I find this article sensationalist and poorly researched:
1. "since the announcement of the Royal Commission on November 12, 2012 JW has ... Grown from a handful of charities to 836 separate small basic religious charities." This statement is misleading. First, those "new" entities actually existed long before 2012 - as congregations and (legally) as unincorporated assotiations. Secondly, the suggested link between the announcement of the ARC and registration of congregation charities likely doesn't exist. As a reminder, in 2012 Australia adopted the ACNC Act which substantially changed its charity law and, among others, made registration a requirement for income tax exemptions and other benefits.
2. The article hardly shows any "sell-off" in Australia. Two dozens or so Kingdom Halls, out of 455 (the number reported by Watchtower two years ago), sold over nearly a decade - how does it amount to "selling off assets", taking into account that no branch property were reported to be sold of listed for sale, and the org is expanding its branch facilities in Sydney?
3. The worldwide property sales figures are misleading too. The WHQ relocation project was planned as early as 2005, if not earlier, so any attempt to draw a link between the Brooklyn sales (which make up almost 90% of the reported global sales amount) and recent events are based on flawed premises. Also, in the UK Watchtower (namely, WTB and IBSA) has substantially increased its assets, despite the announced inquiries and lawsuits.
4. There is no evidence that child abuse is more prevalent among JWs than in other communities or institutions, as the article suggests. It is incorrect to compare the ARC numbers because in case, of, say, Catholics they refer to abusers in position of trust (like priests, nuns etc.), while in case of Watchtower the Commission included all perpretators who ever were JWs, including lay members, in its statistics.
5. Finally, it's sad the journalists uncritically report speculative and unfounded claims made by people like Steven Unthank - who, for example, was once able to make four false statements in a single paragraph, not to mention other controversies. I'm sorry, but I cannot trust their judgment or expertise.
I would be glad to read an investigative report into the organization's finances, but this article has nothing to do with investigative journalism. It's a kind of don't-check-just-share journalism.
