came at me saying it was all lies so I simply posted an email that came from Wilcom Deconet.

I am assuming by the amount of details and anger in his post he is from AU and related to someone involved. I have no clue of the facts and stand by everyones rights to innocent until proven guilty. By the way Jason - excluding us few on this forum no one is talking about this in the US.

Just be honest and do not create accounts just to post your anger.


----------



## into the T (Aug 22, 2015)

i'm with you Signature Series, i don't even know what deconetwork does

jason, just create another account to agree with your first sock account
thereby making it seem more legit
then when that account is called out as a sock, create another
but this one make an extra effort not to give tells (like similar phraseology, sentence structure, etc.), then another, then another......

hopefully you can see why sock accounts are frowned upon,


----------



## PMJames (Jul 20, 2017)

https://www.wilcom.com/About/NewsandEvents/JointventureestablishedforDecoNetwork.aspx

"Wilcom is a *significant* shareholder of DecoNetwork"


----------



## PMJames (Jul 20, 2017)

Signature Series said:


> Let us see if Jason will apologize for calling me a liar about the ownership and the changes it went through.


I don't think anyone said you were a liar. I was saying you were mistaken. That link shows that you were. 

Wilcom are / were shareholders in DecoNetwork. Not the *majority* shareholder. Not the owner.


----------



## Signature Series (Jun 11, 2016)

PMJames said:


> I don't think anyone said you were a liar. I was saying you were mistaken. That link shows that you were.
> 
> Wilcom are / were shareholders in DecoNetwork. Not the *majority* shareholder. Not the owner.


 My heart goes out to you as clearly you are very familiar with the case and also as emotional as one can be about it. 

With that said you twist and turn everything stated to fit your narrative. You have no clue, none, that I can see to state as a fact that Wilcom was not the majority shareholder. You have decided that significant does not equal majority which is an opinion not a fact. 

I will leave it at this. What company do you know of has another company purchase a minority stake yet is able to replace the executive officers of their own which is what Wilcom did. Second what company purchases a minority stake in the company yet is able to change the name of the company to include their own name hence "Wilcom Deconetwork". Last, once Wilcom purchased shares of De conetwork the entire development shifted to embroidery.

Thus if you are correct, Wilcom purchased a minority stake but was able to replace the executive officers, change the name to theirs and totally change the direction of the software. Sorry just not realistic.


----------



## PMJames (Jul 20, 2017)

I have no clue that Wilcom weren't the majority shareholder other than there being no evidence anywhere that they ever bought DecoNetwork or sold it. 

DecoNetwork | Speedy deletion Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

The key term from that article is "partnership". Since there's no mention anywhere of Wilcom owning Deconetwork outright, and since they so obviously do, why are they going to pains to hide the fact? In fact what other evidence do you have for ownership other than an email calling it "Wilcom Deconetwork"? I guess the replacement of all the "executive officers", right? Like who? 

Hey, what's the surname of the current and last CEO? Given the last CEO was arrested for murder you think this nameless company that owns the business is going to then hand the role to his son? I guess that's realistic.


----------



## splathead (Dec 4, 2005)

There seems to be some hidden agendas in this thread.

What is the point of this thread, again?

As far as I can tell:

1. A guy in our industry is accused of murdering his business partner. Very salacious! 

2. Lots of speculation on business ownership but no one can know for sure.

3. Jason seems to be an employee or owner of a DecoNetwork competitor. 

Is that about it? Did I miss anything?

Come on guys. If there is nothing of substance left to add to the thread, I will close it out. Right now everyone is just regurgitating the same stuff over and over again.


----------



## jennGO (Mar 11, 2014)

Please close it! It is just going to get weirder 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

