SC: EH 2 SENTENCER v ElleryDecember 2003, to offer bribes to officials in the Malaysian bank, in order to obtainthe business of supplying 5 ringgit polymer banknotes. The DPP alleges that thebribes were to be paid from the commission payable to Kayum.
The DPP does not allege that you were a participant in the alleged Malaysianconspiracy, or that you were involved in it when, in mid-2006, you committed thefalse accounting offence to which you have pleaded guilty.
After the period of the alleged Malaysian conspiracy, Note Printing and Securencywere keen to secure further business from the Malaysian bank. As with the 2003contract, it was proposed that Note Printing – not Securency – would be the party toany future bank contract.
Since late 2005, Kayum had been asking Securency to pay him some sort ofcommission for the substrate used in the production of Malaysian banknotes, eventhough the party responsible for paying his commission should have been NotePrinting, not Securency.
You were not a party to the negotiations between Kayum and senior officers ofSecurency, in relation to the payment of a special commission, most of which seem tohave taken place in Malaysia. At all relevant times, you were based at the headoffice of Securency in Craigieburn, Victoria. However, you were copied in on someinternal Securency documents regarding the proposed payment of such a specialcommission.
In December 2005, the Malaysian bank advised that it would be offering NotePrinting a contract to produce a further 100 million 5 ringgit polymer banknotes. InMarch 2006, Note Printing entered into that further contract.
Almost as soon as the 2006 contract had been signed, Kayum raised again thequestion of Securency paying him the special commission, so that he could “disbursecertain expenses accrued”. In an April email to another Securency employee, Kayumasked that it be remitted in Australian dollars into a nominated bank account in