P. 1
ICAC report into Eddie Obeid and Ian MacDonald

ICAC report into Eddie Obeid and Ian MacDonald

|Views: 1,779|Likes:
Published by Latika M Bourke
ICAC report
ICAC report

More info:

Published by: Latika M Bourke on Jul 31, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/07/2013

pdf

text

original

Mr Lewis said that, once the Obeids had introduced him to
the idea of purchasing Coggan Creek, he was attracted to
it because it gave him the potential to fulfl a desire to buy a
rural property to set up a motorcycle track, or to provide a
rural experience for his son, or for both those reasons.

It is not clear exactly when Mr Lewis was frst invited by the
Obeids to consider purchasing Coggan Creek. It is known
that Mr Lewis travelled with one of the Obeid sons on 6
November 2008 to the offces of Colin Biggers & Paisley,
where he conferred with the solicitor, Mr Rumore, and
signed the necessary documents that bound him to purchase
Coggan Creek.

As mentioned, the Obeids had obtained an option to
purchase Coggan Creek by no later than 6 August 2008.
The option price was then signifcantly above the then
market value (the vendor did not know of the imminent EOI
process) but was signifcantly below the market price once
the EOI process was publicly known. Mr Lewis exercised
the option (obtained by the Obeids) to purchase Coggan
Creek after the public announcement of the EOI process.
By then, the information on which the Obeids had relied to
obtain the option was no longer confdential.

Conclusion as regards Mr Lewis

Mr Lewis was not a satisfactory witness. He gave evidence
that, in the Commission’s view, was false. Nevertheless,
the evidence does not establish corrupt conduct on his part
within the meaning of the ICAC Act, and the Commission
shall say no more about him.

could be concealed. These elaborate measures to disguise
the Obeid involvement included Paul Obeid instructing Mr
Campo to tell lies to the journalist Anne Davies of the Sydney
Morning Herald
as to the ownership of Donola and the
circumstances in which it was purchased.

The fourth reason the Commission has arrived at its
conclusion stems largely from the falsity of the account given
by the Triulcio brothers as witnesses. Each of the Triulcio
brothers gave evidence that they were attracted to purchase
Donola upon the basis that they had been looking for a leisure
property, but the facts show that to be untrue. Even though
each of the Triulcio brothers has had access to the use of
Donola since it was purchased fve years ago, neither has
returned to visit the property. In fact, it remains the case that
Rosario Triulcio has never even been to Donola. Neither of
the Triulcio brothers seem possessed of any of the information
that may have been elicited had the purchase been genuine;
in particular, their lack of knowledge as to how the property
could be used or had been used before they purchased it
indicates they were not interested in Donola as a rural or
leisure property.

Conclusion as regards the Triulcio brothers

The Commission concludes that Rocco Triulcio and Rosario
Triulcio agreed to purchase Donola only because they had
been provided with the confdential information that the
Mount Penny tenement was soon to be announced. The
Triulcio brothers received that information from members of
the Obeid family – they certainly received the information
from Paul Obeid but probably others as well. They must
have known that the confdential information was improperly
obtained, yet remained motivated to enter the transaction.
And, as will be seen, the Triulcio brothers have received
benefts as a result of acting upon this confdential information.
The Triulcio brothers could stand to make a further substantial
proft in the event that a mining lease is granted.

Notwithstanding these fndings, the conduct of the Triulcio
brothers does not amount to corrupt conduct as defned by
the ICAC Act. That is because there is no evidence that the
Triulcios knew that Mr Macdonald was the source of the
information nor that they had done anything that adversely
affected, or that could adversely affect, either directly or
indirectly, the honest or partial exercise of offcial functions, or
had done anything that otherwise constitutes corrupt conduct
under s 8 of the ICAC Act.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->