Guy Sebastian’s cost of acting revealed at trial

Further details of the huge costs associated with Guy’s Sebastian business empire were revealed during the embezzlement trial of his former manager.

Guy Sebastian’s former bookkeeper is being cross-examined over handling the singer’s finances as more details of the huge costs linked to his business empire are revealed in court.

Damien Luscombe spent much of Wednesday giving evidence to Mr Sebastian’s former manager, Titus Day, accused of fraudulently misappropriating about $900,000 in performance fees, royalties and ambassador fees allegedly owed to the former Australian Idol champion.

As White Sky’s business manager and partner, Mr Luscombe told the court Mr Sebastian hired the company to start managing his books in 2015, where employees would pay invoices on his behalf.

The court was told that part of the amount paid included about $775,000 in costs related to Mr Sebastian’s 2016 You Me Us tour, as well as about $120,000 for his Madness tour and $8,445 for the New Year’s Day Big Bash show cricket Contest.

Other payments made by White Sky on behalf of Mr. Sebastian include $16,318 for a trip to Venice to attend the wedding of Christian Bugno, global gaming industry manager, and $195 for events related to his Dreamworld ambassador role.

The court also heard that Mr Sebastian’s fees related to his performance at Star Casino’s Rock Lily were $66,000, including about $5,300 in band fees, $6,000 in commissions to The Harbour Agency booking company and about $10,700 in commissions to Mr. Day.

Mr Luscombe said either Mr Sebastian or Mr Day’s company, 6 Degrees, had provided White Sky with authorization so the payment could be made.

“If anything is deducted for commission purposes, we usually ask Titus to provide where it came from,” Mr Luscombe said.

When Mr Luscombe was cross-examined by Mr Day’s barrister, Dominic Toomey SC, the court heard the bookkeeper had not seen the management agreement signed between Mr Sebastian and Mr Day.

“You never read the definition of cost in that document to calculate commission income between 6 Degrees and Mr Sebastian,” Mr Toomey said.

“Correct,” Mr Luscombe responded.

“Therefore, you cannot say that the evidential figures you have provided are equivalent to the deductions that may have been appropriate under this management agreement to calculate commission income,” Mr Toomey told Mr Luscombe, who responded: “You are right”.

Inquiring into the cost of the Venice wedding performance, Mr Toomey asked Mr Luscombe whether it was appropriate to include Mr Sebastian and Mr Day’s airfare from Heathrow to Berlin to Venice in the final calculation.

“It has nothing to do with bringing Mr Sebastian from Sydney to Venice or Mr Day, right?” Mr Toomey asked Mr Luscombe, who replied: “We don’t assume anything… we will instructed”.

When Mr. Toomey says “For example, if there is a ticket to travel around the world, which ends up in Venice, and is presented to you by Mr. Sebastian, who authorizes the payment, and says ‘put it on a Venice wedding’, that’s what happens”, Luscombe Mr. replied “Yes”.

Another point of contention is the commission paid to Mr Dai for Mr Sebastian’s You Me Us tour

The court heard that while White Sky staffer Jake Lowe provided preliminary advice suggesting Day was owed about $161,000 in commissions for his work on the tour, he was charged about $800 less than he was owed.

“The amount of commission we calculated … did not match the withholding ash from 6 Degrees, so we tried to find out, but we never actually did,” Mr Luscombe said.

“There were a lot of calls and things going on,” he told the court.

“The problem we’re having here is we’re advising what the committee might look like based on our data. But that’s definitely not going to match the money going into Guy’s bank account.”

Earlier in the day, Dorcas Kemp, a bookkeeper employed by Mr Sebastian for White Sky, returned to the witness stand to give further evidence.

She was investigated over email records and invoices she browsed, and Mr Toomey accused her of providing “highly misleading” evidence because she did not initially recall seeing information about Mr Sebastian’s upcoming schedule in emails from years ago. information.

Mr Day has consistently denied any wrongdoing and claimed it was he who owed the money.

The trial continues.