columbapub00294.doc columba public 27/08/2009 pp …

27/08/2009 294 T E08/2167

COLUMBAPUB00294.DOC COLUMBA PUBLIC 27/08/2009 pp 00294-00357 HEARING

COPYRIGHT

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION THE HONOURABLE JERROLD CRIPPS, QC, COMMISSIONER PUBLIC HEARING OPERATION COLUMBA Reference: Operation E08/2167 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AT SYDNEY ON THURSDAY 27 AUGUST 2009 AT 10.00 AM Any person without publishes any part of this transcript in any way and to any person contrary to a Commission direction against publication commits an offence against section 112(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988. This transcript has been prepared in accordance with conventions used in the Supreme Court.

27/08/2009 295 T E08/2167

THE COMMISSIONER: The Commission is continuing its inquiry, the scope and purpose of which was announced on Monday and the nature of the allegations also announced on Monday. Yes. MS DAVENPORT: Yes. I call Andy Moosani, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MS DAVENPORT: Or Ahmed, Ahmed Moosani. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Now, Mr Moosani, Mr Dailly, you’ll appear for - - - MR DAILLY: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Moosani, take a seat. Mr Moosani, you are represented by a lawyer so I’m assuming that it has been explained to you your obligations and entitlements. I’ll go through them very quickly. If I say something you don’t understand, please tell me and I’ll try and make my meaning clearer. First of all, the legislation provides that you must answer and answer truthfully all questions asked of you. MR MOOSANI: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: And that failure to do so can render you liable to a significant criminal penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment. Do you understand that? MR MOOSANI: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: You may object to answering questions but whether you object or not you still have to answer the question. Parliament has given you the right to object so that if you do the questions and answers can’t be used against you in any criminal, civil or disciplinary proceeding. MR MOOSANI: Yeah. THE COMMISSIONER: However, if you are charged with an offence of breach of the Act, in particular not telling the truth to the Commission, the question and the answers would be used. MR MOOSANI: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: You have to take an oath to tell the truth. Do you wish to take it, how do you wish to take it? MR MOOSANI: Bible.

27/08/2009 296 T E08/2167

THE COMMISSIONER: Bible? MR MOOSANI: Yeah. THE COMMISSIONER: Give him the bible. WITNESS SWORN

27/08/2009 MOOSANI 297 T E08/2167 (DAVENPORT)

<AHMED MOOSANI, sworn [10.10] THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, take a seat. Do you want that declaration? MR DAILLY: The declaration please, yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Take a seat, Mr Moosani. In response to an application made on your behalf I declare that all questions asked of you, all answers given by you and all requests made of you shall be deemed to be subject to your objection?---Yeah. And hence there is no need for you to object to any particular question, answer or request. Do you understand that?---Yes. And that this declaration will continue until – while you’re giving evidence in this public inquiry?---Sure. And I remind you again, however, that that declaration will have no effect if what you’re charged with is not telling the truth to this Commission. Yes, Ms Davenport. MS DAVENPORT: Thank you, Commissioner. Could you please tell the Commission your full name?---My name is Ahmed Moosani. And are you known by the name of Andy?---Yes. In terms of Roger Training Academy, did you begin that business yourself? ---Yes. And what year was that?---It was 2005 that I’ve started. All right. And it was in the year 2005 that it was - Roger Training Academy was registered as a training organisation. Is that correct?---In 2006 I got the approval, 2005 or 2006? Yes, I got the - - - You got the approval?--- - - - approval from (not transcribable) VETAB, yes. What is your training? Have you ever been in the security industry yourself?---Yes. I was a security guard before. All right. And when did you obtain your training to become a trainer?---In approximately 2003 or 4. MR DAILLY: Commissioner, if I could just interpose. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.


MR DAILLY: An interpreter has been requested today for Mr Moosani should he need an interpreter and I believe that the interpreter is here. MS DAVENPORT: There is interpreter an interpreter here, Commissioner. Perhaps she could be sworn in and she could be made available if necessary. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Perhaps a chair can be given to her. I think you were sworn in as an interpreter yesterday, yes. Is it Hindi? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Just for the record and for this witness please state your full name again. THE INTERPRETER: Nina Seenha. THE COMMISSIONER: And you are a qualified interpreter? THE INTERPRETER: That’s right. THE COMMISSIONER: And you are capable of interpreting the Hindi into the English language and the English language into the Hindi language? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: You have to take an oath that you will interpret truly. Do you wish to take an oath on a bible or do you wish to affirm? THE INTERPRETER: Affirm. <NINA SEENHA (interpreter), affirmed [10.12] THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Now, Mr Moosani, a Hindi interpreter is here if you do not - - -?---Understand. - - - understand the question or if you need help in giving an answer you can give it in Hindi?---Yes, sir. But until such times as you seek that request, we will just do it in English? ---Sure. Yes.


MS DAVENPORT: Thank you. Before you started Roger Training Academy had you yourself trained people for certification in the security industry?---(not transcribable). No. Had you worked as a trainer for other people? So was Roger Training Academy your first attempt at training people?---Yes. And you were the only director that company. Is that correct?---Yes. When you first started up how many trainers did you employ?---I employed one, one or two. One first, there’s Ben Davis. Ben Davis, yes?---And then I got Paul Lewis. Paul Lewis, yes?---And I got the trainer called Matthew Camilleri. Rowan Hancock, James, James Topp. Topp?---James. And Lee Fossdill. Shane Camilleri. Jeffery Rocco. Nick Topp. Steven and - - - Dru Hyland?---Dru Hyland, yep. And Hamdi. Now these people changed as some left and some replaced them. Is that correct?---That’s right. And is it, would it be true to say that when you first started up business came in more slowly and then it got busier and busier?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) At the beginning did you train yourself or did you always just administer?---I was just administrator, yes. All right. Now when you first started up in 2005 that was before this RPL process came in. Is that right?---Yep. And you were training people for Certificate I, Certificate I training, that is, the first certificate that people could get. Is that right?---Yes, in 2006. That was 2006. Okay. So people who were seeking to enter the security industry who had no previous background to it would come to you for training. Is that right?---That’s correct, yeah. And that required did it not at that stage something like two weeks of face-to-face training?---That’s right, yep. The first thing to do was to do a literacy and numeracy test?---That’s right, yep.


And it was necessary to pass that test before they could even begin the face-to-face training?---That’s right. And they also had to get first aid certificates. Is that correct?---Yes. And you were also training people were seeking to upgrade their skills if they’re already in the security industry?---Yes. We started off in 2007. Is that when the - - -?---Yep. Is that as a result of the change in the legislation?---That’s right, yes. Is that when the RPL courses came in?---Yes. And that was people who had to go through a process of upgrading their skills. Is that right?---Yes. I want to take you back to 2006?---Yes. You mentioned a man who was a trainer for you Paul Lewis?---Yep. Was he a trainer in the Certificate I courses?---Yes. And in terms of Mr Lewis how long did he work for you?---He worked for me for roughly one year or so. All right. And it was during the whole of the time that he was with you was he teaching only Certificate I courses?---Yes, Certificate I course, yeah, sometimes he do first aid also. THE COMMISSIONER: Sometimes he’d do what?---First aid. MS DAVENPORT: First aid. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MS DAVENPORT: Now in terms of that process right from the beginning were the Certificate I courses run by Roger Training Academy as open book tests?---Yes. And why was it that they were done as open book tests?---Because the instructor say like you have to give the, the supports to the students and - - - Well, it was your business wasn’t it?---Yes, that’s right. Weren’t you the person telling, you were trained as a trainer yourself?---Yep. On the final exams there’s, it’s a closed books exam.


No, what I’m suggesting to you is that the final exams are in fact an open book exam?---Yeah. So people were allowed to take in books to look up the answers?---Yes. Not only were they allowed to take in books to look up the answers they were being given the answers weren’t they?---No. They were as by (not transcribable) THE COMMISSIONER: What did you understand an open book exam entailed for people qualifying as guards or whatever, security guards?---Certificate I, Certificate I, yeah. MS DAVENPORT: Certificate I?---Which was a provisional license. THE COMMISSIONER: What did you understand open book - - -?---Open book is like we give, we give the, we give the assessments then they have to fill out the assessments. Yes. And they can take it home?---No, you have to do it at the classrooms. How long did it take people to do that?---Depend on the students, some students take long time, some students they do it ten, 20 minutes. (not transcribable) the students. And these were for Certificate I. Is that right?---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And there were people who were being granted Certificate I pass certificates without actually attending courses, weren’t there?---Yes. It happened in a, it happened, yes, it was happened, yes. And that was in 2006 to - - -?---No, it happened, I think so, in 2009 - - - No, I’m suggesting that when Paul Lewis was working at Roger Training Academy in 2006 and 2007, people were being awarded certificates without attending the course?---(NO AUDIBLE REPY) THE COMMISSIONER: Do you agree with that or disagree?---Let me, I need to also to see the (not transcribable) not available (not transcribable). Sorry?---I don’t, I don’t have any - - - MS DAVENPORT: I’m suggesting that that was happening, that students would be awarded certificates by Roger Training Academy in 2006 and 2007, that is Certificate I courses - - -?---Yeah. - - - without ever attending any lectures?---I think so, yes.


And you knew that that was happening?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: So why did you allow that to happen, Mr Moosani?---Oh, because some people, some of the students there, they are, they are working or they are working, they can’t attend that course and we just didn’t give them the, the (not transcribable) supposed to be the students. Sorry?---We give the, we give the support to the students. Give the what to the students?---The support, like we help them. Yes, I know. Why do you help them?---It is my mistake. Your mistake, is that what you said?---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: But these be people who had no experience in the security industry at all, they were undertaking basic training, weren’t they? ---Yes. That was the purpose of the Certificate I course, to give them basic training so that they could gain a provisional licence to gain employment in the security industry. Is that right?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) So they were not people who had any work experience that they could rely upon in order to fill the gaps?---That’s right, yep. So you were allowing people to come along, register for a course and not attend the lectures and still giving them their Certificate I ?---Ah, what, there used to, there used to be attendance and some, and some (not transcribable) the rest of (not transcribable) certificate for them. Well, what sort of people did you give the certificate to, then, who didn’t attend the courses, what was the criteria you used?---We - - - Well, did they pay you extra money if they got- - -?---No, they paid the same money of the course fees. THE COMMISSIONER: So why did, what was the criteria that you picked to give some people the certificate without attending the courses and others had to attend the course? The kindness of your heart?---That’s right. Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And you knew that when they gained those certificates, that they will take those certificates to the registry and would be given provisional licences to work in the security industry, didn’t you?---Yeah.


And you knew that those certificates were in fact fraudulent, weren’t they?---Yes. In terms of, when did Ali Merchant start working for you?---Ah, 2007. And in terms of persons in 2006 and 2007 when Mr Lewis was working there, were there a number of people who would come who had very questionable, at the very least, English language skills?---Yes, many people they come that they can’t understand the English. And you encouraged Mr Lewis when he raised the issue that people didn’t have the sufficient English skills to do the course, you basically told Mr Lewis that they be okay and to be keep teaching them, didn’t you?---Just that, ah, mostly the people, mostly the people they come from the overseas, they came from different background and sometime the people can read and they can write very good and sometimes they can’t talk. So I said, tell them, just you can, you can, if you can adjust your (not transcribable), you can write this from. THE COMMISSIONER: What was your understanding as to how you were to test people who were, whether the could understand English?---Well, the people that, first I tell the fellow, you see how, how the candidates are. If they can (not transcribable). If they can’t (not transcribable) in this, then tell them to please, there’s (not transcribable). Are they given a test?---Yes. We give them a test. A test?---It’s a literacy, literacy exam, yes. Is this one about, it was the same old one about whether or not you got diabetes?---Yeah. MS DAVENPORT: I’m not sure what the, what was the - - - THE COMMISSIONER: What was the test? MS DAVENPORT: Which was the literacy test in relation - - -?---First like before it was like it was a letter writing. Second, there’s a comprehensive and third is the numeracy, the numeracy. So they would have to sit down and write a letter.---They had to write a letter, yes. And then they’d be given a, something to read and then asked questions about it. Is that right?---Yes. Yes. And then - - -


THE COMMISSIONER: What’s been put to you is that you told Lewis that he could, assume people had passed all that when they hadn’t done these tests at all.---Well, these are - - - Is that correct or incorrect?--- It is incorrect. Incorrect. You never did that?---Never. You never told Lewis to just keep on teaching these people even though they’d never done the test?---I think that Mr Lewis has been taken to the literacy (not transcribable) before the class start. MS DAVENPORT: Now I suggest that Mr Lewis did not administer the literacy and numeracy tests. But what he did raise with you was that there were people who were sent to him as having presumably passed those tests who he said to you did not appear to have the English skills necessary to be involved in the course. Do you remember him raising those issues with you?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you must know the answer to that. Did you or didn’t you?---Yes. Yes. MS DAVENPORT: Yes. And you’d just tell him he’d be okay?---Yes. So, was it your view that the literacy and numeracy tests were, were not a bar, if people couldn’t pass those, that wasn’t a bar or that didn’t prevent them from taking part in the Certificate I courses?---No. They, they didn’t come very high in the literacy and numeracy exams. I’m sorry?---We take a very hard decision, like take, taken a very hard decision with the trainers (not transcribable) and we sent a letter to the security (not transcribable) that these two (not transcribable) THE COMMISSIONER: No. But what’s being said to you is that Lewis was telling you that there were people who couldn’t speak English and you told him to go ahead anyway. Is that true or false?---True. MS DAVENPORT: And what action, in terms of, and you were from time to, were you not audited by VETAB and the Security Industry Registry?---Yes. And did you take steps to ensure that they were not aware that you were giving certificates to people without doing the course?---Yes, we tried, but - - -


You were, you were audited I think in around - - -?---2007. - - - 2007. And during that audit had you in fact organised the files so that anything that might show that these people had not done the course would not be apparent to VETAB. In other words have you bodgied up documents to make it look as though they had done the course?---I didn’t do anybody that, we leave the, we leave the paperwork (not transcribable) students, because they have to fill out the answers, you know. So you would forge documents to make it look as though the students had attended the courses when they hadn’t?---Yes. And in terms of those courses, in 2006, 2007, where you involved in Responsible Service of Alcohol courses?---Yes. How often were they conducted on the premises?---It was conducted like every Saturday, some, some Saturdays. Some Saturdays?---Yes. Every Saturday or some Saturdays?---Some Saturdays. If I suggest to you that Mr Lewis says that during the time he was working there he never saw any Responsible Service of Alcohol courses conducted on the premises. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, what’s that, is that? MS DAVENPORT: 2006, 2007. THE COMMISSIONER: Ask him whether he (not transcribable) MS DAVENPORT: Would you agree with that, that in 2006 and 2007 there were never any Responsible Service of Alcohol courses conducted on the premises of Roger?---Well, (not transcribable) yes, it was to happen that way, yes. I’m sorry?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Just so it’s clear it’s said in this period ’06 to ’07 there were no courses of RSA. Is that correct?---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: Do you agree with that?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: He does.


MS DAVENPORT: And what about the issue of first aid certificates. You’ve heard Mr Merchant said that he was indeed giving out first aid certificates without any training?---Yes. That was also happening before Mr Merchant got there in 2006 wasn’t it? ---Yes. So Mr Merchant just took up where Roger had already started. That is that they were issuing first aid certificates without any training before he even got there?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Davenport, is there, one of the Exhibits in which shows what is intended to be, for example, trained for people who want a certificate that they can responsibly serve alcohol? At some stage I’ll have to have a look at all these courses. MS DAVENPORT: Yes. I think, Commissioner, yesterday I think it was, it must have been Mr Razak who went through what was required for the first aid certificate. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, he did for the first aid. Anyway, I’ll have to have a look at - - - MS DAVENPORT: We have, we do have it, Commissioner. We can tender that, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. MS DAVENPORT: You see, each of those courses required, well starting with the responsible service of alcohol, that required, did it not, something like, depending on the number of people in the courses, quite a number of hours of face-to-face teaching, didn’t it?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: That’s what I’m interested to appreciate. How many hours of training do you need - - - MS DAVENPORT: To recognise a drunk? THE COMMISSIONER: - - - to recognise a drunk, yes. MS DAVENPORT: I know. THE COMMISSIONER: All you’ve got to do, as Mr Daley will tell you, is go to Ireland. MS DAVENPORT: I don’t think that’s a mandatory part of the course, Commissioner?


MR DALEY: It ought to be. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that’s what I mean. Yes, all right, anyway - - - MS DAVENPORT: And similarly with the first aid certificates, that required something like six hours of face-to-face teaching?---Yes. Well, were you conducting any first air courses at Roger Training throughout 2006/2007?---I don’t think so, no. Did you ever conduct any first aid courses? Never? THE COMMISSIONER: Now, do you agree with that?---Yes. You never taught first aid courses? MS DAVENPORT: I’m not talking about you personally. I’m talking about Roger Training - - -?---Yes, yes, yes. You understand that?---Yes, yes. (not transcribable) You heard Mr Razak give evidence before the Commissioner yesterday that he three or four times came on Saturdays and watched first aid courses taking place. That couldn’t have happened, could it?---No. Every Saturday the first aid was happening. The first aid was happening?---Yes. Every Saturday?---Yes, every Saturdays. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, look, you said earlier they hadn’t been so just listen to the questions?---I was thinking about myself, like - - - No. You were being asked, as it was made clear, you were asked about Roger. Whether Roger - - -?---Roger. And now you’re telling me that there were first aid courses taught by Roger?---Yes. But are you telling me also there were no RSA courses taught by Roger? ---That’s right. MS DAVENPORT: And what about responsible conduct of gaming, was that - - -?---No. None of those were taught. But the first aid courses you’re saying were taught every Saturday?---Yes.


So some people went to the courses and got the certificates and some people didn’t have to go to the courses but still got the certificates. Is that right? ---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: For RSA? MS DAVENPORT: For RSA?---RSA. THE COMMISSIONER: And gambling? MS DAVENPORT: I’m sorry. There were never any RSA courses so people go the certificate without ever doing any training. Is that right? ---Yes. So all RSA certificates issued by Roger Training or through Roger Training by Amstar - - -?---Yeah. - - - were – had no teaching?---That’s right. With the first aid courses, some people, you say, went and did the course on the Sunday?---Yeah. And got the certificate validly?---Yeah. And some people didn’t do the course and still got the certificate?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: What about gambling? MS DAVENPORT: Well, you said there was never any gambling training. Is that right?---Yeah. So all the certificates issued by Roger via Amstar were based on not having done the course. THE COMMISSIONER: And just so I can put this in here, that’s between when and when are you talking about? MS DAVENPORT: It was between the time you started and the time you were closed. Is that right? You never had any responsible service of alcohol courses?---No. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. MS DAVENPORT: And you never had any responsible conduct of gambling?---No. O.K. But in relation to first aid, you say there were courses?---Yeah.


And some people did go to courses and validly got their certificates?---Yes. And some people just went and paid 100 or $120 and got their certificate? ---Yes. And what determined whether you would tell them to go to the course or you’d say, “Here’s your certificate”?---Sorry, can you come back again? How was the decision made by you or by your trainers at your direction whether someone would be told, “Well, just pay us the $100 and here’s your certificate,” or whether they’d be told, “You have to enrol and go to the course on Saturday”?---It’s just like a (not transcribable), some people they come for the course and some people are not coming to the course. So it depends- - - THE COMMISSIONER: I know that. But I’ll say it. Can I ask you a question. If people just came along and said, “I want a first aid certificate and I don’t want to come to the course,” you just gave it to them, did you? ---Yes. $100. MS DAVENPORT: Whereas if they said they wanted to do the course, you’d say, “We have a course on Saturday” then. So it depended on what question it was they asked?---Yes. All right. THE COMMISSIONER: A good example of consumer participation. MS DAVENPORT: Was the first aid course – was it ever conducted during the week, weekdays?---Sometimes, yeah. And was that during the day or at night?---It was in evening time. I’m sorry?---In the evening. In the evening?---Yeah. A lot of certificates that have been viewed by Commission officers appear to bear the date of the 5th of January, 2009?---For - - - For first aid?---But I’m not handling that. That was done by Mr Merchant. Do you know whether there in fact was a course on that day?---I was not going on Saturdays so I was not knowing about - - -


No, that was a Tuesday. MR DAILLY: Monday. MS DAVENPORT: Sorry, a Monday. It wasn’t - - -?---(not transcribable) a lot about that one please. Okay. Now, in terms of the RPL process - - -?---Yeah. - - - that started, the legislation came into force in 2007?---Yeah. I think it was September. Is that right?---Yeah. So it was late 2007?---Yeah. And in terms of the impact upon the amount of work that Roger was doing, you must have seen that that increased the amount of work you had to do? ---I would expect that this must be going – that this will become – I would expect that only 1,000 or 2,000 but when I left, when I left (not transcribable) and they came back to me the books had been distributed and the money had been (not transcribable) and I was not aware about that one. Can you start again perhaps, Mr Moosani? THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Just listen to the question?---Yes. Yes. MS DAVENPORT: You had already established a practice before the RPL was introduced of awarding certificate I certificates to students who didn’t have to attend the course. Is that right?---For certificate I to certificate - - - Certificate I. You would give that certificate to persons who did not attend the courses. Is that right? You agreed with that. Now, when the RPL came into existence, that was in 2007. Is that right?---Yeah. Dru Hyland was working for you from the time that that process came into existence, wasn’t he?---Yes. And almost from the time that that – what I want to suggest to you is that almost from the time that the training of RPL started you were aware that students were being provided with the answers. THE COMMISSIONER: Did you understand the question?---I understood the question. I think so, yes. Because the trainers and the companies that would come – the trainers was giving the answers to the companies. I agree.


MS DAVENPORT: And you knew that your trainers were - - -?---Yes. After, after they’d given the answers then I realised that the answers came from my trainers. What do you mean you realised the answers came from your trainers?---Because when I, when I saw the first books and the second books, I said, “Who gave the answers?” they like - - - Because they were the same?---Yeah, of course, yeah. THE COMMISSIONER: When was the first time you realised that?---Oh, in - - -?---In, I not idea. Well, when? It started, I think (not transcribable)?---It was (not transcribable). So when did you first realise that the answers must have been given out by your trainers?---Because my trainer like - - - When I’m asking you?---I don’t, I can’t remember the date now. Was that 2007?---2007/2008. Still in 2007. And so what did you do about it?---I told the trainer not to do this practice but - - - MS DAVENPORT: Which trainer was it that you told not to do that?---It was the two, (not transcribable) Matthew (not transcribable) Matthew Camilleri and Rowan Hancock?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: You told them to stop doing it, did you?---Yes. They were the first trainers. Sorry. Are you telling me you told them to stop doing that?---Yes. I told them please, you know like, you’re going to give the answers but - - - Yes. But did you check up to make sure they did stop?---Because at that time I was not, I was not handling that. It was handled by Ali Merchant. So you didn’t check up?---No, I didn’t check it, no. MS DAVENPORT: But you see, you said that you picked it up because you were able to look at the workbooks and see that the answers in one workbook were identical to the answers in another. Is that right?---It was just a little bit different because - - -


But it was pretty – it didn’t require a great deal of time and effort to do that, did it?---That’s right. (not transcribable) Commissioner, that the RPL books if it is the base of the evidence it doesn’t provide the question answers. THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, no. Look, you may, you’ve got the option to explain this later if you want to explain but the question that I want to ask you is this, you saw these books in 2007 and you saw that answers have been given by the trainers?---Yes. Yes. And you told the trainers you disapproved of that?---Yes. And you told them to stop?---Yes. Why didn’t you see whether they had stopped?---That’s a good question. Good question?---Yeah. Well, what’s the answer?---Answer is that I’ve been very lazy. I didn’t check it properly, no. Why didn’t you?---Because I was just trusting those trainers. MS DAVENPORT: The real answer is you were making a lot of money out of it weren’t you?---Yes. And you had an interest in not stopping it because you were making a lot of money out of that process?---Yeah. And it wouldn’t, and you must have realised that people were coming to Roger Training Academy because word was spreading that indeed you could come to Roger and get not only the workbooks but you could get the answers?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) THE COMMISSIONER: Was that your understanding?---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: Then, so Mr Camilleri, Matthew Camilleri and Rowan Hancock you found out that they were using the answers, did you ever see an RPL answer book?---Yes, I did. Where did you see it?---At the office. In the office?---Yeah. So apart from looking at the workbooks and seeing the similarity between the answers you actually saw a copy of this answer book?---Yes. Did you ever get a copy of an answer book sent to you by email?---No.


Ever?---By Matthew Hancock, no. No, from anybody?---Yes, I did copy one from, from Cheetah Security. And that was via Ali Merchant?---Ali Merchant, yeah. And that, was that, were those answers the same as the answers that appeared in the Hancock/Camilleri version or different?---(not transcribable) no, I don’t remember. I think it’s from the, for Hamdi but I think so. No, Hamdi’s was a CD wasn’t it?---But the CD has been copied into the files. So Ali Merchant received an email from Cheetah Security?---That’s right, yep. That contained a set of answers to the RPL workbook?---Yes. Was that the first time seeing those answers?---Yes, I seen the book was answered by email, yes. And were they different to the answers that you had seen in the book of Mr Camilleri and Mr Hancock?---Yes. And those answers did you know at that stage where they came from?---They came from, like (not transcribable) client and he asked for the answers, like we do give him answers then we send an email, look, you’ve got the answers (not transcribable) mark it, the answer was spelt like - - - THE COMMISSIONER: (not transcribable) give it to you. MS DAVENPORT: And it spread through the industry. Is that right?---That’s right, yes. And did you tell Mr Merchant to in fact forward, once you got those answers in email form did you tell Mr Merchant to actually forward those answers to other people?---No. THE COMMISSIONER: Did you know whether he did?---Not really. Sorry? Did you know whether, did he forward them to other people?---Because maybe he did. Well, maybe he did but did you know he did?---I’m not 100 per cent sure about that. Sorry?---I’m 100 per cent sure.


Not a?---I’m not 100 per cent sure that he did, I’m not sure. MS DAVENPORT: When he was working for you - - -?---Yes. - - - he was working in the same office as you?---Yes. He was, was it his business to make decisions as to who would be given copies of the workbook or was it yours?---The answers? Yes?---Both? Both?---Yes. But he wasn’t a director of the company?---No. He was somebody on a wage?---Yes. And you or your company was the person who was gaining a benefit from people enrolling in these courses. Is that right?---Yep. So when you saw that attachment with the answers it was forwarded to you, forwarded to you by Ali Merchant wasn’t it?---Yes. What did you do about it?---Well, I told Ali and I said, Is this the answer, these answers from Hamdi? And what did he say?---And he said, then I spoke to Hamdi and he said, Use them (not transcribable). Well, what did you tell Mr Merchant to do with the answers that you had received?---I said, Put in the archive or (not transcribable) destroy it. Mr Moosani, is that seriously your evidence that you told Mr Merchant to put in the archives or destroy it?---No. It’s not is it?---No. It’s not what you told him to do?---No. And in fact what he did was to forward it on to another of, a number of Manpower companies didn’t he?---I think so, yes. Yes. And you knew about that didn’t you?---(not transcribable) about the Manpower (not transcribable) about that one, no. You didn’t know that it was forwarded to Manpower companies?---I knew about, yeah.


Mr Alqudsi had produced his answers also (not transcribable) the CD hadn’t he?---Yes. And a copy of that CD was held in the offices of Roger Training Academy? ---Yes. And was it that CD that was used to produce the answers that appeared in the service packs that were given out by Mr Merchant through Maria Mallari?---It wasn’t, I still remember it wasn’t the hard copy it was the CD. Well, you knew didn’t you that people were being given when they came to Roger Training Academy and said they wanted to do, to pay for an RPL upgrade that they would be given a workbook and a copy of the answers? ---Yes. And that became a common practice didn’t it?---Yes. Particularly towards the end of 2008?---Yes. And you knew that was happening?---Yep. Did you in fact recruit Mr Alqudsi because you knew he was, he had a copy of the answers?---No. So by the time we get to the latter half, the second half of 2008 within Roger Training Academy to your knowledge you had the answers to the questions that had been produced by Mr Camilleri and Mr Hancock?---Yep. And they were still being used weren’t they?---Yes. They were the basis of the hard copy?---(not transcribable) Yeah. So you knew that they were being used and given out to people?---Yes. Yes. And you also knew that Mr Alqudsi was giving out copies of his sets of answers either by CD or by somewhere else?---Yes. So you knew that both those forms of answers were being given out to people coming to Roger?---Yes. And you knew that in relation to people who used either one or other of those sets of answers that they were not validly answering the questions that were required in order to go through the RPL process?---Yeah. Did you ever speak to Dru Hyland about what he was doing?---No.


Did you know that he was using the set of answers that Mr Hancock and Mr Camilleri - - -?---No. What, you thought it stopped when Hancock and Camilleri - - -?---(not transcribable) Dru Hyland, I was, I was thinking like (not transcribable) then I realised, then, yes. So as far as you were aware do you say that the only people, the only way in which the Camilleri/Hancock answers were being given out was through Ali Merchant?---Sorry, can you repeat again? So you’ve got the set of answers, the Camilleri/Hancock set?---Yep. And that’s brought into existence some time in 2007?---Yep. Mr Hancock and Mr Camilleri left Roger in the middle of 2008?---Yep. Dru Hyland was working there at that time?---Yep. When they left the questions and, the answers to the questions that they had compiled were still with Roger Training weren’t they?---Yes. And they were in hard copy?---It was in hard copy, yes. And that was the hard copy that you knew Ali Merchant was giving out to people who came?---Yes. Yes. So you knew that that copy was still in the system and being given out? ---Yes. But did you know that it was also being given out by Mr Hyland?---No, that was not available then. What do you mean it was not available that way?---No, I was not aware about, sorry. But you see it would have been very easy to find out, wouldn’t it?---Well, I was thinking like if he come early morning, 5 o’clock in the morning, and I was thinking he was doing a very hard job and I don’t think I read about anything about Mr Dru Hyland. But you see you knew that he was going up and teaching man power companies, for example on the North Coast, didn’t you?---That’s correct because he, I always thought he was a nice capable person and I would never expect from him to like, you know, give the answers out. Would you have not expected him to act in a fraudulent way as other people in Roger Training were acting?---Yes.


Did you ever ask him how he carried out his training?---Well, I asked him Dru, I did properly, I did the, did the training, I did (not transcribable) I did this. I have to believe in what he say. But did you ever look at any of the books of the people that he trained? ---No. Because that would have been an easy way to determine whether in fact he was using the answer book, wouldn’t it?---Yes. Because you would have recognised immediately - - -?---Yeah. - - - the answers that had, if they had come from the Camilleri/Hancock version?---Yes. The reality is that you didn’t really care how he was training provided he was brining money into Roger Training?---No. The, when the books come, the books have been marked by Dru Hyland and had been checked by the, the approval guy as a (not transcribable) managers in 2010, 2008 as the (not transcribable) and he was checking that - - - Sorry, he was checking what?---Well, they were checking the files themselves, all the files doesn’t come to me, go to go to, trainers give to Ali Merchant (not transcribable) and it get print on the certificate. So is what you’re saying is that you were content that Mr Merchant give out the answers to the RPL book over the counter, that didn’t bother you?---It is not on the counter, like - - - Well, Maria Mallari yesterday said that people would come and if they’d ask for the RPL workbooks and Ali said give them the package - - -?---We had to give the package. - - - they’d get the answers as well?---Yes, I know that, I am, I never see the answers for myself because when I sitting in there, the receptionist was not available then, I guess. But you knew that was happening?---Yes. And you didn’t see anything wrong of that. Is that right?---Yes, yeah I do. And you knew Mr Alqudsi was also working for you up until the end of 2008, was handing out CDs and you didn’t see anything wrong with that. Is that right?---Yes, ma’am. So why was it that you had some high moral expectations of Mr Hyland?---I didn’t, he’s an honest person and I thought he was honest but, and I, I think - - -


Well, everybody else working there was dishonest, weren’t they?---No, they’re not dishonest but I didn’t check for Mr Hyland, yes. Well, you’ve agreed that the handing out of the answers to the workbook was dishonest, wasn’t it?---Yes, I agree. All right. So Mr Merchant was involved in that?---Yes. So he was acting dishonestly, wasn’t he, and you knew that?---Yes. And Mr Alqudsi was handing out CDs and he was acting dishonestly, wasn’t he?---Yes. And you knew that?---Yes. So are you suggesting that if you’d found out that Mr Hyland was acting dishonestly that you would have been deeply disappointed in him and might have not kept him on? Are you suggesting that?---Don’t think so. It wouldn’t have mattered to you one bit, would it? Is that right?---Yes. And then Shane Camilleri started?---Yes. And did you become aware that he was handing out the answers too?---Yes, yeah. You see he raised with you the issue of the fact that he was, when he was marking the RPL books the number of answers were identical from book to book, didn’t he?---Yes. And what did you tell him?---Because downstairs they distribute everywhere, I said my, I said you going to come with the same answers. So you told him that that was just the way in which the process was being accepted by you?---By, yes. You sacked Mr Alqudsi in late 2008?---Yes. And that wasn’t because of any moral indignation of having found out that he was handing out CDs, was it?---Yes. It wasn’t of that, was it?---(not transcribable) It wasn’t because you suddenly found out he was handing out CDs, was it?---Mr Alqudsi was working for a different company and there was not available that he’s working for the different company called Barclay.


Called Barclays?---Yeah. And so you sacked him because you found out that he was working for someone else as well as you?---Yes. But nevertheless, despite the fact that you sacked him, you allowed him to keep bringing RPL books into your company for marking?---Yes. Yes, he brought the books, when I sacked him, he brought a lot of books in and the book was left in by the trainers and he was coming to collect the certificates and, yes, he was brining the books also with us. And you were sharing the money that he had obtained?---Yes. Did you ever allow trainers who were not SIR approved to mark your RPL books?---I, I, I saw Mr Dru Hyland give letters from my marking, but he was marking the books, yes. And he was not an approved trainer?---No, no Well, it didn’t really matter, did it because they were just ticking?---Yeah, that’s right, I agree. They weren’t actually reading the answers?---Yeah. It was just a question of ticking the sides of the pages. Is that right?---Yes. So anyone could have done it. And in any event, the answers were all identical because they came off the answer sheets?---Yes, ma’am. So it was really just an exercise in ticking?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) Now, in terms of this issue of people with bad English skills, do you remember a man or remember being approached by a person from another training organisation to train a man who had low English skills, a man called Timmy, sorry the person that approached you was Timmy Brandis, how do you pronounce his name, Brandison?---Tibi. Yes, Tibi?---Yeah. He approached you about a person he knew who had low English skills who wanted a Certificate I, didn’t he?---Yes. And you told him don’t worry about it, we’ll just him - - -?Yes, I did that. And that was in late 2008, wasn’t it?---That’s right, vaguely. Yes. And the man gave you an opal?---He gave me an opal, yeah.


Yes. And you just gave him all the certificates?---Yes. And including a first aid certificate without him doing any training whatsoever?---Yes. Knowing that he would, on the basis of that, gain a provisional security licence?---Yes. And the registry would rely upon the certificates that you had issued in order to give him that provisional, provisional licence. And you knew that those certificates were in fact fraudulent, didn’t you?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, are you finished? MS DAVENPORT: No, I’m just, we’re just about to play something, Commissioner. MS DAVENPORT: Commissioner, I wondered if we could have a short break. We’ve got some technical difficulty in - - - THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Okay. How much longer are you still with this witness? MS DAVENPORT: Probably perhaps up to 30 minutes, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: We’ll take the break, take a short adjournment. SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.00am] THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. You’re still under oath, Mr Moosani. Yes. MS DAVENPORT: Mr Moosani, I’d like you to listen to this series of telephone calls. THE COMMISSIONER: Between when? What date? Oh, I see, the 27th, between, yes. TELEPHONE CALL PLAYED STARTED [11.26] TELEPHONE CALL PLAYED ENDED [11.27] MS DAVENPORT: Now, do you recognise those voices as being the voices of the man you call Tibi and yourself?---Yes.


Thank you. Yes, Commissioner, Exhibit 39 has to be withdrawn. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I’ll make this 39 then. Will that be all right? MS DAVENPORT: If that can be 39. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, this one. MS DAVENPORT: Well, Commissioner, perhaps, there’s a series of telephone calls, perhaps they can all be part of 39. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, all right. Yes. All right. #EXHIBIT – 39 TELEPHONE INTERCEPTS G00233_00_00 ON 27/01/2009 AT 11:53:38 (BRANDUSOIU TO MOOSANI); G00233_00_00 ON 6/02/2009 AT 09:10:12 (NICK TO MOOSANI); G00233_00_00 ON 9/02/2009 AT 10:38:33 (MOOSANI /BRANDUSOIU/NICK); G00233_00_00 ON 29/01/2009 AT 13:49:39 (BRANDUSOIU/ MOOSANI); G00233-00_00 ON 9/02/2009 AT 9:53:25 (MOOSANI/BRANDUSOIU) TELEPHONE CALL PLAYED STARTED [11.28] TELEPHONE CALL PLAYED ENDED [11.29] MS DAVEPORT: And that is a phone call between you and a man, Nick Bosnyak?---That’s right. And the stone he refers to is an opal that he had given to you in return for giving him a Certificate I?---Yes. And a first aid certificate?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: What’s the date of that one? What was the date of that one? 6 February. Okay. Yes, I know that. Yes. MS DAVENPORT: Ready? TELEPHONE CALL PLAYED STARTED [11.29] TELEPHONE CALL PLAYED ENDED [11.31]


MS DAVENPORT: Now that is a conversation between you and Tibi in relation to the man, Bosnyak?---Yeah. And you are telling Tibi that you, he must tell Rick Bosnyak to do the workbook or the answers in his own handwriting. Is that right?---Yes. In case you are audited by VETAB and they pick up the fact that the different handwriting was in the books. Is that right?---Yes. And there’s a reference there to the four assessments. Is that right?---Four assessments, yeah. Yes. And the way the system worked was that after the issue of Certificate I the registry would issue a provisional licence. Is that right?---Yep. And it was the role of the training organisation during that, the next twelve months to carry out four workplace assessments. Is that right?---Yes. So to attend wherever the provisional licence holder was working on four occasions?---Ah hmm. Is that right?---Yes. Unannounced. Is that right?---Yeah. And to assess whether they were properly carrying out their role?---Yes. And if in fact the training organisation informed the registry that at the end of that twelve month period that they had done that and that the, they were competent then they would be issued with an unrestricted licence?---That’s right. Now in terms of the way in which Roger Training Academy operated did they ever carry out workplace assessments?---Yes, we did. Did they carry out four workplace assessments?---Yes, we did. You did?---We did, yeah, the trainers (not transcribable) for the certificates. Well, you see, you give Mr Bosnyak a - - -?---This is for the Certificate I not, not a restricting licence for Certificate II. So are you suggesting that you would give somebody a Certificate I without any training at all and then you would go to the effort of doing four workplace - - -?---Yes, we did. I’m sorry?---We did four - - -


You did?---Yes, (not transcribable) for the certificates. So you always did that, between the issue of Certificate I and Certificate II you always did the four workplace assessments?---Yeah, we did, yeah. Are you sure of that?---Yes, I’m sure about that. Why did you do that?---Because that’s what the (not transcribable) and like every, see like if the people only have a Certificate I they have to go for Certificate II and get the four assessments. But you see it was compulsory then to get Certificate I to actually have 77 hours of face-to-face training wasn’t it?---Yeah. And you didn’t do that?---For the, for the, for the, for the (not transcribable) students, yeah. You didn’t do that with Mr Bosnyak?---Yeah. And a number - - -?---For the (not transcribable) like you have to get, you have to get into the classroom. He didn’t go to the classroom?---Yeah, but after getting his licence and he have to work for twelve months in the, in, in the security - - - In the industry?---Then (not transcribable) then he can come to us or go to the actual work to get their, their licence. During that twelve months are you saying that trainers, let’s use Mr Bosnyak as an example or anyone else who goes a number one certificate, are you suggesting that during that twelve months you would actually, not you but some trainer from Roger would attend?---No. Like he wish to come to Roger, he wish to (not transcribable) RTOs, other companies, like other security company have the RTOs, he can go and get it, he can do his (not transcribable) courses also. It’s not that he have to come to Roger. But if he stayed with Roger are you suggesting that your trainers would attend a workplace on four different occasions to carry out an assessment? ---Yes, like, it depend on the company, some company prefer do different RTOs, (not transcribable) once a particular one has been (not transcribable) Roger Training or like some company (not transcribable) after the student did the Certificate I doesn’t come to us they go to different RTOs. If they stayed with you would you go and do four - - -?---Yes, we did. Sorry?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY)


Did you ever issue a Certificate II without doing the four assessments?---I’m really aware what that one, no. THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry?---I’m not aware about this. MS DAVENPORT: You’re not aware?---Yeah. Yes, as per my knowledge the early trainers have, I was paying the money to go to (not transcribable) assessments, yes. Didn’t you tell Matthew Camilleri not to do workplace assessments?---Well, Matthew Camilleri he went to the, he was going to all the site assessments. And yes, he did the worksite assessments. THE COMMISSIONER: But the question was didn’t you tell him not to do them?---No, what happened like this, sent a letter to the security industry commencing in 2007, some companies are not doing the worksite assessments and - - - The question you were asked is (not transcribable) - - -?---Yes, I’m just, I’m just thinking to - - - - - -Camilleri not to undertake assessments. Yes or no?---Because he (not transcribable) - - - You don’t have to make a speech, yes or no?---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: You did tell him not to do them?---Because, because like - - - THE COMMISSIONER: No. Look, did you tell him not to do them? ---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) MS DAVENPORT: Not why you didn’t - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Just let him answer. Did you tell him not to do them?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) What’s the problem?---I’m just thinking whether I said or not or what, I don’t want to give you wrong answers. Well, what’s the right answer?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) What’s the answer?---Just thinking (not transcribable) You’re saying yes. Do you mean yes?---Yes.


MS DAVENPORT: You told him not to do them because it was costing Roger too much to carry out these assessments wasn’t it?---(not transcribable) Well, why did you tell him not to do it?---Because he want to (not transcribable), he used, he’s the person who started the (not transcribable), he went to (not transcribable) where Camilleri was the first person who was doing the worksite assessment (not transcribable) from Roger. But why did you tell him not to do it?---(not transcribable) THE COMMISSIONER: What?---Like - - - I think it’s suggested to you that it would cost too much was it? MS DAVENPORT: Yes. Too much time taken up and too costly?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) THE COMMISSIONER: What’s the answer?---Yes, I’m just recalling myself here. Yes. MS DAVENPORT: I asked you before about the Certificate I courses and you agreed that, perhaps I’ll take you back. In terms of persons whose grasp of the English language was not very good when I asked you questions about whether you told Paul Lewis that he should keep them in the class. Remember those questions?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) Do you ever remember telling Paul Lewis in relation to people whose English skills were not good that those persons would pay more to pass?---Yes. Yes. And that was the case wasn’t it? If people looked as though they might not be going to pass because of their lack of English skills, they would pay you extra money in order to pass them didn’t they?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: So was the answer yes was it? MS DAVEPORT: Yes. No, I tender those three as part of Exhibit 39, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MS DAVENPORT: Yes. There is another one Commissioner, but it’s, Mr Moosani is not a party to it.


In terms of, you had to obtain your own RPL training didn’t you, in order to retain your certificate?---Yes. And is Portfolio, the firm that undertook your training?---Yes. But there was no training was there?---No. You did nothing?---No. Didn’t fill out any RPL workbooks?---No. Didn’t do anything?---No. You didn’t produce any documents?---No. Just again my security certificates and the licence. And the deal was with Portfolio that they would give you your RPL upgrade and your certificates and you would do theirs. Is that right?---Yeah, they (not transcribable) and Portfolio. But that was the deal wasn’t it?---Yes, definitely. And that had been entered into while Matthew Camilleri was still at Roger? ---Yes. Yes. And in fact that is what happened. You issued certificates for John Murray and Steve Fisher at Portfolio?---Yes, that’s correct. And they issued certificates for you and a number of the trainers at Roger? ---Yes. And no money changed hands?---No. It was just a you do ours and we’ll do yours?---That’s right. And no documentation at all was supplied?---No. And by you to them or by them to you?---I got their evidence. You got their evidence?---Yes. I got (not transcribable) master copies of their photo IDs, you know. But wasn’t that after the certificates were issued?---Yes. Yes. And in fact in terms of yourself, you didn’t in fact supply them with any evidence did you?---That’s right. Agree.


And perhaps if you can, do you remember receiving this email forwarded, it originally come from Matthew Camilleri to Shane Camilleri - - -?---Yes. - - - who sent it to Arlie Merchant who forwarded it to you?---Yeah. And that was a request by Mr - - -?---Fisher. - - - Steve Fisher for the issue of certificates in relation to particular, particular areas of training. Is that correct?---That’s right. And in fact as a result of that did, those certificates were issued to Mr Fisher?---Yeah. That’s Exhibit 33, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: O.K. Now at some stage during 2008 Roger Training Academy employed a compliance officer, is that correct, Mario Gallow?---That’s right, ma’am. You weren’t necessarily required to employ a compliance officer were you?---Yes. Sorry, sorry, can you (not transcribable) again? You weren’t, it wasn’t a requirement of the SIR that you employ a compliance officer. Is that right?---That’s right. We need the - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry?---We need for the company, the compliance officer, yes. MS DAVENPORT: You needed?---We need. THE COMMISSIONER: Who told you you needed it?---Well (not transcribable) because we were not worrying about the compliance issue so we have to get the compliance person in, in to do some compliance work. Who told you to do that?---No one. MS DAVENPORT: You decided to do it?---I decided it. Well, why did you employ a compliance officer when you weren’t complying with anything?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) Was that to give an air of acceptability to what was going on at Roger? ---It’s not, it was not like this, but - - - THE INTERPRETER: - - - but we wanted to try to improve ourselves. THE COMMISSIONER: Wanted to what?


MS DAVENPORT: Improve. THE INTERPRETER: To improve ourselves. This is why we took this decision that we needed this. MS DAVENPORT: But what you did was employ a man of 24. Is that right, Mr Gallow is 24?---Yep. Had no qualifications in the compliance area?---He has the qualifications. What’s the qualification Mr Gallow has in the compliance area?---He has previous experience with the, with the colleges. In compliance?---Yes. He’s got no, I suggest to that he has, that he had no experience in compliance and he had no qualifications that would have allowed him to carry out that job. He had no qualifications did he?---For the compliance, no. No. THE COMMISSIONER: So why did you employ him?---Because he was working for the, he was (not transcribable) manager, manager for the other company. MS DAVENPORT: What other company?---The company called (not transcribable) It is based in Melbourne. And I was looking for the, the compliance officer, he did apply for the job. THE COMMISSIONER: Why did you need, was this to persuade one of the authorities that you were undertaking your functions properly. Is that why you employed a compliance officer?---Yes. Would the be VETAB or - - -?---For, for both the bodies, sir. VETAB and - - -? MS DAVENPORT? SAR.---SAR. THE COMMISSIONER: So you employed one to make them think that you were carrying out your functions properly. Is that right?---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: But you employed him at a time when workbook answers were handed out?---Sorry?


You employed him at a time when workbook answers were being handed out over the counter?---Yes. Over the counter, yes. And where the disc prepared by Mr Alqudsi was being given to persons that he was (not transcribable)?---(not transcribable) wasn’t available (not transcribable) Sorry?---Maybe he doesn’t (not transcribable) Mr Alqudsi even. But Mr Gallow became aware that the answer books were being handed out was he?---Yeah, I’m not really sure about that one. No. You’re not really sure?---No. Where did he work?---Sorry? Where did he physically work in the office?---Sometime, like mostly he was sitting in my office. With Mr Merchant?---Yeah. We were sitting there, the three of us were in the office. Well, it wouldn’t of taken him very long to work out that Mr Merchant was handing out copies of the answer book would it?---That’s right. I agree in that point, yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, he’s told me this in order to try and placate people who may be testing you. MS DAVENPORT: And in fact you were keen for VETAB to think that if there was anything wrong in the way in which Roger was operating that you knew nothing about it weren’t you?---Sorry, can you (not transcribable) again? You were very keen to ensure that if any questions were raised by VETAB, VETAB would form the view that you knew nothing about what was going on there weren’t you?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) THE COMMISSIONER: Just translate. Yes. THE INTERPRETER: (not transcribable) I was aware. THE COMMISSIONER: I was aware of it. Had you been audited by VETAB or SIR or anybody?---Yes. We have VETAB. VETAB. And had you been given instructions by VETAB about how you were – I’m sorry, what of that audit?---Like a DAST audit.


A what audit?---A DAST audit. They come to our, on site. D-A-S-T audit. Yes. And what were the complaints made by VETAB? ---Like, many, many was non-compliance, even non-compliance. These are complaint by - - -?---It was non-compliance by the - - - THE INTERPRETER: Compliance. THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, non-compliance?---Yes. What was the non-compliance?---All the paperwork problems and - - - For what?--- - - - and (not transcribable) problems. What did you do wrong so far as VETAB was concerned that VETAB told you about?---They don’t say anything. They don’t say, like they didn’t say anything like this. I thought you’d told me that VETAB had said you had compliance problems?---This compliance problem was there. Yes. Well, what were they?---Like, the paperwork with the students files problems and there are missing documents on the students files. What sort of missing documents?---Like enrolment forms and - - - What?---Enrolment forms. Enrolment forms. What else?---And the training material was not good enough. The training material is not enough?---The training assessments like (not transcribable) What did they say was wrong with it?---Like, it was not proper (not transcribable) with the, in the, in the security industry (not transcribable). You mean you were giving training that was less than desired. Is that - - -? ---No. Not like this, like, I don’t have a – I can’t - - - Well, what was it that VETAB told you that caused you to employ a compliance officer? To give the impression, I have to say, of you is admitted, that you were complying. What was it?---VETAB didn’t say anything about the compliance officer. But it put it for myself, like to make everything proper.


What did VETAB tell you was your non-compliance?---They, they, they advised me to discontinue the – they, they’ve given us something to fix but they, they (not transcribable) close the business like. When did they tell you to close the business?---It was the last - it happened in 2008. Was that the only time you’d been audited by VETAB?---And before also we were audited. And when was the time before?---2007. And what were you told then?---We fixed the problems and we sent to the - - - What was the result of the audit in 2007?---It’s still, it’s still pending. It was still non-compliance, it was non-compliance properly. What were you not complying with?---The compliance with the 1G licence. For the what?---For 1G. 1D?---1G. T?---G, for gun. THE INTERPRETER: G for gun. THE COMMISSIONER: D for dogs? THE INTERPRETER: G for gun. THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, G for gun?---Yeah. And that was not – that was non-compliance for us and our assessment was not good. So what did VETAB do about that?---We rectified and we sent. They sent a report to us to fix these problems. And did they come back to check up?---We have to send it to them, by post. And did they come back to check?---No. Well, the next time they came was in 2008. Is that right?---Yes, that’s right. I don’t know what, I suppose get this from VETAB. Yes. MS DAVENPORT: In fact they came - in February of 2009 they were threatening to cancel your licence because of non-compliance, weren’t they?


---Yes. And do you remember a round table discussion between you, Ali Merchant and Mr Gallow about how you were going to show VETAB that in fact you should still be able to keep your licence?---We tried, yes. And it was really a conversation in which you were going to produce more false documents to try and make VETAB think that you were in fact complying. Is that right?---No false documents, like make the documents like. Well, making documents to add to the files. You knew that there was probably going to be another audit by VETAB fairly soon, didn’t you? ---Yes. And you were talking with Mr Merchant and Mr Gallow about how you could make the documents look as though they were genuine?---Genuine with the policy procedures or - - - Genuine in the sense that all the documents would be on each file that were necessary to comply with the requirements of the SIR? You see, you kept the original documents, didn’t you?---Yes. And they were kept at a Kennards storage facility?---That’s right, yes. So what you did was, in terms of the RPL books, you would just issue a certificate saying that the person was able to satisfy or had passed the questions and answers in the RPL books. Is that right?---Yes. They then had to have the accompanying documents that they would sent to VETAB?---Yes. Sorry, to SIR?---SIR. But what about the standard operating procedures; did they go to SIR or did you keep those?---We just keep it in the files. It was kept in the files?---Not my file, like the student files. The students files, which were kept - - -?---Yes. - - - by Roger at the Kennard storage facility. Is that right?---That’s right, yeah. And the standard operating procedures were part of the documentation that you had to, or that Roger had to look at in order to say that somebody should be certified. Is that right?---That’s right, yeah.


THE COMMISSIONER: You’ve told me that they had – did VETAB have a look at the questions and answers that had been handed in?---Yeah. And did VETAB ever say to you these look as though they’re the same answers?---Yes, they did, yeah. They told you that, did they?---Yes, they said that. When did they tell you that?---When they came and did the audit in November. 2008?---2008. So they told you that - - -?---Yes. - - - it appeared to them - - -?---Yes. - - - that you were, that all the answers were the same?---Yeah. Then what did they tell you would flow from that?---Well, they sent the compliance (not transcribable) and after that we have to give them the explanations what’s happened but in the meantime that I can (not transcribable). Did that include telling you that you could no longer use model answers? ---Yes. You sure about that?---No, he didn’t say it like this, no. Sorry?---He didn’t say it like this. They didn’t say that?---No. But so as you were aware they knew that you were providing - - -?---Yes. - - - standard model answers?---Yes. Well, did VETAB say there’s anything wrong with that or it was okay or what?---They said, they said not okay. Not okay. MS DAVENPORT: You see, one of the other things they took up with you was that the way in which the books were being marked, that they were just being ticked?---Of course, yes, I agree. And that there were no summaries of the marking of the books?---(not transcribable).


THE COMMISSIONER: Well, when was the authority cancelled? MS DAVENPORT: It wasn’t cancelled until the 9th of March, Commissioner but in February there was a letter sent - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Were they, in the meantime, continuing to hand out these forms of training - - - MS DAVENPORT: Yes. Well, no, because the RPL procedure, the cut off point was 7th of January so after that there was no more RPL. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, up until the 7th of January - - - MS DAVENPORT: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Oh well, we’ll hear from VETAB, I suppose, about this. Yes. MS DAVENPORT: I’m told you still could RPL after that but the majority had done it before. All right. In terms of – you were present in court the other day when Mr Merchant was asked some questions about a man called Pradeep Roy?---Yes, I did, yeah. This is exhibit 21, Commissioner. He was someone with whom you had been dealing? Is that right?---Yes. He was a friend of yours?---Yes. And you had agreed to give him the disc with the answers on it?---Not a disc, it is a hard copy, yes. Well, perhaps you could listen to this. TELEPHONE INTERCEPT PLAYED [12.00] TELEPHONE INTERCEPT ENDED [12.02] MS DAVENPORT: See, isn’t Mr Merchant telling, sorry isn’t Mr Pradeep Roy talking about having a disc ready on Saturday? THE COMMISSIONER: This is a conversation between Roy and Merchant, yeah. MS DAVENPORT: Yes. Well, was there, was there a disc that Mr Merchant had to your knowledge available to give out to people, a disc of answers?---Yes.


Yes. You see you heard, you heard evidence yesterday - - -?---Yes. - - - that there in fact was a disc list from Mr Alqudsi, that they’d seen the disc of his answers sitting on Mr Merchant’s desk, so - - -?---That disc was what I usually have the Certificate II. This is Certificate I. So these were the answers to Certificate I that Mr Roy was seeking?---That’s right, yes. In what form were the answers to Certificate I? In hard copy?---In hard copy. So hard copy Certificate I, Certificate II was in a disc form. Is that right?---Yes, yes. Did Roy pay you any money for this?---No. But because he was a friend?---Yeah, yeah. Now, I want to take you to the first aid certificates and your relationship with Mr Razak?---Yes. You heard Mr Razak give evidence before the Commission yesterday about the memorandum of understanding?---Yes. All right. And you also saw him shown certificates - - -?---Yes. - - - that bore numbers in the fourteen thousands, 1-4-4-5-4 and I think 1-4-4-5-5. And he said that they were not numbers that were issued by him. Do you remember that evidence?---Yes, I saw the evidence but - - - Yes. Well, was it the case that Roger Training Academy started issuing first aid certificates outside those that were given to it by Mr Razak?---Yes, well, whenever we did some tables and emails to him or sometime he give them (not transcribable). But you see, his evidence before the Commission was that he issued two batches, one batch 2,000 to 2,500 and the second batch, 2,500 to 3,000 and we saw the emails that acknowledged those numbers. Is that right?---That’s right, thank you. He says he got paid for the first batch but never got paid for the second?---He got paid the whole, whole figure kept for the two batches also, like, they were taking money. Well, how do you account for the fact that there were numbers on those two certificates that seemed to be outside that range of numbers, that is in the fourteen thousands?---Can you please repeat the question if you don’t mind.


Well, perhaps I could show them to you? THE COMMISSIONER: What’s that, exhibit what? MS DAVENPORT: Exhibit 18, I think, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, is that the one? MS DAVENPORT: Yes, that’s one. See the number on it? THE COMMISSIONER: 14, 554. MS DAVENPORT: Yes, ‘554. And the second one is 14,555. Now, they are first aid certificates that were issued and I think we were present in court when we saw the footage of those certificates being printed off by Mr Merchant in his office and given and to Michael Farah?---Yeah. So they were being printed off by him with those numbers on them. Now, what I’m asking you is where did those numbers come from?---They just, (not transcribable) all right but - - - Well, is it the fact that Roger Training Academy decided to bypass Mr Razak and to start printing up certificates that borne numbers that weren’t allocated by him?---If, if (not transcribable) sometimes we accept them, we, we, we, we tell them, look we accept this amount and he, then he continues from that. I’m sorry?---Like, sometime, like if I would, will increase the number and we have to inform him but this time we didn’t inform him. You didn’t inform him?---We didn’t inform him. THE COMMISSIONER: But he sent his, (not transcribable) number before he’s got it, did he say. MR DAILLY: Is that what you mean? THE COMMISSIONER: That is the number before it’s been allocated?---No, sometime what happened, they give, say, they give, they allocate the number, sometime they already exit that number and then we inform him of the - - - You’ve used this number?---Yeah, but we didn’t inform for this number. MS DAVENPORT: Well, how many others did you not inform him about?---Only this one’s what, not (not transcribable)


THE COMMISSIONER: I have to say it seems to be highly improbable even by the elastic standards that you applied to the running of this business, Mr Moosani. What you’re saying is that you put in a number, you make up a number and then you tell someone you’ve made up that number and then what happens?---Then you have to pay the money to him. There’s no forfeit for that number. MS DAVENPORT: But why? THE COMMISSIONER: What if he’s given it to someone else? MS DAVENPORT: Isn’t it a way really of bypassing having pay him the money, so that you could too keep the whole $100 and not give him any, isn’t it?---Yes. Yes. Because the running of Roger was really all about the money, wasn’t it?---Yes. It had nothing to do with any quality of training, did it?---We did the training, yes, but not quality training, I agree. Well, you did the training to a very small proportion of people to whom you handed certificates, didn’t you?---Yes. And really you didn’t or do you agree with the proposition that you didn’t care how the trainers carried out the training provided the money came into Roger?---Yes. And just getting to that money, Mr Moosani, in terms of the money that was obtained by you, not Roger but by you personally, from the records of your accounts between in 2008 and 2009 when your account, the account in the name of you and your wife, there was an amount of $1.3 million deposited, wasn’t there?---Maybe, yes. Maybe, yes?---The amount, I’m not aware of it. You’re not aware of it?---No, I’m aware about it, yes, I agree, but - - - And all that income - - - THE COMMISSIONER: But what?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY) MS DAVENPORT: And that was just you and your wife, that was your account, nothing to do with, that’s nothing to do with Roger Training Academy’s account, is it?---No.


MS DAVENPORT: And that was placed in there because most of the people who came to Roger Training Academy paid you in cash, didn’t they?---Yes, but we have, yes. And most of the money that was paid by those people never went through the books of Roger Training Academy, did it?---Some yes, some not. But there was $1.3 million that was put into your account, your personal account in 2008 and 2009, that came almost exclusively from money that you were given as a result of your interest in Roger Training Academy, didn’t it?---Yes. Your wife had, I think, a grocery store?---Yes. My wife did have a store. But that accounted for a small income, didn’t it?---Yes. Commissioner, there’s been an analysis of Mr Moosani’s financial affairs that is contained in a folder. It is of his financial affairs alone, not Roger Training Academy. And then also, Commissioner, in relation to some previous evidence given by Mr Moosani which, Commissioner, you would have to - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Lift the suppression order. MS DAVENPORT: - - - lift the suppression order on. THE COMMISSIONER: What was the date of that evidence? MS DAVENPORT: The date of that, Commissioner, was the 26th of March, 2009. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. The suppression order made on the 26trh of March, 2009 when Mr Moosani attended a compulsory examination will be lifted. MS DAVENPORT: Now, in relation to the money that you were - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Have you seen this, Mr Dailly? MR DAILLY: The evidence of the 26th of March? I’ve seen a summary of the evidence produced by counsel who attended that hearing. MS DAVENPORT: You haven’t had a copy of the - - - MR DAILLY: But not the actual evidence itself from the Commission, no. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you better have a look at it.


MS DAVENPORT: And, Commissioner, perhaps my friend should be given a copy of this folder so that he can obtain some instructions. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. So what do you say on the proper analysis of the figures those revealed? MS DAVENPORT: That there was $1.3 million deposited in an account in the name of Mr Moosani and his wife in 2008 and 2009. THE COMMISSIONER: And that most of that came from - - - MS DAVENPORT: There’s a very small exception which could be attributable to Mrs Moosani’s business, all of that money came from Roger Training Academy. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I thought he’d agreed to that. MS DAVENPORT: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: You’ve agreed with that, haven’t you?---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: Yes. And in fact during 2008 and 2009, it wasn’t until September 2008 that in fact your wife purchased that grocer shop. Is that correct?---In October. The Village Grocer Shop?---Yeah (not transcribable). And during 2008 you also purchased a property which was paid off by February 2009, that is the mortgage was paid off by 2009?---Yes (not transcribable). And in January of 2009 you bought a Toyota Kluger that you paid $54,500. THE COMMISSIONER: Is this out of the $1.3 million? MS DAVENPORT: Yes?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: How much of that $1.3 million do you say was attributable to your wife’s grocery business? MS DAVENPORT: There is a breakdown in there, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, where is it? Well, tell him and put it to him and see whether he agrees with it. MS DAVENPORT: Four per cent, Commissioner.


THE COMMISSIONER: What is said to you, Mr Moosani, you may want time to think about this but tell me if you do or don’t or if you agree with it. You’ve said of that $1.3 million that went into your bank account, about four per cent at the most was attributable to your wife’s grocery business? ---Yes. And, well, you can see that. 80 per cent - - ?---From Roger. - - - from Roger?---Yes. Well, you say not including the account of Roger that says? MS DAVENPORT: Yes. That’s not including the account of Roger. This is his private account. THE COMMISSIONER: You understand?---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: You see, at the private hearing you told the Commission that you took only a $75,000 salary from Roger each year. Is that right?---That’s right. Well, where did the rest of the money come from?---From the RPLs and - - - From the cash that was being paid?---Yeah. The cash that was being paid by people that came in to do the RPLs? THE COMMISSIONER: And this is the RPL, is that also the RSA and the first aid?---Yes. Every other one?---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: So the money that Mr Merchant was being paid, for example, by Mr Fallow, the $800 that he paid for the eight certificates, that would have been handed to you?---Yes. And that would have been part of the money that was placed into your account?---Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: It seems to represent a lot of certificates, doesn’t it? MS DAVENPORT: In 2008 and 2009 was the majority of the work being done at Roger work associated with the RPL processes?---Yes. Were you still conducting certificate I courses?---Yes.


Approximately what proportion of the business in that period - - -?---This was not good. Not good?---No. Okay. So a very small proportion of the - - -?---(not transcribable) then when the RPL started that the business was growing. When the RPL started – I’m sorry?---When the, when the 2007 started for RPLs then it was – it was – the money was rising. The money was rising because of the RPL process?---Yes. But what I’m asking you is that as at 2008, particularly the latter half of 2008, what proportion of business was there that was certificate I? Very little or - - -?---Very little. Very little. Were you paying commissions to man – that is, were you or Roger Training Academy paying commissions to manpower companies? ---Yes. For referring students to Roger?---Yes. Did you pay a commission to Vivek Raghavan in relation to SIS?---Please give me time for think. I’m sorry? THE COMMISSIONER: Give him some time?---Just give me one minute. Yes, we did. MS DAVENPORT: To Vivek?---Yeah. And were you paying Vivek Raghavan also to produce false references for persons seeking RPL through Roger?---I’ll just come back again with your previous one. He was not getting the commission from the students but he was getting, he was paid for the, for the documents. I’m sorry?---Sorry. I was thinking (not transcribable). I was giving him money, like he was paying me and I was giving a commission to Mr Raghavan for the, for the documents, for the false documents. You were giving him money for him to produce false documents?---Yes. What about the students that he was referring - - -?---No. That time I was not giving any money to him.


But you were giving him money for producing false employment records, employment documents for students?---Yes. Do you know approximately how many students you gave false employment documents to?--- Mr Merchant (not transcribable) so I would not (not transcribable). And what sort of time are we talking about, what part of 2008 or - - -? ---2008, yeah. Late 2008 or the whole of 2008?---Late of 2008. And what about, did any other manpower companies give Roger false employment references?---Yes. Who were they?---Harry Singh and Rashval Singh. THE INTERPRETER: Harry Singh and Rashval Singh. MS DAVENPORT: Harry Singh and Rashval Singh?---Yes. And what was their company?---I don’t know their company name. Were there any manpower companies that you were paying a commission to so that they would refer students to Roger?---Yes. Who was that?---One was APS. APS, yes?---Zipcom. Zipcom?---Yes. (not transcribable) but these are companies that I remember at the moment but yes, we did. And in fact it was after the execution of the search warrant on the 9th of March, this year - - -?---Yes. You caused Ali Merchant - - -?---I did. - - - to contact - - -?---Yes. - - - APS and to tell them to get rid of their records, did you? Or to get ride of the certificates that they had there?---Yes. So the documents that they had that might have linked them to any fraudulent conduct in association with Roger Training. Is that right?---Yes. You told him to tell them to get rid of everything off their computer?---Yes, because, yes, because it was September (not transcribable)


Is that the false references?---Yes. And you told him to, you told Ali to contact him and tell him that you had been raided?---Yes. And that he should get rid of anything on his computers that might be found by the ICAC?---Yes. And you knew at that stage that the ICAC was investigating Roger Training Academy?---Yes. And you knew that by telling Mr Merchant to do that you were attempting to hinder that investigation. Is that right? Telling somebody to get rid of documentation that may have implicated them?---(not transcribable) Yes. Who is the person at APS that you told Mr Merchant to ring?---Fahim. Fahim?---Yeah. Commission, subject to tendering those documents which perhaps my friend should have a look at. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that’s the evidence (not transcribable) Well, apart from that, Mr Dailly, I’ll allow you to have a look at that and see whether you want to say anything about that. MR DAILLY: Thank you, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: But does anyone want to ask Mr Moosani any questions outside any questions you might want to ask, Mr Dailly? No? All right. Well, you may step down, Mr Moosani, you’re not excused because you may have to go back into the witness box. In any event you may have to, you’ll probably want to confer with your counsel. THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.21] MS DAVENPORT: Yes, I call Nick Bosnyak. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Bosnyak? MS DAVENPORT: Yes. There is a Croatian interpreter required for Mr Bosnyak, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Bosnyak.

27/08/2009 344 T E08/2167

MS DAVENPORT: He’s the interpreter, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. You need an interpreter? All right. What is your full name, Interpreter? THE INTERPRETER: It’s Marina Kater, K-A-T-E-R. THE COMMISSIONER: And you are a qualified interpreter? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. And I work (not transcribable) THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. And his (not transcribable) THE INTERPRETER: Croatian. THE COMMISSIONER: Croatian. Croatian. So you can, okay. So you have to take an oath to interpret. How do you wish to take that oath? THE INTERPRETER: I take an affirmation. THE COMMISSIONER: Affirmation. MARINA KATER, INTERPRETER, affirmed [12.22] THE COMMISSIONER: Now you might interpret this to Mr Bosnyak. Mr Bosnyak, you have been summoned to appear here to give evidence and I have to tell you that you are bound to answer truthfully all questions asked of you. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: And it’s a serious criminal offence not to do so. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: I think I’ll skip all this about the objection and just make the declaration I think, it’s the easiest around it. You’re appearing are you? MR TOSEVIC: Yes, I do. THE COMMISSIONER: Are you happy with me doing it that way? MR TOSEVIC: Yes.

27/08/2009 345 T E08/2167

THE COMMISSIONER: I mean I can go through it all, I know that you have but by the time it goes through interpreters and that you never know what, all right. I will declare, you can interpret this. I declare that all answers given by you, questions asked of you and requests made of you - - - THE INTERPRETER: Yep. THE COMMISSIONER: - - - are deeded to be subject to your objection. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: And that means that the questions and answers and requests cannot be used in any other proceedings that could be taken against you criminal, civil or disciplinary however if you are charged with the offence of not telling the truth the questions or answers will be used against you. All right. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: You have to take an oath to tell the truth. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Do you want to take an oath on a Bible or other holy book? THE INTERPRETER: On a Bible.

27/08/2009 BOSNYAK 346 T E08/2167 (DAVENPORT)

<NICK BOSNYAK, sworn [12.24] THE INTERPRETER: I do. THE WITNESS: I do. MS DAVENPORT: Thank you, Commissioner. Would you please tell the Commission your full name?---I am Nick Bosnyak. And, Mr Bosnyak, in March of 2008 did you go to the Roger Training Academy in Auburn to obtain a security certificate?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: ---Yes, I did. MS DAVENPORT: And was it a man called Tibi Brandusoiu, I’m sorry, I have probably the wrong pronunciation. Did he, was he the person who introduced you to Roger Training Academy?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: ---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And when, did you speak to a person there called Andy?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: ---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And did Tibi tell you that if you paid some money you would be given a Certificate I which would enable you to work in the security industry?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: ---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And were you given some material that was a series of questions?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: ---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And you were also given some other material that contained the answers to the questions?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: ---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And were they given to you by Andy Moosani? ---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: ---Yes.


MS DAVENPORT: And in return for that did you give Mr Moosani an opal? THE INTERPRETER: ---A what? MS DAVENPORT: An opal?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: ---Yes, I did. MS DAVENPORT: Now after being given the questions and the answers - that opal you gave Mr Moosani was worth about $4,000. Is that right?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: ---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And that was for the course material. Is that right?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And so then he would issue you with a certificate and you would then be able to get a provisional security industry licence?---Yeah, correct. THE INTERPRETER: Yes, correct. MS DAVENPORT: Now did you find out after you had been given the - why did you want the licence, I’m sorry? THE INTERPRETER: My, some of my colleagues or friends said to me that because of my age I wasn’t able to get a licence, a certificate and a licence like that and I felt like I had to do it so that I could get it. MS DAVENPORT: All right. THE COMMISSIONER: What did you want to do with it? THE INTERPRETER: ---Say if I was offered a job, a part-time job for a few hours to work for a person I would’ve then taken up a job like that. THE COMMISSIONER: You had an offer? THE INTERPRETER: ---No, I didn’t. MS DAVENPORT: And you’d never worked in the security industry before?---No. THE INTERPRETER: ---No.


MS DAVENPORT: So having been given the books and the answers you’ve heard played some conversations on the telephone that you had with Mr Moosani. Do you agree that you rang Mr Moosani and told him that you were having difficulty understanding - the people you were talking to were having difficulty understanding what was in the book? THE INTERPRETER: ---I did not understand your question. MS DAVENPORT: Did you, you were present in the Commission when a phone call was played between you and Mr Moosani?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: ---Yes. MS DAVENPORT: In which you told him that you were unhappy that you had to fill out the answers to the questions?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. Correct. MS DAVENPORT: And you complained that you had shown that book and the answers to other people in the industry and even they didn’t think that they could fill that out for you?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Correct. MS DAVENPORT: And basically you said, you promised to give me the licence and if you can’t give me the licence I want my stone back?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And did you, after that phone call to, and I think at the end of that Mr Moosani agreed that you could come in on Monday and he would give you your stone back?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And then I think after that did you have a conversation with Tibi about getting your licence?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yeah. MS DAVENPORT: Because you didn’t get your stone back you got a licence didn’t you? THE INTERPRETER:---Yes, I got the licence. MS DAVENPORT: And could you listen please to this telephone call.


TELEPHONE CALL PLAYED STARTED [12.31] TELEPHONE CALL PLAYED ENDED [12.35] THE COMMISSIONER: Did you understand that?---Yeah, yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yes, I did. MS DAVENPORT: That was a three way conversation wasn’t it? You were in Andy Moosani’s office and you rang Tibi?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yeah. MS DAVENPORT: And in part of the conversation you talked to Tibi and then you handed the phone to Mr Moosani and he talked to Tibi?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yeah. MS DAVENPORT: And in fact you got a first aid certificate and a Responsible Service of Alcohol certificate didn’t you?---Yeah. Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yeah, I got that. Yeah. MS DAVENPORT: Did you have to pay extra for those?---No. THE INTERPRETER: No. MS DAVENPORT: No. So, that was included in the opal that you’d give Mr Moosani?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yeah. MS DAVENPORT: Did you do any work at all to obtain the Certificate I apart from copying the answers?---No. THE INTERPRETER: No. MS DAVENPORT: Did somebody help you copy the answers in the book or did you do it yourself? THE INTERPRETER:---A friend of mine did. MS DAVENPORT: After you got your Certificate I did you ever do any work in the industry?---No. THE INTERPRETER: No.


MS DAVENPORT: Did you get any change from Mr Moosani out of your $4,000 opal?---No. THE INTERPRETER: No. MS DAVENPORT: You understood that that’s, you did present that certificate that you got from Mr Moosani to the Registry did you, that you’ve got a licence?---Yes. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And you knew that it was a false certificate because you hadn’t done the work?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER:---Yes, I did. MS DAVENPORT: And you knew the Registry would be deceived into believing that that was a true certificate? THE INTERPRETER:---Well, I did not know. MS DAVENPORT: But you knew that, you knew didn’t you that in order to get a, a security industry licence you had to present a first aid certificate and a certificate saying that you had passed the level 1? THE INTERPRETER:---Well, I didn’t know. MS DAVENPORT: Well, when you got the certificate from Roger Training Academy, the Certificate I and you also got the first aid certificate, you presented them to the Registry didn’t you?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. MS DAVENPORT: And the reason for you getting them was so that you could take them to the Registry and get a provisional licence to work as a security officer?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yeah. MS DAVENPORT: And you knew that if you didn’t have those two things you wouldn’t get that licence?---Yeah. THE INTERPRETER: Yeah. MS DAVENPORT: And you knew that, you knew when you presented them to the Registry that they were false documents because you hadn’t done the work necessary to get them?


THE INTERPRETER:---Yes, and I’m very sorry for that. MS DAVENPORT: And you knew that the Registry would look at them and by looking at them believe that you had done the work? THE INTERPRETER:---Yes, and I do apologise for doing that. And I’m very sorry for doing that. MS DAVENPORT: Yes, I have no further questions, thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Anyone want to ask Mr Bosnyak any questions? You may step down, Mr Bosnyak and you are excused from further attendance and thank you for coming. THE WITNESS EXCUSED [12.40 pm] THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MS DAVENPORT: I’m sorry, Commissioner, I didn’t tender that last call. Perhaps it should be made - - - THE COMMISSIONER: That call was tendered before. MS DAVENPORT: No, it wasn’t, Commissioner. I tendered the others. I remember I said there was an extra call but I couldn’t tender it through, I didn’t tender it through Mr Moosani but it is part of that same series. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, it could have been tendered in either one, I suppose. MS DAVENPORT: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I’ll actually add it to exhibit 39. MS DAVENPORT: Thank you, Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MS DAVENPORT: Commissioner, I call Tibi Brandusoiu I’m not sure if I’m pronouncing his name correctly but - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Is he disputing all this or not? MS DAVENPORT: I don’t know, Commissioner.

27/08/2009 352 T E08/2167

THE COMMISSIONER: Has he been interviewed? MS DAVENPORT: No, he hasn’t. He has not made himself available. I don’t know whether, Commissioner, you wish to have an adjournment so he can be spoken to. THE COMMISSIONER: I think I will, just for, I mean, everybody else has agreed to this. MS DAVENPORT: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: The likelihood of him not agreeing to it would be, anyway, that’s the way to ask him, and if he agrees with it, that can be admitted and we’ll move on from there. I’ll take a short adjournment. SHORT ADJOURNMENT 12.41 pm] THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I thought this might be shortened, but I don’t think it can be. All right. Are you calling Mr Brandusoiu? MS DAVENPORT: Tibi Brandusoiu. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Brandusoiu, will you step forward, please. Are you represented? MR BRANDUSOIU: No. THE COMMISSIONER: No. Take a seat there. Mr Brandusoiu, under this legislation you are to answer and answer truthfully all questions asked of you and it’s a serious criminal offence for you not to tell the truth to questions asked. You may object to answering questions, but whether you object, you still have to answer the questions for the purpose of the objection, being allowed to object is that the questions and answers could not be used in any later criminal or disciplinary or civil proceedings. The exception to that is of course if you’re charged with not telling the truth here or the questions and the answers will be used - - -?---Yes. - - - because they’ll be the basis of the charge. Now you have to take an oath to tell the truth. Do you wish to take an oath on the bible or do you wish to affirm or some other some other way? MR BRANDUSOIU: The bible. The bible. I just want to, I just spoke with my solicitor and he told me to ask for a certificate. THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, he needs a section 38 does he?

27/08/2009 353 T E08/2167

MR BRANDUSOIU: Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I’ll do that.

27/08/2009 BRANDUSIOU 354 T E08/2167 (DAVENPORT)

<TIBBERIU BRANDUSOIU, sworn; [12.55] THE COMMISSIONER: Pursuant to section 38, I declare that all questions asked of this witness or the answers given and all requests made shall be deemed to be subject to his objection and hence there is no need for him to object to any particular question asked, answer given or request made. Do you understand that?---Yes. And also you’ve got to remember this, it means you don’t have to apply your mind to whether you can object or not, but it’s assumed you, but if you are charged with the offence of not telling the truth to this Commission, the questions and the answers will be used in criminal proceedings. And not to tell the truth carries a very heavy criminal gaol penalty. Yes. MS DAVENPORT: Could you please tell the Commission your full name? ---Tiberiu Brandusoiu. And that is spelt T-I-B-E-R-I-U Brandusoiu, B-R-A-N-D-U-S-O-I-U. Is that right?---That’s correct. And are you involved, and in fact is your wife the licence holder of a company called T & B Corporate Security Services?---Used to be. Used to be. In 2007 and 2008 was that the case?---Yes. And up until the beginning of 2009?---Yes. Did you work for that company?---Yes. And have you worked in the security industry?---Yes. Are you aware of the process that was required in 2008, 2007, 2008 and 2009 of Recognition of Prior Learning?---Yes. And that all persons holding security licences were required to go through that?---That’s correct. And you’re also aware of the process of the issue of Certificates I, that is provisional certificates to persons who were entering the security industry. Is that right?---Yes. How did you come to meet Mr Bosnyak?---He came one day with another friend of his. Actually that person was working for me, was working for me.


All right. And I think you’re Romanian. Is that correct?---Yes. And Mr Bosnyak is Croatian?---I don’t know. Well, in any event, when you spoke to him you used English?---That’s correct. You didn’t have a common language other then English. Is that correct?---(NO AUDIBLE REPLY). And were you told that Mr Bosnyak wanted to obtain a security licence? ---Can you please repeat. I didn’t understand the question. THE COMMISSIONER: Were you told that Mr Bosnyak wanted to obtain a security licence?---By who? MS DAVENPORT: By him or by the man who (not transcribable) to you? THE COMMISSIONER: Anyone.---He came together with his friend and he said he wants to do a security course. MS DAVENPORT: Okay. THE COMMISSIONER: He wants to do what?---A security course. All right. MS DAVENPORT: And did you ring up Andy Moosani and ask if he would look after Mr Bosnyak and assist him in obtaining a Certificate I? ---No. You didn’t ring him up?---No. You’ve heard all the phone calls played haven’t you?---Yes, I have. Didn’t you ring him up on 27 January, 2009 and say that you had a friend, Nick, who wanted to do the course, but was not very good in English? ---That’s when Nick already went to him. I did not ring Andy Moosani on Nick’s behalf. And he was to - - -?---(not transcribable) Moosani? MS DAVENPORT: Andy Moosani. THE COMMISSIONER: Andy Moosani.---I ring after Nick came back to me and he said, you know, to ring Andy. All right.


MS DAVENPORT: Look, you said in that conversation, I’m going to send him in now and Moosani tells you to send him in. Will you listen to it, please. THE COMMISSIONER: This is Exhibit, I think its part of - - - MS DAVENPORT: It’s part of Exhibit 39, Commissioner. It was the first part. THE COMMISSIONER: Just listen to this phone call. TELEPHONE CALL PLAYED STARTED [12.59pm] TELEPHONE CALLED PLAYED ENDED [1.00pm] THE COMMISSIONER: That’s the conversation you had with Mr Moosani?---Yeah. MS DAVENPORT: And Mr Bosnyak?---Yes. Mr Bosnyak was in Mr Moosani’s office?---Yes. And you were talking to both of them?---Yes. And you were explaining to Mr Bosnyak, weren’t you, that all he had to do was copy the answers into the book and he would get the certificate? ---That’s what I said. Yes. And you were telling Mr Moosani to give him the first aid certificate and the responsible service of alcohol certificate?---Yes. Because Nick Bosnyak came to me and said he doesn’t have any papers from him so he can’t lodge his papers. But he hadn’t done any courses, had he?---I don’t know. You knew he hadn’t done any courses though, didn’t you?---No, I don’t know. Well, why are you telling him to copy the answers?---I didn’t see Mr Bosnyak after he left my - - - THE COMMISSIONER: Why are you telling him to copy the answers? ---Because Andy Moosani told me he would give him all the paperwork what is necessary.


All right. I’ll just remind you of two things, Mr Brandusoiu. The first one is that if a person in the course of this inquiry, that is a person against whom a serious allegation is made and a serious allegation is being made against you, that person is an affected person and I am bound to refer this matter for consideration to the Director of Public Prosecution. You understand that? ---Yes. I have no doubt you have been told that while you sit here today in court because you’ve got the objection that I’ve given you cannot be used against you but I’ll just read out the section that you are exposed to at the present time. Section 87 says a person who at a compulsory examination or public inquiry gives evidence that is false or misleading in a material particular knowing it to be false or misleading is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to punishment of five years. Now, I’m just reminding you about that, Mr Brandusoiu. Do you still adhere to the answers you have given or do you want to qualify them?---Which answers? The answers you’ve just given here today?---I gave all the answers what I know. All right. Well, I’ve warned you. You. MS DAVENPORT: I have no further questions in relation to this topic but there are other issues in relation to this witness that relate to STAT which we’re starting on Monday. So I’d ask that he not be excused from his - - - THE COMMISSIONER: No. You can step down here today. You’re not excused from further attendance. You will have to come back to this Commission on Monday?---Yes. THE WITNESS WITHDREW [1.13 pm] Well, I’ll take an adjournment now and come back at quarter past 2.00. LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [1.13]

columbapub00294.doc columba public 27/08/2009 pp …

Documents