The real estate industry in NSW has been rocked by one of its most significant regulatory actions in recent memory. On 2 April 2026, the NSW Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading released that Joshua James Tesolin who was once crowned Australia’s number one real estate agent, had been disqualified from the industry for 10 years, along with his company Tesolin Consulting Pty Ltd. The ban takes immediate effect.
For anyone working in or studying real estate, this case is essential reading. It’s a story about ambition without integrity, regulation catching up with reputation, and a fundamental question that the industry still hasn’t fully answered: is the punishment enough?
Who Is Joshua Tesolin?
By almost every metric used to measure success in real estate, Josh Tesolin was at the very top. During Sydney’s most significant housing boom in thirty years, he sold 350 properties in 2021, generating $7 million in gross commission for the year. Running one of the most successful offices under the Ray White umbrella, Tesolin boasted of generating over $9 million in commissions in a single financial year. At the Ray White NSW/ACT awards in September 2024, he was crowned top city and top international principal, as well as top city auction agent, and was recognised for setting an individual record for settled commission.
His face was everywhere in Western Sydney whether it be on billboards, on the back of buses, on dozens of ‘Sold’ stickers. He had been rated the number one agent five times by RateMyAgent. He was, by all external appearances, a phenomenon.
But the numbers that built his reputation were also hiding something far more troubling.
What Did He Actually Do?
NSW Fair Trading’s investigation found that Tesolin was involved in underquoting — advertising properties below their estimated selling price — directing employees to falsify documents provided to the regulator, failing to properly supervise his business, and engaging in unlawful, improper and unfair conduct. The misconduct affected more than 100 property transactions.
The full list of alleged breaches included underquoting on more than 100 residential properties, underquoting, advertising properties below their estimated selling price, directing employees to falsify documents provided to the regulator, failing to properly supervise the business, and engaging in unlawful, improper and unfair conduct. The conduct is believed to have occurred while Tesolin and Tesolin Consulting operated under the banner of Ray White (Quakers Hill – Tesolin Group).
An incentivised payment scheme also came to light, with clients reportedly charged substantial extra fees at the last moment, allowing Tesolin to amass as much as $420,000 in commissions in a single day. These findings emerged through leaked text messages within his team.
Understanding Underquoting — And Why It Matters
Underquoting might sound like a technicality, but it is deliberate consumer deception, and its effects are felt by real people spending real money. To understand the Tesolin case properly, it’s worth being clear on exactly what underquoting is and how it works.
Agents are required to provide a realistic price estimate based on recent comparable sales. Underquoting occurs when:
- The advertised price is lower than the agent’s true estimated selling price.
- The advertised price is lower than the reserve price (the minimum the seller will accept) that the agent is already aware of.
- The agent gives verbal quotes to buyers that are significantly lower than what is written in the sales agreement.
A Typical Example
Imagine a house in a popular neighbourhood. Based on recent sales of identical houses nearby, the market value is clearly around $1,000,000. The seller has told the agent they won’t accept a cent less than $980,000.
The agent advertises the property with a price guide of “$850,000 – $900,000.” Here is how the scenario plays out:
- The Hook: The agent advertises the property with a price guide of “$850,000 – $900,000.”
- The Bait: Dozens of buyers who can only afford up to $900,000 see the listing. They spend money on building inspections, pest reports and legal fees — believing they genuinely have a chance.
- The Auction: On auction day, the opening bid starts at $920,000. Every one of those budget-conscious buyers is priced out before the first whistle blows.
- The Result: The house sells for $1,050,000. The agent calls it a “runaway success.” But they knew all along that the $850,000 guide was never achievable.
Why It’s Harmful
While it might seem like aggressive marketing, underquoting has serious real-world consequences:
- Financial Loss: Buyers waste hundreds or thousands of dollars on due diligence for properties they never had a realistic chance of buying.
- Emotional Fatigue: The repeated experience of being priced out at auction creates a “false hope” cycle that leads to buyer burnout and erodes trust in the market.
- Market Distortion: Artificially low price guides make it genuinely difficult for buyers and the public to gauge the actual health and pricing of the market.
A Warning Sign to Watch For
Pro Tip: If a property looks too good to be true for its price guide, check the comparable sales report. If the properties the agent has listed as “similar” all sold for 20% or more above the current guide, you are likely looking at an instance of underquoting.
The Queensland Legal Framework: What the Law Actually Says
While the Tesolin case occurred in NSW, this issue is directly relevant to Queensland agents and buyers. In Queensland, the Property Occupations Act 2014 (POA) works alongside the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) to regulate how real estate agents represent property prices. Unlike some other states that apply specific price range mathematics, Queensland’s law focuses heavily on misleading conduct and bait advertising.
General Prohibition on Misleading Conduct (Sections 209 & 212)
These sections serve as the catch-all for underquoting. A licensee or salesperson must not make any representation that is false or misleading regarding the sale of a property. Critically, if an agent makes a price representation and does not have reasonable grounds for that belief — such as comparable sales evidence — it is legally deemed misleading. Importantly, the burden of proof falls on the agent to demonstrate they had reasonable grounds, rather than on the buyer to prove they didn’t.
Auction Price Guides (Sections 214 & 216)
Queensland takes an unusually strict position on auctions. For residential properties being sold at auction, agents are prohibited from providing a price guide to potential buyers at all. The law takes the view that because the final price is determined by the market on the day, any price guide is inherently misleading or risks unfairly anchoring buyer expectations. Agents can provide a list of comparable sales to help buyers form their own conclusions — but they cannot say “we expect it to go for $X.”
“Offers Over” and Price Baiting (Section 215)
For properties not being sold by auction, agents often use “Offers Over” or similar language. Under the Act, if an agent advertises “Offers over $800,000,” that figure must represent the genuine minimum price the seller is willing to accept. If the seller has indicated they won’t take less than $850,000, but the agent continues advertising at $800,000, that is a breach of the Act.
Penalties
The consequences for breaching these provisions are significant:
- Individual Agents: Can be fined up to 540 penalty units, translating to tens of thousands of dollars.
- Corporations: Under the Australian Consumer Law, companies can face fines of up to $50 million or three times the benefit gained from the conduct.
- Licensing: Agents can have their licences suspended or cancelled by the Office of Fair Trading.
The Tesolin case is a live illustration of what happens when these obligations are ignored at scale and over time.
How Did He Get Caught?
The investigation had been building for some time. It was launched following complaints against Tesolin and then Ray White Quakers Hill, and came just over a week after Tesolin split from Ray White and rebranded his Western Sydney agency as NGU Quakers Hill — The Tesolin Group.
NSW Fair Trading suspended both his licence and the licence of his company for four months in August 2025, following findings of repeated breaches of the Property and Stock Agents Act. His Ray White franchise agreement was terminated, and Deloitte was appointed to manage his business during the suspension period.
Rather than stepping back, Tesolin was later alleged to have continued operating as a real estate agent while his licence was suspended, prompting regulators to extend the original suspension. A supplementary show-cause notice was issued requiring him to explain why further disciplinary action should not be taken.
Agents from both inside and outside Australia’s largest network described Tesolin’s methods as an “open secret” within the industry. Some operators said there had been a push for head office to act, and others were alarmed at the use of “incentive kickers” — extra commissions paid when sale prices vastly exceeded quoted ranges.
The system, in other words, knew. It just didn’t act — until regulators did.
The Outcome: A 10-Year Ban
The decision disqualifies Tesolin from being involved in the management or operation of any licensed real estate business for 10 years, effective immediately. His company, Tesolin Consulting Pty Ltd, has also been handed the same 10-year disqualification, marking one of the most significant enforcement actions in recent years.
Details of the decisions have been published on the NSW Government’s public register Verify NSW and on NSW Fair Trading’s Name and Shame Register. Both Tesolin and his company retain the right to seek a review of the decision under NSW law.
NSW Fair Trading Commissioner Natasha Mann stated that deliberate misconduct has serious consequences and that misleading practices and attempts to obstruct regulatory oversight will not be tolerated.
Is the Punishment Sufficient? The Debate the Industry Needs to Have
The industry needs to have an uncomfortable conversation and perhaps a clear look in the mirror. Mr Tesolin’s estimated career gross commission income exceeded $35 million, with earnings of approximately $9 million per year. He operated a lifestyle that included, by various accounts, a Bentley Bentayga, multiple investment properties, and a $2.2 million home in Rozelle.
A 10-year industry ban sounds significant. But consider what it does and doesn’t involve. There is no criminal conviction. There are no reported financial penalties commensurate with the earnings accumulated during the alleged misconduct. The assets remain. And in 10 years, an appeal or review could see the ban reduced or overturned.
Critics have pointed out that fines are ineffective when an agent can make $420,000 in commissions in a single day, while NSW’s maximum underquoting fine sits at just $22,000. Some industry voices have called for a royal commission into real estate if behaviour of this kind continues.
NSW Fair Trading data shows that in 2023–24, the regulator conducted 379 inspections for underquoting, found 148 violations, and issued $143,000 in fines. In an industry where a single top-performing agent can earn that in a week, fines alone are clearly not a deterrent.
The debate now centres on two serious questions. Should misconduct of this scale , which was sustained, deliberate, and affecting over 100 transactions — carry criminal penalties rather than purely administrative ones? And should there be mechanisms to recover commissions earned through fraudulent practices and return them to affected buyers and sellers? These are not hypothetical questions. They go to the heart of whether our regulatory framework is truly protecting consumers or simply managing optics.
The Open Secret Problem
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this case is not what one agent did, but what the industry around him allowed to continue.
People within the industry described the Tesolin case as an “open secret,” saying his methods were well known but he was honoured at award nights where his record commissions appeared on screens.
This is a systemic failure, not just an individual one. Franchise networks, award systems and industry platforms that celebrate volume without scrutinising how it’s achieved create incentive structures that reward the wrong things. When the industry lionises an agent for breaking commission records without asking how, it becomes complicit in the outcome.
What This Means for Ethical Practice — And What We Teach at The Learning Team
At The Learning Team, ethics is not a box to tick at the end of a course. It is the foundation everything else is built on. The Tesolin case illustrates precisely why.
Real estate agents are entrusted with some of the most significant financial decisions people make in their lifetimes. The purchase or sale of a home is rarely just a transaction. It carries life plans, retirement savings, family futures. When an agent exploits that trust through underquoting, dummy bidding, document falsification and pressure tactics, the harm is not abstract. It is real and measurable for every single person on the other side of those transactions.
The CPD requirements and ethical obligations embedded in the NSW Property and Stock Agents Act are not bureaucratic inconveniences. They exist because trust, once broken at scale, damages the entire profession .The same principle underpins Queensland’s Property Occupations Act 2014. The Tesolin case is now the most high-profile demonstration of that in Australian real estate history.
For students and professionals in our courses, this case raises several obligations worth reflecting on directly:
Underquoting is not a grey area. Queensland law requires price representations to be based on reasonable grounds. Deliberately advertising below an achievable price to generate buyer interest is not clever marketing — it is unlawful misleading conduct under the Property Occupations Act 2014.
Supervision is a licensee’s legal responsibility. One of the findings against Tesolin was a failure to properly supervise his business. Licensees-in-charge carry accountability for the conduct of everyone operating under their licence. This is not a technicality.
Document integrity is non-negotiable. Directing staff to falsify records submitted to a regulator is a serious offence. No commission outcome, no target, no pressure from above justifies it.
Your reputation is your most durable asset. Tesolin’s collapse, when it came, was swift and total. Years of award wins, thousands of five-star reviews, and record commissions counted for nothing when the underlying conduct could not withstand scrutiny. What endures in this industry is the trust clients place in you — and that is built slowly, and lost quickly.
Final Thoughts
The 10-year ban handed to Joshua Tesolin and Tesolin Consulting Pty Ltd is significant by the standards of Australian real estate regulation. Whether it is sufficient given the scale of the conduct and the financial gain involved is a question that deserves serious ongoing debate and the industry should be having it loudly.
What is not in question is the lesson it carries. The property industry exists to serve the public. When agents treat that responsibility as an obstacle to profit rather than the reason for their existence, they ultimately undermine the very system they depend on.
At The Learning Team, we believe the agents who build lasting careers are the ones who compete on service, transparency and integrity, not on how far they can push boundaries before they get caught. The Tesolin case should be a turning point. The industry now has the opportunity to decide what kind of profession it wants to be.
If you have questions about your obligations under the Property Occupations Act 2014 or want to understand how ethics is embedded throughout our Real Estate Education and Industry CPD , reach out to the team at The Learning Team.
Contact The Learning Team here