REAL Estate mogul Wendy Machanik’s property empire is on shaky ground.

Wendy Machanik Properties (WMP) was dealt a massive blow late last month when a judge ordered that its trust accounts be placed under the control of an independent curator.

This after she allegedly “misappropriated” R25-million over a period of three years that was held in her agency’s trust account.

Now the industry’s regulatory body, the Estate Agency Affairs Board (EAAB), claims that Machanik and her more than 300 estate agents across South Africa are operating illegally.

EAAB chairman Thami Bolani confirmed yesterday that as of January 1, “neither Machanik nor her agents have the relevant certificates that allow them to operate legally”.

He said: “The requirement is that audited financial statements be issued before these certificates are awarded, and this was not done.”

Bolani said the EAAB now intends bringing an urgent application to prevent Machanik from operating as an estate agent after it took her and the company to court to prevent both parties from accessing the trust account.

In addition, the court ordered that a curator be appointed to control and administer the trust. The provisional order was granted by the High Court in Johannesburg on December 31.

The matter returns to court on April 5 and Machanik has indicated she will appeal.

She said she started her business out of her garage 21 years ago and grew it into an awardwinning business. Machanik was previously a director of the EAAB.

She was not available for comment yesterday despite numerous attempts by the Sunday Times to contact her.

Following a tip-off regarding irregularities in her business affairs, the EAAB appointed investigations firm Pasco Risk Management to probe WMP.

Judge Margie Victor said the Pasco financial analysis took into account affidavits from former and current employees.

One alleged that she had been instructed to transfer money from the estate agency trust account to its business account as it did not have sufficient funds to cover expenses.

Judge Victor said the affidavits contained “serious allegations which are not confined to the February 2010 year end. Both allege that the first respondent (WMP) frequently did not have money to pay out clients when the transactions were registered in the deeds office.”

The judge also stated that several payments had been made for which there were “no matching property transactions”.

The report said Machanik’s uncooperative attitude had “seriously hindered the inspectors in the execution of their duties”.

A statement issued by WMP said it “would like to make it clear that there is no money missing from these accounts”.

The court’s decision does not interfere with Machanik’s right to do business and does not affect her personal accounts.