report on investigation into certain applications made to ...€¦ · the report of the independent...

N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 3

Report on investigation into certain applications made to the Department of Fair Trading for building and trade licences I C A C R E P O R T

2 I C A C R E P O R T : Report on investigation into certain applications made to the Department of Fair Trading for building and trade licences

© ICAC© ICAC

This publication is available in other formats for the vision-impaired upon request. Please advise of format needed, for example large print or as an ASCII file. This publication is available in PDF and HTML formats on the ICAC website www.icac.nsw.gov.au

ISBN 1 920726 25 X

© November 2003 – Copyright in this work is held by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Division 3 of the Commonwealth Copyright Act 1968 recognises that limited further use of this material can occur for the purposes of ‘fair dealing’, for example; study, research or criticism etc. However, if you wish to make use of this material other than as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, please write to the Commission at GPO Box 500, Sydney NSW 2001.

This report and further information about the Independent Commission Against Corruption can be found on the Commission’s website at www.icac.nsw.gov.au

Independent Commission Against Corruption

ADDRESS Level 21, 133 Castlereagh StreetSydney, New South Wales, Australia 2000

POSTAL ADDRESS GPO Box 500, Sydney,New South Wales, Australia 2001

DX 557 Sydney

TELEPHONE 02 8281 59991800 463 909 (toll free, for callers outside metropolitan Sydney)

FACSIMILE 02 9264 5364

EMAIL [email protected]

OFFICE HOURS 9.00am to 5.00pm, Monday to Friday


© ICAC

3

© ICAC

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann MLC The Hon. John Aquilina MP

President SpeakerLegislative Council Legislative AssemblyParliament House Parliament HouseSydney NSW 2000 Sydney NSW 2000

Madam PresidentMr Speaker

In accordance with section 74 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, I am pleased to present the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption into an investigation concerning applications made to the Department of Fair Trading for building and trade licences using forged qualifications and related documents.

Mr Kieran Pehm, Assistant Commissioner, presided at the hearings which were conducted for the purposes of this investigation. The Commission’s findings, opinions and recommendations are contained in this report.

I draw your attention to the recommendation that the report be made public forthwith pursuant to section 78(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act.

Yours sincerely

Irene Moss AO

Commissioner


© ICAC

5

© ICAC

Contents

Executive summary 7

Chapter 1 — Introduction 8

Why was this investigation conducted? 8

How was the investigation conducted? 8

Department of Fair Trading – a brief overview 8

Department of Education and Training – a brief overview 8

The outcome of the investigation 9

Section 78(2) recommendation 9

Chapter 2 — The applicants 10

Dib Taouk 10

Salim El Khoury Boulos 13

Donald Bejjani 15

Luke Tomovski 20

Antonious Abdul Ahad 26

Chapter 3 — Tony Sassine 30

The conduct of Tony Sassine 30

Findings – Sassine 30

A. In relation to Taouk’s application 30

B. In relation to Boulos’s application 31

C. In relation to Bejjani’s application 32

D. In relation to Tomovski’s application 33

E. In relation to Abdul Ahad’s application 34

Section 74(2) statement – Sassine 35

Chapter 4 — Corruption prevention 37

What was the corrupt conduct? 37

The size of the problem 37

Action by DFT 37

How could DFT have avoided this problem? 38

Minimising further risks of this type 38

Recommendations 39

DFT cooperation in this investigation 40

Appendix 1 — Corrupt conduct defined and the relevant standard of proof 41

Appendix 2 — About the Independent Commission Against Corruption 43


© ICAC

7

© ICAC

Executive summary

This report arises from an investigation into applications made to the Department of Fair Trading (DFT) for building and trade licences using forged qualifications and related documents.

The investigation determined that Tony Sassine fraudulently submitted applications for building and trade licences on behalf of various persons. He created false documents and qualifications on behalf of applicants; and wrote false information on the application forms without the knowledge of the applicants. He then submitted these applications to DFT for licences. He charged the applicants high fees for this service.

Findings are made in the report that Tony Sassine engaged in corrupt conduct.

Recommendations are made that the Director of Public Prosecutions give consideration to the prosecution of Tony Sassine for the offences listed below:

Obtaining benefit by deception pursuant to section 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in relation to:

(a) Mr Dib Taouk for the sum of $1,700;

(b) Mr Salim El Khoury Boulos for the sum of $15,000 to $17,000;

(c) Mr Donald Bejjani for the sum of $4,000;

(d) Mr Antonious Abdul Ahad for the sum of $3,000; and

(e) Mr Luke Tomovski for the sum of $10,000.

Making and using false instruments pursuant to section 301(1) and 301(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), in relation to the applications of Taouk, Boulos, Bejjani, Abdul Ahad and Tomovski.

Giving false and/or misleading evidence on 21 occasions, pursuant to section 87 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988.

A recommendation is made that the Attorney General give consideration to removing Tony Sassine from the position of Justice of the Peace.

Recommendations are made that DFT continue to enhance and strengthen its checking process in order to minimise external fraud. The introduction of the new licensing system will significantly reduce this risk. Information on applying for licences including fees should be made available in English and other community languages to prospective applicants in order to minimise the charging of bogus fees by third parties.


© ICAC© ICAC

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Why was this investigation conducted?

This is a report by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (the Commission) of an investigation into applications for building and trade licences using forged qualifications and related documents.

The community relies on these licences to ensure that builders and tradespersons are appropriately skilled and qualified in their respective trades. In New South Wales, these licences are issued by the Office of Fair Trading (formerly the Department of Fair Trading, referred to in this report as DFT).

In assessing applications for such licences, one of the major criteria is that applicants hold the appropriate trade qualifications. The majority of these qualifications are issued by the Department of Education and Training (which includes the authority now known as TAFE NSW, referred to in this report as TAFE).

TAFE qualifications are issued on the basis that accredited courses of study are completed to specified standards.

The Commission’s investigation concerned applications to DFT for building and trades licences that contained forged TAFE qualifications..

TAFE and DFT are public authorities for the purposes of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (ICAC Act) and their operations are funded to a large extent from the public purse. The ICAC Act sets out the Commission’s role in investigating allegations of corrupt conduct involving or affecting public authorities and public officials. The fraudulent issue of qualifications and licences would constitute corrupt conduct for the purposes of the ICAC Act.

The Commission’s charter also extends to determining what if any steps are taken by public authorities to implement policies and procedures to prevent corrupt conduct occurring.

The Commission’s investigation determined that Tony Sassine had fraudulently submitted applications to DFT for building and trade licences on behalf of a number of applicants. The investigation also examined DFT’s policies and procedures to detect and prevent fraudulent applications, and this aspect of the investigation is detailed in Chapter 4.

How was the investigation conducted?

The investigation into this matter was to ascertain the authenticity of the qualifications attached to the application forms.

As the investigation progressed, the Commission used its formal powers including its power under section 22 of the ICAC Act to obtain relevant documentation. A number of witnesses were interviewed.

Section 35 of the ICAC Act gives the Commission the power to summon persons to appear before it and give evidence.

The Commission determined it was in the public interest to hold hearings in private. Evidence was taken from the following witnesses:

Mr Tony Sassine

Mr Donald Bejjani

Mr Antonious Abdul Ahad

Mr Luke Tomovski.

Department of Fair Trading – a brief overview

The Office of Fair Trading (formerly known as the Department of Fair Trading, referred to in this report as DFT) is the consumer protection agency in New South Wales. Among other things DFT assists consumers on a wide range of issues, advises traders on fair and ethical practices, registers businesses, provides occupational licensing and maintains product safety and standards.

DFT’s licensing arm helps ensure unqualified or inappropriate people do not work in a range of industries.

The Home Building Service issues and controls licensing of tradespersons in building and special trade industries.

Department of Education and Training – a brief overview

The Department of Education and Training offers a wide range of accredited and vocational courses. Some courses are offered at professional, trade and general education levels. During 2002 there were over 526,000 course enrolments and in the same year


© ICAC

Chapter 1 — Introduction 9

© ICAC

over 241,000 students successfully completed courses. A substantial number of students are enrolled in the various trade courses. A large proportion of the graduates of these trade courses work in areas that are regulated by professional standards or licences. Most employers rely on these qualifications to ensure that employees meet appropriate standards.

The outcome of the investigation

In this report the Commission makes findings that Tony Sassine engaged in corrupt conduct by submitting falsified and forged licence applications and supporting materials on behalf of applicants to the DFT. These findings and the reasons for these findings are set out in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report.

The Commission also makes recommendations that the Director of Public Prosecutions give consideration to the prosecution of Tony Sassine for the offences listed below:

Obtaining benefit by deception pursuant to section 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in relation to:

(a) Mr Dib Taouk for the sum of $1,700;

(b) Mr Salim El Khoury Boulos for the sum of $15,000 to $17,000;

(c) Mr Donald Bejjani for the sum of $4,000;

(d) Mr Antonious Abdul Ahad for the sum of $3,000; and

(e) Mr Luke Tomovski for the sum of $10,000.

Making and using false instruments pursuant to sections 301(1) and 301(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), in relation to the applications of Taouk, Boulos, Bejjani, Abdul Ahad and Tomovski.

Giving false and/or misleading evidence on 21 occasions, pursuant to section 87 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988.

In addition, the Commission is of the opinion that consideration be given by the Attorney General’s Department to the removal of Sassine from his appointment as a Justice of the Peace.

Section 78(2) recommendation

Pursuant to section 78(2) of the ICAC Act, the Commission recommends that this report be made public immediately. This recommendation allows either presiding officer of the Houses of Parliament to make the report public, whether or not Parliament is in session.


© ICAC© ICAC

Chapter 2 — The applicants

A total of five applications for various trade licences have been identified by the Commission as consisting of or containing either forged and/or false information in relation to the purported applicant. Sassine lodged each of these applications with DFT.

In relation to each of these applications this report sets out the following information collected during the course of the Commission’s inquiries:

background details of each of the applicants and their association with Sassine;

what each applicant understood would be lodged with DFT in support of the application;

what was actually lodged with the application; and

what role Sassine says he played in putting together the material actually lodged with DFT.

Dib Taouk

An application was lodged with DFT on behalf of Dib Taouk on 25 October 2000. During the course of the investigation Taouk provided a statement to the DFT and participated in an interview with Commission officers.

Taouk migrated to Australia in 1978. He had some building experience. After arriving in Australia he worked in the building industry in various capacities and eventually became a partner in a building company. In 1996 he attempted to obtain a builder’s licence. He sat for a qualification examination offered by TAFE. Although an interpreter assisted Taouk during the exam as his English was limited, Taouk did not succeed in passing the examination. In 1997 Taouk started a company and became a developer. As the value of his developments exceeded $1,000,000 and the amount of his personal capital invested in the projects was below the development cost, he had difficulty in obtaining home warranty insurance.

In 2000 Taouk’s builder and architect advised him that it would be better for insurance purposes if Taouk’s company obtained a builder’s licence and employed a building supervisor. Among Taouk’s friends, most of whom are in the building industry, it was well known that it was hard to obtain home warranty insurance. In April 2000 Taouk was at a party when he met Sassine. They had a conversation during which Sassine said, ‘I heard that you were looking to get home warranty insurance. I can help you get a company licence. I work for Department of Fair Trading.’ Taouk replied, ‘I am happy if you can tell me what I need to do.’ Sassine said, ‘You need to

get me some references from a builder or engineer, whoever you have worked for, and get it to me and I will fix it up.’

Sassine asked Taouk for his contact details. Taouk gave him his telephone number and address. Taouk then asked for Sassine’s details. Sassine gave Taouk his mobile telephone number and said ‘Don’t worry about the address, I’ll come and get them from you’. Taouk then asked how much it would cost. Sassine replied, ‘About five thousand dollars. That covers everything, including legal fees.’ Sassine took further particulars including Taouk’s company and address. Sassine then advised Taouk to get some references from a builder or engineer and go to DFT and get certain forms.

During the next few months Taouk obtained Statement of Practical Experience forms from the Department of Fair Trading. He organised these forms to be completed by his former employers and received other personal references from various persons including Mr Tony Romanous, a builder.

In October 2000 Sassine called Taouk and asked him whether he had all the references. Taouk replied that he had them ready. Sassine said he would come and collect them at Taouk’s residence. Sassine arrived the next day and collected the references. Taouk also gave him $1,700 in cash; he was not given a receipt. Taouk stated, ‘I believed he [Sassine] was to submit an application on my behalf for a company licence.’ Sassine told Taouk that it would take about six weeks for the application to go through.

As nothing happened during the next six weeks Taouk rang Sassine on his mobile telephone number and asked him why he had not received the licence. Sassine said that he had lodged Taouk’s application form and that the Department of Fair Trading would ring him. Subsequently, Taouk attempted to call Sassine on a number of occasions on his mobile telephone number, however the service was disconnected.

The application form

DFT written records indicate that Mr Taouk’s application was lodged on 25 October 2000 and the amount of application fees paid was $342.


© ICAC


© ICAC

Documents submitted in support of the application included:

an Individual Contractor Licence application form;

a copy of an Associate Diploma In Applied Science, certified as being a true copy by Sassine;

a Statement of Practical Experience on a DFT form completed by Tony Romanous;

a personal reference by Tony Romanous;

a one page résumé under the name ‘Taouk Dib’.

The last three documents also appear in a different form in another application, which will be referred to later in this report.

During his interview Taouk agreed that the references were those written by his referees, however there were a number of documents which he did not complete or produce to Sassine. These included:

the application form;

the Associate Diploma; and

the résumé.

Taouk stated that he did not complete or see the application form. He wanted a Contractor’s licence for his company, but the application as lodged by Sassine was for an Individual Contractor Licence under Taouk’s name. Taouk did not sign the application. It contained information about which Taouk said he had no knowledge, including a postal address of ‘PO Box 400, Harris Park’. It also contained details of an Associate Diploma in Applied Science (Building).

Also attached to the application form was a forged copy of a TAFE Certificate, an Associate Diploma in Applied Science under the name of Dib Taouk. The copy of the TAFE Diploma was certified as a true copy, under the signature of Tony Sassine dated 24/10/00.

Taouk did not have any such qualification, nor did he give any copies of this qualification to Sassine.

The typed résumé also did not come from Taouk and he said he had no knowledge of it.

Sassine’s explanation

Sassine provided a statement to the Department of Fair Trading (DFT) on 16 October 2001 as part of its initial investigation. He said that he was a Justice of the Peace and that during the course of his work

numerous people attend his office to have documents witnessed by him. When shown the above documents he gave the following explanation:

My stamp and signature appear on the certificate and it is dated 24/10/00. I witnessed the document but I am unable to recall the incident. I would have signed the document on 24/10/00 and sighted the original. I believe it was done at my Parramatta office…. I do not know Dib Taouk and he has never been a client of mine.

In private hearing before the Commission, Sassine was shown the above documents and questioned about them. He gave evidence that he did not recognise them. The relevant exchange is as follows:

In relation to the application form:

[Counsel assisting]Q. Is there anything that you recognise in that form?

[Sassine] A. No, there isn’t.

Q. Did you help him [Taouk] to fill out any forms?

A. No, that’s not my handwriting.

Q. Have a look at the first page, page 48, there’s a PO Box there, PO Box 400 Harris Park. Do you see that?

A. Yes, that’s – that’s not my PO Box.

…

Q. On page 48, Dib Taouk says that’s not his signature. Did you put that signature there?

A. No.

Q. Did you see Dib Taouk sign that form?

A. No, he gave it to me partly filled.

Q. Which parts did you help him fill?

A. Where my writing is.

Q. Which is…?

A. Is where the – bottom of number 37. That’s my handwriting.

The Commission’s investigation revealed that PO Box 400 at the relevant period was registered to G.S.P. Security Propriety Limited with an address of 124 Good Street, Granville. This entity was operated under the name Rodney Ndaira. Sassine had access to


© ICAC© ICAC

this PO Box. The business telephone number shown on the form was also connected to this address.

In relation to the résumé, Sassine’s evidence was as follows:

Q. Have you seen that document before?

A. No, I can’ t recall that I have.

…

Q. Did you create that document?

A. No.

In relation to the Associate Diploma (TAFE Certificate):

Q. At the top of the page there’s a certification. Is that your signature?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Did you sight the original of that document?

A. Yes, yes, I did.

Q. Who produced the original document?

A. Mr Taouk.

…

Q. You said that you were shown the original of that document earlier on. Dib Taouk says he never produced that original to you. What do you say to that?

A. Well he did produce it, because I certified it.

In relation to the $1,700 paid by Taouk for fees, the following exchange took place:

Q. Dib Taouk says that he has paid you $1,700.

A. No, that’s not true.

…

Q. Dib Taouk says that – you came and collected the $1,700 from his house. You went there and collected that?

A. No, I can’t recall I did, no. I would have known, I think, no.

As the application for licence was not granted, the DFT refunded the application fee of $342.00. A cheque for this amount dated 22 January 2001 was made out to Dib Taouk and posted to PO Box 400,

Harris Park 2000. Taouk stated that he had not seen or received this cheque. The back of the cheque was endorsed ‘please pay to Tony Kazana’ with a signature reading ‘D Taouk’. Kazana was one of the names by which Sassine was also known. The cheque was deposited into Tony Sassine’s account on 25 January 2001. Sassine was shown a copy of the cheque and the endorsement and asked to explain why the cheque would be transferred into his name.

Q. Can you explain that ?

A. I think it must have been Mr Taouk. He transferred to me to cash it in.

Q. Why would you do that?

A. He just gave it to me.

…

Q. So, effectively you got $342 from him?

A. Yes.

Q. Why would he do that, to your knowledge?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Is it the situation you charged him some money for the application?

A. I didn’t get any funds for the applications, only the application fee.

Findings – Taouk

Sassine represented to Taouk that he could help him obtain a licence from DFT and Taouk believed that he was eligible to make an application for a licence for his company. Based on Sassine’s advice, Taouk obtained the appropriate paperwork and gave it to Sassine to make an application on his behalf. He did all this properly and legitimately. Sassine told Taouk that the cost and associated expenses, including application and legal fees, amounted to approximately $5,000. He paid Sassine $1,700 in cash. There is no material to suggest that Taouk was aware of Sassine’s fraudulent conduct in submitting the application for a licence with DFT or that he provided Sassine with any false information in support of it.


© ICAC


© ICAC

Salim El Khoury Boulos

An application was lodged with DFT on behalf of Boulos on 10 January 2001. Boulos is a builder who has been working in the building industry since his arrival in Australia in 1988. He had some previous experience in building in his country of origin though he has no formal qualifications in the trade. He has been working with his relatives in their family business. In early January 2000 he met with a cousin, Constantine El Khouri, who had arrived in Australia a few years previously. Both El Khouri and Boulos participated in interviews with the Commission.

El Khouri told the Commission he worked as a labourer in the building industry and as such he and Boulos often discussed their work, projects and related matters. He said he was a witness to an arrangement between Tony Sassine and Boulos to obtain a licence from DFT. El Khouri’s version is that Boulos agreed to obtain a licence from Sassine for $17,000. El Khouri said he saw Boulos hand Sassine $4,500. Subsequently El Khouri was given another $2,000 by Boulos and asked to give that to Sassine. El Khouri said he initially refused and only did so because Boulos had threatened him. He took the money and gave to it to Sassine. A cousin of Sassine’s was also present during this exchange.

El Khouri was later accused of taking the $2,000 and he claims he was severely assaulted by three people, suffering injuries including a broken kneecap. He was admitted to Fairfield Hospital with this injury on 12 January 2001, two days after the application was lodged. El Khouri claims persons related to Sassine inflicted the assault.

In contrast, Boulos’s version is that it was El Khouri who told him that he knew people that could obtain a licence. El Khouri also told Boulos that Tony Sassine worked with Fair Trading as an inspector and that to get a licence would cost $17,000.

Boulos said that he gave El Khouri $5,000 to give to Sassine. At Sassine’s request, Boulos also provided details of about three or four building jobs and projects that he had worked on as an owner/builder.

Some two or three months later, Sassine contacted Boulos and told him that he needed the other $12,000 for ‘costs like stamp duty or whatever’ and that he had everything nearly ready. He said that Sassine told him, ‘Look, everything ready. The inspector he pass everything’. Boulos then attended Sassine’s office in Macquarie Street, Parramatta and

paid $12,000 directly to Sassine. According to Boulos, everything other than this payment was done through El Khouri.

Boulos said that about two weeks prior to 10 January 2001, (the date of lodging the application with DFT) he paid Sassine $342 for application fees to be paid to DFT. The money was paid through El Khouri. On 31 January 2001 Boulos was issued with an Individual Contractor Licence from the DFT.

According to Boulos, El Khouri asked him for a further $2,000 for himself, which Boulos refused. As a result, there was a falling-out between them. He suspects that El Khouri only passed on $3,000 of the $5,000 to Sassine. Boulos said:

He [Sassine] send Mr El Khouri to pick it up and Constantine[El Khouri] – I don’t think so he gave him the money I heard, he said. Only he gave him [Sassine], I think two thousand. That’s what he said, because he said ‘Look they cost that $17,000 like stamp duty whatever they cost’. I said ‘But he told me “I’ll get it off him”’, but I don’t know what happened after that.

The application form

Documents submitted in support of Boulos’s application included:

an Individual Contractor Licence application form lodged with DFT on 10 January 2001 showing a cash payment of $342 for fees;

an Associate Diploma in Applied Science under the name of Salim Boulos, issued by TAFE in December 1992;

a Notification of Change of Address submitted to DFT on 8 August 2001, changing the address from 29 The Mall South Hurstville to PO Box 400 Harris Park;

a DFT Statement of Practical Experience form completed by Mr Romanous;

a personal reference by Mr Romanous under the letterhead of Romanous Constructions Pty Ltd;

a typed résumé under the name of Salim Boulos.

Of greater significance, however, is the fact that the application form and supporting documents were substantially the same as the materials used in the Taouk application, which is discussed earlier in this report. That application also contained false information and falsified documentation.


© ICAC© ICAC

The handwriting was also the same as that on the Taouk application. It contained the same postal address of PO Box 400, Harris Park, 2150. It also contained the same business telephone number as the Taouk application form. The qualification shown in both cases was ‘Associate Diploma in Applied Science (Building), South Western Sydney Institute of TAFE’. In both cases the reference was from Romanous Constructions Pty Ltd and the type of work done was described in both cases as ‘all aspects of building – see resumé’, referring to an attached résumé.

Mr Romanous also provided a personal reference and a DFT Statement of Practical Experience for Taouk’s application. The DFT Statement of Practical Experience form attached to Boulos’s application appears to be a photocopy of the reference completed and signed by Romanous for Taouk. The name of the applicant and personal details were changed. The date of commencement of employment was overwritten and also changed to reflect the same period as the résumé. The date of the signature was also changed.

The typed résumé under the name of Salim Boulos is also essentially the same document as that submitted in Taouk’s application. The entry under ‘education’ stated the same false qualifications as on Taouk’s application. The experience showed Boulos working for Romanous Construction between 1978 and 2000. This is an error transposed directly from Taouk’s résumé. Boulos did not arrive in Australia until 1988 and has never worked for Romanous Constructions, however the type of work said to have been undertaken was also the same as on Taouk’s résumé.

The application also had attached to it an Associate Diploma in Applied Science under the name of Salim Boulos purportedly issued by TAFE in December 1992. This had affixed to it a stamp ‘ORIGINAL DOCUMENT SIGHTED’ and a signature. Enquiries with the DFT show that documents would have been brought to the counter purporting to be an authentic original, which an officer would have sighted and marked as such on the photocopy. While this is a false document because Boulos has never been issued with such a Diploma, there is no evidence that any DFT officer was aware of its falsity or involved in any way with its creation or use of it by Sassine. Further, apart from the name and this stamp purporting to represent it as being a true copy, this Associate Diploma is an altered copy of the false qualification submitted with Taouk’s application.

The application and supporting documents were shown to Boulos during his interview with Commission officers. He said that he did not complete or sign the application form. He did not prepare the résumé or give it to Sassine. He had no such qualifications and did not know anything about the Associate Diploma. He knew Romanous as a family friend but did not obtain a reference from him nor has he worked for his company. He said that he had not seen any of these documents before.

Findings – Boulos

As stated above, Boulos’s application form is in the same format as Taouk’s. The handwriting appears to be that of the same person. In both cases, the address (PO Box 400, Harris Park 2150) and telephone numbers (9755 4232) given are the same. The falsified TAFE certificates in both cases appear to be from the same source and the typed résumé (CV) is drafted in a similar fashion and contains some similar information. The reference and Statement of Practical Experience appear to have been forged using documents sourced from Taouk’s application.

The inference is overwhelming that Sassine used Taouk’s application as a basis or template for creating an application and supporting documents for Boulos.

While there is some conflict in the respective versions given by Boulos and El Khouri as to how Sassine came to be involved in Boulos’s application, there is some common ground between them that Sassine was involved in lodging the application and that he received money for his services in so doing.

Boulos paid Sassine an amount of money totalling between $15,000 and $17,000.

To an outside observer, the circumstances surrounding the lodging of the application present as unusual, particularly given the sums involved. However, for his part Boulos appears to have genuinely believed the representations made by Sassine and that it was possible for him to obtain a licence given his building experience, which he considered was sufficient for this purpose. Boulos also believed that, apart from Sassine’s fees, there were other costs involved such as ‘stamp duty’ in obtaining a licence. Given Boulos’s limited knowledge of these matters and his apparent limited grasp of English, he may well have thought this just another cost or fee associated with obtaining the licence together with Sassine’s own professional fees for acting on his behalf.


© ICAC


© ICAC

Ultimately, there is no material to suggest that Boulos acted inappropriately when he agreed to Sassine submitting an application for a licence with DFT on his behalf. There is also no evidence to suggest that Boulos agreed to Sassine lodging the falsified or forged documents that were attached to it.

Donald Bejjani

Bejjani’s application was lodged with DFT on 31 January 2001. Subsequently a variation to the licence was submitted on 26 April 2001. Bejjani commenced work in plumbing in 1994 and worked with Compass Plumbing for about two years. Then he worked for Hawks View Plumbing for just over a year followed by Gold Plumbing Services for about four years. He studied at TAFE, has a Certificate IV in Plumbing Trade and did a Gas Supply Services II course.

Bejjani gave evidence in private hearing.

He said that, around the year 2000, he met Tony Sassine at an Internet café. Their conversation included a discussion about their work. Bejjani told Sassine that he was a plumber and had studied at TAFE and obtained qualifications in plumbing. Sassine told Bejjani that he was a ‘commercial licenser’. Sassine said that a person could get a licence solely on the basis of prior work experience, as long as they had sufficient experience.

Sassine asked Bejjani if he was interested in obtaining a builder’s licence. Bejjani said that he had not thought of applying for a licence before and did not know what was required in obtaining it. Bejjani said in evidence that as the discussions progressed he believed Sassine and thought this was the normal way of getting a licence. Sassine provided Bejjani with the DFT Statement of Practical Experience forms and asked him to get them filled out by referees and to obtain some other personal references. Bejjani agreed to do so. During these discussions Sassine told Bejjani that there would be a fee for the licence. He told Bejjani that his fees were $4,000 and that was his normal charge. The fees were payable in two parts – half upfront and the other half upon completion. Bejjani obtained the references and gave them to Sassine. He paid Tony Sassine $4,000 in cash. The payments were made in two parts. Sometime before lodging the application, Sassine completed the Individual Contractor Licence application form and obtained Bejjani’s signature on 31 January 2001.

The application forms

There were two application forms and supporting documents submitted to DFT on behalf of Bejjani. The first application included the following materials:

an Individual Contractor Licence application form;

a TAFE Certificate in Plumbing – Trade;

a DFT Statement of Practical Experience form, signed by Mr Hanna of Gold Plumbing Services Pty Ltd.

The second application contained the following additional materials:

an Individual Contractor Licence variation application form;

a TAFE Certificate in Plumbing – Technology;

a Transcript of Academic Record As at 30 June 2000.

a Transcript of Academic Record As at 22 December 2000.

a Statement of Practical Experience on DFT form signed by Mr Chahda of Hawks View Plumbing.

Bejjani was examined in relation to his applications and the documents were shown to him. He had some difficulty in remembering certain events and at times his evidence was vague. In relation to the first application form, Bejjani gave this evidence:

[Counsel assisting] Q. Let’s go to page 1. The details there, are they your correct details, the name, address and telephone number, date of birth, et cetera, did you fill that in?

[Bejjani]A. No. But they’re the correct details.

Q. Did you supply that to Tony Sassine?

A. Yes.

Q. What about the signature, it that your signature?

A. That’s my signature.

Q. Did you sign that before or after the forms were filled in?

A. After.

Bejjani gave evidence that he only saw the first page of the applications and that he did not see the contents of the other pages. Bejjani was directed to


© ICAC© ICAC

the materials attached to his application and agreed that he had supplied Sassine with the authentic documents. Bejjani said that he had given Sassine other materials, including a résumé and references, however they were not included in the documents shown to him. These other documents were not submitted in support of the application.

In summary, Sassine completed part of the actual application form, obtained Bejjani’s signature, completed the remainder of the details on the form and lodged it with DFT on behalf of Bejjani. The attachments in relation to the first application contained copies of authentic qualifications and references that would have enabled him to obtain a legitimate Individual Contractor Licence for Plumbing. He was subsequently granted a licence by DFT.

Subsequently, on 26 April 2001 an application was lodged on behalf of Bejjani to upgrade his licence. The application form was entitled ‘Variation to Existing Licence’. This application contained the same information as the first application except it included Drainage, Gasfitting and LP Gasfitting as additional areas of expertise. It also contained supporting documents that were falsified.

Bejjani initially gave evidence that he recalled signing only one application. He was shown the two applications and directed to the differences on the second application form, such as the dates, the notation on ‘Variation of Existing Licence’ and the licence number written on the second application. He agreed that the signatures on both applications forms were his and that the licence number on the second application belonged to him. Eventually he said:

‘It could’ve been quite possible that I did sign two separate applications, but I just can’t recall.’

He said that he had not seen the second page of this application form either. He denied that he had any knowledge of the addition of the Draining, Gasfitting and LP Gasfitting entries to this form.

Bejjani’s evidence is that he received a licence from DFT for Water Plumbing. Soon after, about three or four days later, he received a licence for Water Plumbing, Drainage and Gasfitting. He did not know why there were two licences. As far as he knew, he was to obtain one licence for Water Plumbing, Drainage and Gasfitting.

The following attachments to this second application were falsified:

the ‘TAFE Certificate in Plumbing – Technology’.

TAFE has confirmed such a certificate had not been issued to Bejjani. Bejjani also gave evidence that it was not his document. The word ‘TECHNOLOGY’ and the date December 2000 are in different print to the rest of the certificate. Sassine as a Justice of the Peace certified this copy of the TAFE Certificate as being a true copy of the original. The identifying number ‘1041753’ on this certificate is the same as the one on Donald Bejjani’s ‘Certificate in Plumbing Trade’. Bejjani was questioned in relation to this, and said, ‘No I haven’t seen this one’ and ‘I wouldn’t have a clue’ how it got there.

the ‘Transcript of Academic Record As at 30 Jun 1999’ showing pass grades in Waste Disposal Services and Gas Supply Services 2.

the ‘Transcript of Academic Record As at 22 Dec 2000’ showing a pass grade in Water Supply Services 2.

In his capacity as a Justice of the Peace, Sassine certified both academic transcript copies as true copies of the original. In respect of each of these Bejjani gave evidence that he did not enroll in these subjects, did not give the transcripts to Sassine and had no prior knowledge of the transcripts. Bejjani had in fact successfully completed a subject, Gas Supply Services 2, but the copy of the authentic transcript issued by TAFE was not attached to the application.

the ‘Statement of Practical Experience’ completed by Mr Chahda of Hawks View Plumbing and dated 19 April 2001.

Bejjani was shown this document and he agreed that he had handed this to Sassine. Some details were pointed out to him and he was examined upon them. In respect of his employment history, he gave the following evidence:

[Counsel assisting]Q. When you started from and when you were employed to [in respect of his period of employment]. Are those dates correct?

[Bejjani]A. Can’t verify that.

Q. On the second column there, do you notice a change to dates, there’s been something overwritten?

A. Yes.


© ICAC


© ICAC

Q. Were those dates there before you handed that to Tony[Sassine]?

A. I am not sure.

As to when he obtained this form, Bejjani gave the following evidence:

Q. Do you agree that’s dated 19 April?

A. Yes.

Q. That’s closer in time to when your second application is made, is it?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you any explanation for that?

A. I was given the forms to be filled out and given back to Tony, that’s – I filled them out and gave them back.

Q. You gave the rest of the applications by the end of January?

A. Which rest?

Q. Your original application, which is Pages 1 onwards.

A. Yes.

Q. You gave that to him at the end of January, do you agree on that?

A. I agree on that but I don’t know why. He asked for them in that order.

In June 2001 the DFT sent a letter to Bejjani stating that his licences were cancelled. He was asked certain questions in relation to his contacts with Sassine following notice of this cancellation. The relevant extract from his evidence is as follows:

Q. Did you contact him [Sassine] then?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What was his explanation?

A. He said it could have been a little mistake with them and he would look after it.

Q. Did he look after it?

A. No, he didn’t.

Q. How many contacts did you have since then?

A. Not much because I injured myself – I sort of couldn’t go back into the industry I was in, so I didn’t really look into it.

Q. Between then and last month you had no contact with him?

A. No, I had – a few times I’ve spoken to him.

Q. What was it about?

A. I told him I wanted some money back.

Q. Did he give you any money back?

A. No.

Q. Did he give you an explanation for the licences?

A. No.

Q. What was your conversation – your last one to that?

A. Progress, to see if I can get some money off him. I want some money.

Q. What did he say to that?

A. He goes to me, ‘He will call me when he gets some’ or something. I’m not sure. I’ve just been given the run-around, I don’t know.

Bejjani said he paid Sassine $4,000 in cash in total for his services.

In relation to the application, Bejjani obtained the appropriate references and provided copies of his academic transcripts and Certificate. The records provided by Bejjani were legitimate. His only qualifications were the Certificate in Plumbing Trade and completion of the subject Gas Supply Services 2. Bejjani states that he did not agree to or ask Tony Sassine to do anything improper or illegal in applying for the licence. Bejjani gave evidence that he did not know of any false documents or information given to DFT on his behalf.


Sassine was examined in relation to Bejjani’s application form. This examination occurred after he was questioned about another applicant (Tomovski) and had thus sighted documents in relation to that application.


© ICAC© ICAC

In relation to his relationship with Bejjani, Sassine gave the following evidence:

[Counsel Assisting]Q. There was another person by the name of Donald Bejjani?

[Sassine]A. Yes, I know him.

Q. How do you know him?

A. He just come. He wanted documents certified and he comes back every now and then on odd occasions and I know him.

Q. For the same purpose?

A. No, for different purposes.

Q. Well, let’s go back to the time that he came to certify documents.

A. Yes.

Q. What sort of documents were they?

A. They were tax documents, sir.

…

Q. You said he (Bejjani) comes back from time to time.?

A. He still does.

Q. What is the purpose for that?

A. He just comes in to say hello, that’s all he does.

Q. Do you know him on a social basis or…?

A. No. I mean he first came in and I didn’t know him. Then he just started coming back and now he’s working for real estate and he’s going to organise to send me some clients.

Sassine was then shown the documents relating to Bejjani’s two applications. He conceded that he certified the documents for Bejjani. He said that Bejjani produced the originals of all these materials.

In relation to the application forms and payment of the DFT application fee, Sassine gave the following evidence:

[Counsel assisting] Q. Apart from certifying his certificates, did you assist him with any of the forms or anything else like that?

[Sassine] A. Well, he brang everything in and he filled out the form and he organised all his references.

Q. Did you do anything to assist his application?

A. Yeah, I submitted it for him.

Q. What do you mean by ‘submit’?

A. Well, he’s filled it all out and – and I handed it in to the Fair Trading in Parramatta.

Q. Who paid the fees for that?

A. He gave me the money and I submitted it for him.

Q. Apart from the fees, did you charge him any money for the services?

A. No.

…

Q. Is there anything that you recognise as your writing – you might have filled in?

A. No.

Sassine was directed to the second application and asked:

Q. Do you remember seeing that document, that application form?

A. Well, that looks like my handwriting down here [at page 13] ‘Plumbing, gasfitting’

Later, in relation to the first application and what Bejjani said about it, the following exchange took place:

Q. Again Mr Bejjani says that he did not fill any part of the application, that is pages 11, 12, 13 and 14 except for his signature and date on page 11?

A. No, that’s not true.


© ICAC


© ICAC

As to whether he received any fees from Bejjani for his services, Sassine gave the following evidence:

Q. And Donald Bejjani – you’re sure he didn’t give you any money?

A. No.

Q. Because he says that he gave you some money, $4,000. What do you say to that?

A. No.

A number of certificates were forged using the authentic Certificate of Plumbing – Trade in Bejjani’s first application form. These documents included a forged Certificate in Plumbing – Technology and a copy of each of these for another applicant, Abdul Ahad (which is further dealt with in the discussion concerning Abdul Ahad’s application later in this report). Most tellingly, these certificates contained the same unique certificate identifying numbers (1041753) and other similarities.

Regarding the Certificate in Plumbing – Technology, Sassine gave the following evidence:

Q. That certificate. Again, is that your signature at the bottom?

A. Yes, it is.

…

Q. Who produced the original?

A. Donnie [Bejjani].

Q. By the way, did you photocopy this yourself or was the copy produced?

A. No, no, we photocopied it ourself.

In relation to the ‘Transcript of Academic Record As at 22 Jun 1999’ Sassine gave evidence as follows:

Q. Page 17, again the questions, your signature?

A. Correct.

Q. The original of the document produced by Donald Bejjani?

A. That’s correct.

Q. You either sighted it…?

A. Yeah, I sighted it, yes.

Regarding, the ‘Transcript of Academic Record As at 22 Dec 2000’ a certification is made towards the bottom of the left-hand corner of the page. It is spelled ’ORIGNLE’[sic] and dated 26-04-01. Regarding this document, Sassine testified as follows:

Q. Again your signature?

A. Correct.

Q. You sighted the original?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was produced by Donald Bejjani?

A. Yes.

Regarding, the ‘Transcript of Academic Record As at 22 Dec 2000’ which, as noted above, is the same the previous document except that the certification has no date on it and is made towards the lower middle part of the page. Sassine’s evidence was as follows:

Q. Your signature?

A. Yes.


A. Yes.

Q. The original was produced by Donald Bejjani?

A. Yes.

Findings – Bejjani

Bejjani agreed to pay Sassine $4,000 for helping him lodge the application with DFT. While it is difficult to believe that Bejjani would pay $4,000 to obtain a licence which he thought he was entitled to, the references and qualifications he provided to Sassine were nonetheless from legitimate sources. It is also difficult to believe that Bejjani did not have some suspicion about Sassine’s bona fides when he was asked to obtain further references in April 2001. It is around the same period that Bejjani was issued the first licence. He had no explanation for signing the application for variation. It may well be that he signed the second application form at Sassine’s request as Sassine knew that Bejjani wanted a variation to his first licence and he believed that he was entitled to the expanded licence in the first instance.

In any event, there is no evidence that Bejjani was either aware of or involved in the falsified documents that Sassine created and lodged with the DFT in support of the licence application.


© ICAC © ICAC© ICAC

Luke Tomovski

Tomovski’s application was lodged with the DFT on 8 March 2001. Tomovski has been working in the building industry for some 28 years. He successfully completed a TAFE certificate in cabinetmaking in 1979. He owns a company, Tomoski Developments, that specialises in buying property and constructing home units. In a statement provided to the DFT on 21 September 2001, Tomovski says that in early 2000 he obtained an application form for a builder’s licence from DFT, but as the application required a lot of information he did not complete the forms or proceed with the application.

Around December 2000, in a conversation with one of his employees, Tomovski was told that there was a person who ‘specialised in putting applications together for licences and immigration’. Tomovski said that because he was busy he decided to use this person to obtain his licence.

In his statement, Tomovski said that he obtained certain forms from the DFT and in February 2001 he obtained some supporting references. On 15 January 2001, Tomovski had a DFT Statement of Practical Experience form completed. On the same day Tomovski filled in and completed the DFT application form for Contractor Licence – Individual. On 19 February Tomovski had another Statement of Practical Experience form completed by a second referee.

Tomovski said that after obtaining all these references he spoke to his employee about the contact details of the person who specialised in licences. He was given the details of a man called Tony. The address given was that of Tony Bennett Menswear at Church Street, Parramatta.

On the evening of 22 February 2001 Tomovski attended Tony Bennett Menswear store and spoke to Tony Nehme. Tomovski says that he spoke to him for about an hour during which he said to Nehme:

‘Tony, here is all my paperwork for my licence application. Any problems go over it and give me a call back.’ Tony replied ‘ I will pass them onto Tony [Sassine]. He will go over them and make sure they’re okay.’

Some four to five weeks later Nehme rang Tomovski and said that Sassine needed him (Tomovski) to complete another application for a company licence and to provide information concerning home warranty insurance. Tomovski completed a second application dated 28 March 2001 and attached the insurance information and handed it to Tony Nehme on 29 March 2001. According to Tomovski he never met Sassine.

Tony Nehme

Nehme is the proprietor of Tony Bennett Menswear store at Parramatta. He said that Sassine is a customer of the store and during his conversations with him Sassine told him that he arranges licences such as immigration licences and builder’s licences for people.

Around February 2001, Nehme was asked by Sassine to let him know if anyone required a building licence. Sassine told Nehme that not everyone could get a builder’s licence. Sassine said that to get a licence individuals had to have previous building experience and that they had to have been in the industry for a long time and to have built projects. Sassine said that they needed a photograph and addresses of jobs they had worked on and details of previous experiences.

A couple of months later Luke Tomovski called Nehme and said:

Look, a friend of yours was telling me about you, that you know somebody that can arrange these licences. I’m a builder, I’ve been building for a long time, I’ve got – I’ve built a few blocks of units. If it’s all okay I’d like to apply (for a builder’s licence).

Nehme says he told Tomovski he would speak with ‘the guy’ and see what needed to be done. Subsequently Nehme discussed this with Sassine and within two weeks of the conversation Sassine brought some forms to Nehme stating, ‘Look, he [Tomovski] has got to fill these out.’ He also asked for addresses where Tomovski had done building work and photographic evidence of the work. Sassine visited Nehme and told him how much it was going to cost to get the licence. Nehme rang Tomovski and told him the cost. According to Nehme, Tomovski replied that he was still interested and would pay. He was told the cost was $20,000, with half the money being payable upfront.




Within a week of this, Tomovski picked up the forms from Nehme. Nehme says that Tomovski asked whether he thought Sassine was ‘sus [or] … a legitimate operator’. Nehme replied:

‘As far as I know this guy is pretty legit and it all sounds legit. The forms, he says, are coming from the licensing’ and I told him, I said ‘people like me can’t get a licence you got to be an experienced builder’.

Nehme himself reasoned that, ‘I suppose it sounds good’ and that’s why he went along with it.

One or two weeks later Tomovski returned the completed forms to Nehme. This included a photograph of himself and a sealed business envelope, which Nehme believed to contain $10,000. It appears that sometime later Sassine requested Tomovski through Nehme to fill in another form as well. Nehme said that he thought Tomovski had filled in the additional form and returned it by fax.

A few months later Tomovski rang Nehme enquiring about what was happening. Nehme in turn contacted Sassine, who told Nehme to tell Tomovski to wait. Some five months later Tomovski rang Nehme and said:

‘Mate, look I think this guy’s bullshitting to us, he’s not genuine, he’s shifty, he’s lying to us. Get our money back and let’s get out of this.’

Nehme rang Sassine and requested the return of the money. About a week later Sassine returned the $10,000 to Nehme in cash. Nehme verified that it was the correct sum and contacted Tomovski and returned the money. The other documents and photographs were not returned. The photographs of the buildings remained with Nehme and he produced them to the Commission.

Tomovski’s evidence

In private hearing Tomovski gave a more detailed account of the events in question.

Tomovski gave evidence that in the period Christmas 2000 / January 2001 his plumber suggested that Tomovski should get a trade licence and he was given Tony Nehme’s telephone number. Tomovski rang Nehme, introduced himself and subsequently met with him on three or four different occasions. On the first occasion there was a discussion of what could be done and what the cost would be. They eventually worked out what was required in terms of

references and agreed on the fees. It was Tomovski’s understanding that Nehme had discussed these issues with Sassine and it was Sassine who was doing the work for Tomovski. This was partly substantiated by Sassine providing the forms to be completed through Nehme.

Tomovski also told Nehme that he had worked on certain building projects. As a result Sassine either organised or personally took four photographs of different projects completed by Tomovski, and handed them to Nehme to show Tomovski. Nehme showed these photographs to Tomovski. Subsequently Tomovski handed the completed forms and references to Nehme. Tomovski also handed over the $10,000 to Nehme to give to Sassine.

Tomovski gave evidence that he ‘wanted to ‘sus out’ that he was dealing with legit people’. When asked what made him concerned that he might not be dealing with someone ‘legit’ he replied;

Let me put it this way, I mean you’ve only got to walk on every second site, for $40,000 you can buy a licence on any site you walk onto.

Tomovski agreed that there was a discussion of the fees and said that he had to pay $10,000 up front and if the application was successful that he would have to pay another $10,000. He also agreed that he gave $10,000 in cash to Nehme to pay Sassine.

This amount was raised with Tomovski in evidence.

[Counsel assisting] Q. Didn’t the figure seem a bit high?

[Tomovski]A. The applications alone to Fair Trading as over $1,000 this guy had to pay. To actually apply to these – there’s about 700, and 50 or 60 dollars I think for the company and it’s about $400 for – it close to $1,100, so I left him with $10,000 as a deposit.’

Tomovski said he enquired about the costs charged by a lawyer to do immigration matters as Sassine said he did this as well. He was told that it cost between ten and twenty thousand dollars. Tomovski said that this, together with the information that Sassine worked for people in the trade, cleared his mind that he was he was not dealing with ‘shonks’ and that the fee was reasonable.

When after two to three months he had not received a licence, Tomovski contacted Nehme to see what was happening. Nehme contacted Sassine who told



Tomovski that ‘there was some small difficulties or something or other he’s overcoming’. Tomovski said he was not surprised, as he had a similar experience in his dealings with DFT. Later he saw Nehme and asked him to contact Sassine, saying that if he did it himself it would take six months but he did not expect it to take six months for an expert. Tomovski is unable to say whether it was before or after receiving notification from DFT that he requested Nehme to have his money returned.

The application

Tomovski’s application was lodged with the DFT at Parramatta on 8 March 2001. The DFT stamp shows that there was a cash payment of $342 for fees. The application lodged with the DFT was substantially the same as Tomovski handed it to Sassine through Nehme. The materials provided by Tomovski in support of his application included:

an Individual Contractor Licence Application form;

a TAFE certificate in Furniture Craftsmen’s (Cabinetmaking) Trade Course;

a Statement of Practical Experience form; and

a ‘Company Contractor Licence’.

Tomovski was shown and examined in relation to these documents in private hearing. Tomovski gave evidence that these were documents that he handed to Nehme. However in respect of some of them there were changes not in his writing. Tomovski said he did not know anything about those changes.

These changes included amending the address on the Individual Contractor Licence application form to PO Box 3648 Parramatta NSW 2124 and the mobile telephone service number to 0416 317836. These were overwritten by the use of correction fluid to cover the previous entries. The qualification section was filled in to show an Associate Diploma in Applied Science (Building) South Western TAFE.

On 3 April 2001 there was another application lodged for a ‘Company Contractor’s Licence’ under the name of Tomoski Developments. This application also had the postal address written in different writing to the rest of the application form. The address was PO Box 3648 Parramatta NSW 2124. It appears that originally this part was left blank. Tomovski gave evidence that

this was not his writing and that he did not write this postal address on the form. The first application had attached to it:

a TAFE Associate Diploma in Applied Science (Building); and

a Transcript of Academic Record, for Certificate 111 in General Construction Trade, from TAFE.

Tomovski was shown these documents. He gave evidence that he did not study for or have a Diploma in Applied Science (Building). He had not seen the Diploma or the Transcript of the Academic Record previously. TAFE has confirmed that the Diploma and the Transcript were not issued to Tomovski.

Tomovski gave evidence that he had never met Sassine. He had one telephone contact with Sassine after the DFT approached him to provide a statement. The relevant extract of Tomovski’s evidence on this issue is as follows:

[Counsel assisting]Q. Have you ever met Tony Sassine?

[Tomovski]A. Never

Q. But you dealt with Tony Nehme?

A. Yes.

Q. And you understood that he was dealing – with another person named Tony?

A. I – at that stage, yeah. I don’t believe second names were mentioned. The only thing I knew was of – there is a consultant in immigration matters and licensing matters, a professional in the area that worked somewhere in Parramatta at Church Street…

Q. Have you ever spoken to this person, Tony Sassine?

A. Sassine?

Q. That’s right, Sassine.

A. Yes – I rang him up. The guy didn’t know me and basically hung up on me. And when I tried to tell him who I am he didn’t want to know. Basically, just hung up, see you later…

In most respects Tomovski’s evidence is consistent with Nehme’s. In his interview with Commission officers, Nehme said that to his knowledge Tomovski did not know Sassine. According to Nehme, Tomovski provided the materials and money to him




and he passed it on to Sassine. Likewise, when Sassine returned the money it was done through Nehme.


Sassine provided a statement to DFT on 16 October 2001. At that stage he was shown Tomovski’s applications forms and the attached materials. He claimed that the qualification document was a copy of a TAFE certificate in the name of Luke Tomovski for an Associate Diploma in Applied Science, Building. He added:

My stamp and signature appears on the document. I recall witnessing this document. It was around March 2001. A male came to my office. He asked if I was a J.P. and if I could sign the document. I signed the document and did not receive a fee. I sighted the driver’s licence and the original document. This is the first time I met the male and I have not seen him since. …

During Sassine’s evidence in private hearing in relation to each of the matters listed below he gave the following evidence:

In relation to his acquaintance with Tomovski:

Q. Do you know a Luke Tomovski?

A. I’ve heard the name, yes. He’s – he’s come in once to have some documents certified.

Q. What sort of documents were they?

A. They were TAFE qualification documents.

Q. Did you certify those?

A. Yes, I did.

…

Q. So is that the only occasion that you met him?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. You’re sure you actually met him (Tomovski)?

A. Yeah, I met him.

Q. Tomovski says he’s never met you in person. What do you say to that?

A. No, I have met him.

Sassine in his evidence claimed that Tomovski produced originals of both the Diploma and the Transcript of Academic Record. Both documents

were certified by Sassine as being true copies of the original. Sassine agreed that the signatures were his and that he had certified the copies.

The Diploma has a unique identifying number of 1041753. The authentic and original Diploma in fact belongs to Bejjani, another applicant whom Sassine assisted. The presence of this unique identifying number on the Diploma submitted in Tomovski’s name clearly suggests that it has been falsely created by the use of Bejjani’s authentic qualification.

Tomovski gave the completed DFT Individual Contractor Licence application form to Sassine through Nehme. As noted above, the forms lodged with DFT had some changes made since Tomovski completed them. This included the alteration of the postal address to PO Box 3648 Parramatta NSW 2124. The changes have been made by blanking out the original entry with correction fluid and writing over the top of it. The handwriting appears to be different to the rest of the document and to some of the original entry which can be deciphered. The section headed ‘Qualifications and Practical Experience’ had the words ‘Associate Diploma in Applied Science (Building) South Western Sydney TAFE’ inserted. Again, this part was completed in a different handwriting to that of the rest of the application.

Sassine was shown Tomovski’s application form and supporting documents and examined on each. His evidence in respect of the relevant sections as listed is as follows:

In relation to Tomovski’s application form:

[Counsel assisting] Q. Do you remember seeing that document before, that’s pages 35 – 40?

[Sassine]A. Yeah, I’ve – I’ve helped him fill it out because his English is not too well.

Q. So, when did you help him fill that out? Was that the same time that you certified the certificates?

A. That’s correct, yeah.

Q. So did you fill in the entire document?

A. No, I just filled the front page out.

Q. Page 35, is it?

A. Yes.



Q. Do you recollect what parts of it was that you filled in?

A. Just the front page, yeah.

Q. Now, Luke Tomovski gives his address as 47 Gibbes Street, Rockdale. Underneath is a postal box address, 3648 Parramatta.

A. Yeah, that’s my partner’s PO Box.

…

Q. Is there anything else that you filled in on that?

A. And the phone number.

Q. Which phone number? There’s two phone numbers.

A. 0416 317836

In relation to payments for submitting the applications:

Q. Did you go and make a payment for that application?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You actually made the payment?

A. Yeah.

Q. And who paid you the money for that?

A. He did.

…

Q. Did you charge him anything for this?

A. No.

Q. This was done freely?

A. Yes.

…

Q. You said that he didn’t give you any money apart from the application?

A. Yes.

Q. He says he gave you some money.

A. No, just the application.

Q. If he said he gave you $10,000 to process the application, that’s incorrect, is it?

A. It is – incorrect.

Q. How about it was given to you through Tony Nehme?

A. No, not – I don’t recall any of that. No.

Q. Subsequent to the application being rejected, you returned the $10,000 to him through Nehme?

A. No.

…

Q. If Tomovski said that he’s paid you $10,000?

A. It’s a lie.

In relation to the TAFE Certificate:

Q. Let’s go to page 41. You see a TAFE Certificate there?

A. Yep.

Q. Associate Diploma in Applied Science, Building?

A. Yep.

…

Q. Your signature?

A. Yes.

Q. There’s actually two signatures there?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you actually sight the original on that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And who produced the original?

A. He did, Mr Tomovski, Luke Tomovski.

…

Q. Tomovski says that he never produced an original of that document to you. What do you say to that?

A. He would’ve had to because I certified an original.

Q. An original of that document does not exist.

A. For his, I saw an original.

In relation to the Transcript of Academic Record:

Q. Let’s go to page 43.

A. Yes.




Q. Again, the second half of the page, there’s a certification. Is that your signature?

A. Yes.

Q. And again, did you sight the original of that document?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Who produced the original of that document?

A. Mr Tomovski.

…

Q. Again, Tomovski says the original of the document to page 43 was not produced to you.

A. It was produced by him.

In relation to the photographs of the buildings Tomovski worked on:

Q. I’ll ask you to look at page 44.

A. Yep.

Q. There’s some entries at the bottom of the page in handwriting, March ’97, October ’98, and December ’99. Those addresses, do they mean anything to you?

A. Illawarra and all that?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Did you at any stage organise to get some photos or anything done for Mr Tomovski?

A. No.

Q. And you didn’t do any photographs?

A. No.

Q. I’ll show you some photographs in any case.

A. That would have been the photos he took. No, I didn’t take these photos.

Q. Do you remember seeing that before?

A. Yes I do. Yeah. I think with the application.

Sassine initially gave evidence that that there was only one application lodged on behalf of Tomovski. Earlier he was questioned on who owned the postal address shown on the application forms. Sassine replied that it belonged to his business partner.

Sassine was shown the second application and examined upon it. In relation to this application the following exchange took place:

[Counsel assisting]Q. Do you remember seeing that?

[Sassine]A. Sorry, there was two. Yes, sorry. Because there was a contract. He wanted the bill for this company. He wanted to apply under his company licence or something…

…

Q. Did you help him fill that out?

A. No. He filled – he filled it out. No, it’s not my handwriting.

Q. What about the PO Box 3648 Parramatta? It’s in the middle of the page.

A. Yeah, I – I probably did put that in but I didn’t do the rest because originally they had that PO Box on there.

On 3 October 2001, DFT rejected the application and refunded a sum of $171.00 for the application fee by way of cheque made out to Luke Tomovski. This was forwarded to PO Box 3648, Parramatta, the postal address written on the application form. Examination of the cheque revealed it was endorsed on to ‘Mikhail and Sons P/L’ and presented on 20 November 2001. The signature appears to be an imitation of Tomovski’s signature. Tomovski was examined about this cheque in his private hearing. He gave evidence that he had not seen this cheque before and that he had not endorsed the back of the cheque. He said he had no knowledge of the payee.

Sassine was also shown a copy of the cheque and he gave the following evidence:

Q. Do you remember seeing a cheque addressed to Luke Tomovski for $171?

A. I can’t recall that. I don’t remember.

Q. If you have a look at that [back of the cheque], there is a handwritten note there, ‘ please pay Mikhail and Sons Pty Ltd’. What’s that?

A. Sorry? … I don’t know what that is.

…

Q. So the cheque never came to your attention?

A. No, Never. Which I don’t recall that it has.



Findings – Tomovski

Tomovski was interested in obtaining a builder’s licence and discussed it with a number of people, including Nehme. Tomovski was also told that Sassine was said to provide immigration advice. Tomovski enquired of other people what the costs were for processing immigration applications and believed that this could cost anything up to $20,000. He was aware that there were illegitimate operators in the building trade who were prepared to purchase licences at substantial cost. He made some enquiries of Sassine’s credentials through Nehme. He was shown the photographs of his work, which were either taken or organised by Sassine. He obtained legitimate references and completed the Statement of Practical Experience which did not contain any false information.

Against this, however, is Tomovski’s evidence that according to his own calculations the DFT application fee was about $1,100 and all that remained to be completed was to lodge the application form with the DFT. On his own account he spent considerable time with Nehme in assessing Sassine and having the forms and materials organised. He did not disclose the extent of his dealings with Nehme and Sassine to DFT. In his statement to DFT he did not disclose that he paid Sassine $10,000 to lodge the application. His explanation as to why $20,000 was an appropriate cost to lodge an application with DFT for a simple trade licence was not entirely satisfactory. Given the amounts he was paying, it does seem unusual that he would also submit to a process that involved dealing with a go-between operating out of a menswear shop and not seek to deal directly with Sassine himself.

The state of the available competing evidence, however, does not meet the requisite standard such as to allow a finding to be made that Tomovski acted corruptly in his dealings with Sassine. In particular, there is no evidence that Tomovski was aware of the specific conduct that Sassine engaged in when submitting the application.

Antonious Abdul Ahad

Antonious Abdul Ahad lodged an application with DFT on 15 May 2001. He studied plumbing at TAFE, however he had one more subject to pass in order to complete the requirements for his certificate. He started in plumbing at the beginning of 1995 with H.M. & P.R. Plumbing & Building Services and enrolled in TAFE at the same time. At the beginning

of July 1996 he started working with Haney Tennis Plumbing Services, which has since changed name to Sky High Developments.

Abdul Ahad gave evidence to the Commission in private hearing. He said that around April or May 2001 he met Sassine at Parramatta. Abdul Ahad recalls that during their first conversation Sassine asked him what type of work he did. He told Sassine that he was in plumbing and Sassine asked him if he had a builder’s licence. Abdul Ahad told him that he was finishing his TAFE trade course and he had one subject to complete. As the conversation continued Abdul Ahad told Sassine that he had been in the plumbing trade about six years. He said that he should have completed his trade course in that time, however he had repeated a couple of subjects.

Sassine told Abdul Ahad that he worked for Mortgage One and with the Department of Fair Trading. He told Abdul Ahad that he should start applying for a licence as he had completed more than his required time in plumbing. Sassine told Abdul Ahad that if he wanted to get a licence Sassine needed to see some examples of his work and skills. Abdul Ahad told him about a few of the jobs that he had done.

At a later date, Abdul Ahad phoned Sassine and they discussed the possibility of him obtaining a licence. Sassine told Abdul Ahad that he would have no problem in getting a licence and that he had enough experience. Sassine said that he would have to apply for some forms, do searches and the necessary paperwork. He told Abdul Ahad that the fees would be $6,000 for the licence, of which $3,000 was to be paid in advance and the remaining $3,000 when the licence was received. Abdul Ahad gave Sassine $3,000, together with a copy of his driver’s licence and a copy of the front page of his passport. Abdul Ahad asked for a receipt and Sassine told him that that he would provide one when Abdul Ahad paid the rest of the money.

Abdul Ahad gave evidence that he thought this was a normal way of applying for a licence and believed what Sassine told him. He did not ask Sassine to do anything improper or illegal in applying for the licence. His evidence was to the effect that did not know that any false documentation or information was given to DFT on his behalf.

As far as Abdul Ahad was aware, Sassine applied for a plumbing licence. He signed the application form, however Sassine filled in the other parts of the form. Abdul Ahad gave Sassine a copy of his Academic




Transcript, which was one subject short of the number of subjects required for successful course completion. This particular transcript was, however, not attached to the application. Abdul Ahad said he did not attach any other documents to the application or give any other documents to Sassine nor did he know how the other documents came to be attached to his application.

Abdul Ahad said that some time later, around May or June 2001, he received calls from the Department of Fair Trading about his application. He rang Sassine and asked him what was going on. Sassine told him not to worry and that his application was going through a different process. He asked Abdul Ahad not to worry about the phone calls from DFT as he had already spoken to them.

A few weeks later the DFT contacted Abdul Ahad and enquired how he had applied for his licence. Abdul Ahad had not received his licence so he commenced making phone calls to Sassine as to why he had not received it, and finally tried to get his money back. Abdul Ahad said he made ‘several hundred calls’ to Sassine before Sassine sent him a cheque for $3,000 in June 2002. However the cheque bounced when he presented it to the bank. After even more phone calls Sassine repaid Abdul Ahad $1,500 in cash. After further calls he repaid him another $800 in cash. The balance of the money has not been paid.

Abdul Ahad was shown the DFT application form. His evidence was that he did not fill it out except for the signature and the date of 15/5/01. In relation to the documents listed below he said that he did not provide them nor did he have any knowledge of them.

Certificate in Plumbing Trade (completed at the South Western Sydney Institute of TAFE in July 1999).

Certificate in Plumbing Technology (completed at the South Western Sydney Institute of TAFE in December 2000).

Transcript of Academic Record As at 30 Jun 2000 (South Western Sydney Institute of TAFE).

Transcript of Academic Record As at 22 Dec 2000 (South Western Sydney Institute of TAFE).


Sassine was examined in relation to his dealings with Abdul Ahad. He denied the version of events given by Abdul Ahad. He attempted to downplay

his involvement with Abdul Ahad’s application and confined his involvement to certifying Abdul Ahad’s TAFE qualifications and a subsequent telephone call. Sassine’s evidence in relation to each of the matters outlined below was as follows:

In respect of his contact with Abdul Ahad:

[Counsel assisting]Q. How about a person by the name of Antonious Abdul Ahad?

[Sassine]A. Yes, he came in once.

Q. For what purpose?

A. Certify his documents for him.

Q. Do you recall what sort of documents they were?

A. They were TAFE.

Q. Again, did you look at the originals?

A. Yes, I did, yes.

Sassine was shown Abdul Ahad’s application. He said that the original documents relating to the supporting certificates were produced by Abdul Ahad and that he sighted the originals when he certified them. There were certain similarities between Abdul Ahad’s application and that of Bejjani, mentioned previously. The identifying number, the similarity in print and the other features were directed to Sassine’s attention. His evidence in relation to each of the relevant aspects touching upon the application was as follows:

In relation to the application form:

Q. Do you recollect seeing that application form?

A. I can’t recall.

Q. Did you help Abdul Ahad to fill his application in?

A. I can’t remember, sorry.

…

Q. Abdul Ahad, Antonious Abdul Ahad, do you recollect how many applications he had?

A. No, I can’t recall.



Q. Again, I will show you a bunch of application forms. These are numbered from pages 26 to 34. I’ll just ask you to have a look at the first three pages, 26, 27 and 28. You could stop at 28, please. Do you recollect seeing that application form?

A. I can’t recall.

Q. Did you help Abdul Ahad to fill his application in?

A. I can’t remember, sorry.

Q. Mr Abdul Ahad says that you made the application on his behalf.

A. No.

In relation to the TAFE Certificate in Plumbing Trade:

Q. Let’s stop at page 29.

A. Yeah.

Q. Again, is that your signature at the bottom of that page?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you sight the original?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was the document produced by, the original document?

A. By Mr Tony – Antonious Abdul Ahad.

Q. I’m suggesting to you that you didn’t sight the original of that document.

A. I did.

Q. Well, there’s no original.

A. Well, he produced an original.

Q. He [Abdul Ahad] gave evidence saying that he did not produce the original of that document to you.

A. All the documents were produced by him. I certified them.

In relation to the TAFE Certificate in Plumbing Technology:

Q…. So if you now turn to page 30.

A. Yes.

Q. Again you see a signature at the bottom of the page?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. That’s yours?

A. Yes.

Q. You sighted the original document?

A. Yes.

Q. Was the original document produced by Abdul Ahad?

A. Yes.

In relation to the Transcript of Academic Record As at 30 Jun 2000:

Q. If you could turn to page 31, which is the next page. Again on the left hand side on the bottom there, is that your signature?

A. Yes it is.


A. Yes.

Q. Was the original produced by Abdul Ahad?

A. Yes.

In relation to the Transcript of Academic Record As at 22 Dec 2000:

Q. Page 32, there’s no signature on that. Is that your writing at the bottom there?

A. Yes, it is.


A. Yes.

Q. Was the original produced by Abdul Ahad?

A. Yes.

Sassine was also shown an ANZ Cheque Number 1988 31319 for $3,000 made out on 11 June 2002 in favour of Abdul Ahad. This is the cheque that was sent to Abdul Ahad by Sassine as a refund of his fees when the application was refused by DFT. Sassine gave the following evidence:

Q. I’ll show you a copy of a cheque. I’ll just ask you to have a look at the cheque there and fold it over. Do you recognise that cheque?




A. Yes, it’s my cheque.

Q. It’s made out to Abdul Ahad?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Can you explain why that would be done?

A. I can’t recall why I gave it to him. Can’t remember. No, I can’t remember why.

…

Q. The cheque that’s in front of you, there’s been evidence in this hearing that the cheque was a refund to Mr Abdul Ahad because he’d paid you $3,000 for his application.

A. No.

Q. And when the application was rejected you’ve refunded him $3,000 as a cheque?

A. No.

Q. You refute that?

A. No. it’s not true.

Findings – Abdul Ahad

Abdul Ahad’s explanation of events is corroborated in part by the available records from TAFE and by his referees. The certificates and the academic transcripts lodged in support of his application were sourced from the false documents used in support of Bejjani’s application for variation. The refund cheque for $3,000 came out of Sassine’s account. Sassine signed the cheque and notwithstanding the relatively large amount involved he does not provide any real explanation as why he would make a payment of this sum to Abdul Ahad. The inference is irresistible that it was a refund of Abdul Ahad’s payment to Sassine.

Abdul Ahad presented as a credible, albeit unsophisticated, witness and he appears to have genuinely believed what Sassine told him about obtaining a licence. He believed that he may have been eligible for a licence based on his trade experience. He obtained legitimate references and together with his partial (almost completed) academic transcript handed them over to Sassine. He agreed to have these submitted to DFT for the purposes of obtaining a licence. He had no knowledge about the use of falsified documents. He did not ask or consent to Sassine falsifying his application. There is no evidence upon which to make any finding of corrupt conduct against Abdul Ahad.



Chapter 3 — Tony Sassine

The conduct of Tony Sassine

Tony Sassine changed his name to Tony Kazana by Deed Poll in 1999. He is also known by the names of Tony Cazana and Stuart Michaels. He formerly operated a security company known as C4 Protective Services at Merrylands, conducting security work and private enquiries. Since 16 October 2001 he has been operating a business known as Greater Mortgage Choice which is a brokerage firm specialising in home loans. He was also a partner in a business named Pentagon Investigations at Parramatta, which specialises in conducting private enquiries, and assisting with making applications for visas and other licence permits. He is also a Justice of the Peace for NSW.

Sassine provided a statement to DFT as part of this investigation in which he said that people approached him to certify documents in his capacity as a Justice of the Peace. He said that he was shown the original documents by these persons and certified them as correct and that he was unaware of any falsifications.

Sassine maintained this position during his private hearings before the Commission. After he was shown the documents and certain evidence from the applicants was put to him during the examination he partially admitted that he only helped the applicants to complete the forms. All five applicants told the Commission that Sassine made various claims to them, varying from claims that he worked at DFT or had an association with DFT to claims that he was a ‘commercial licenser’. He also had an arrangement for payment for his services. He set high fees, requiring half the amount payable upfront and the other half payable on issue of the licence. In relation to Tomovski’s application there is corroboration of the applicant’s evidence.

Sassine certified as true and correct the supporting documents and forms in relation to all the subject applications. These applicants did not know each other. They did not know Sassine prior to their involvement with him in these applications. None of the applicants knew of the falsified documents until after their applications were refused.

Sassine completed all the application forms either partially or fully with information provided by the applicants. In the case of Tomovski’s application, Sassine changed the information that Tomovski had initially provided. In all cases except that of Bejjani’s application, Sassine ensured that he had access to any correspondence between the applicants and DFT. This

was done by inserting postal addresses and telephone contact numbers associated with him.

Sassine received fees for lodging the applications with the DFT. He paid the respective application fees in cash. Where the application was rejected and a refund or partial refund was made Sassine received the refund cheques and appropriated the money to himself or transferred it to his account. In relation to Taouk’s refund of $342, Sassine signed the cheque over to the name ‘Kazana’ by which he was also known. Taouk was unaware of this nor is there any evidence that he knew Sassine was also known as Kazana. Tomovski’s refund cheque of $171 also had his signature forged and endorsed to Mikhail and Sons P/L. Again, Tomovski was unaware of this.

Each applicant paid Sassine for his assistance in submitting the applications to the DFT. In each case the payment was in cash. The upfront fees Sassine received were $1,700 from Taouk, $3,000 from Abdul Ahad and $10,000 from Tomovski. Sassine received $4,000 from Bejjani where a licence was granted and $17,000 (or at least $15,000) from Boulos. They were not issued with a receipt. Where a request for receipts was made, Sassine brushed them off by saying, in Abdul Ahad’s case, that it would be issued on final payment or, in Taouk’s case, by telling him that DFT would provide a receipt.

Many of the documents lodged in support of the applicants were fraudulent. The Associate Diploma used in Taouk’s application was forged and subsequently used in Boulos’s application. The legitimate references provided by Taouk were altered, falsified and used in Boulos’s application.

These observations further corroborate the evidence given by each of the applicants. In finding the facts below I take the above observations into consideration.

Findings – Sassine

Based on the available evidence collected during the Commission’s investigation and as set out in this report, the Commission makes the following findings:

A. In relation to Taouk’s application

Findings of fact

Sassine falsely represented to Taouk that he worked for DFT.

Sassine made representations to Taouk that he (Taouk) would be able to obtain a builder’s licence.




Sassine told Taouk that there would be a fee of about $5,000 for all his work including legal fees.

Sassine received a completed Statement of Practical Experience form, personal references and an amount of $1,700 cash from Taouk.

Sassine completed a building application form under Taouk’s name. It contained false details as to:

o a postal address and telephone number, which did not belong to Taouk, but an address and telephone service that Sassine had access to;

o the qualifications;

o Taouk’s signature on the application forms;

o the TAFE Certificate; and

o the résumé.

Sassine lodged the application with DFT and paid the application fee of $342.

Sassine received a refund cheque for $342 made out to D. Taouk, which was posted to PO BOX 400, Harris Park when DFT rejected the application.

Sassine endorsed the cheque payable to himself.

Sassine paid the cheque into his own account without any knowledge, consent or authority of Taouk.

Sassine made a statement to DFT dated 16 October 2001, the contents of which he knew to be false.

Corrupt conduct finding

The Commission is satisfied to the required evidentiary standard that Sassine’s conduct breached sections 8 and 9 of the ICAC Act, particularly:

Section 8(2) of the ICAC Act in that his conduct adversely affected or could have adversely affected either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by DFT, a public authority, and which involved the following matters under that section:

ss(a) official misconduct (breach of trust and fraud in office), in that as a Justice of Peace he certified documents that are not copies of originals. He created falsified documents and certified them as being true copies. He used his position as a Justice of the Peace to carry out this fraud;

ss(e) fraud, in that he had fraudulently created false documents;

ss(u) forgery in that he had entered false details on the application and forged Taouk’s signature to it.

Sassine’s actions breached section 9 of the ICAC Act as it involved criminal offences, namely:

(a) making and using copies of false instruments (sections 301(1) and (2) of the Crimes Act 1900 [NSW]) and

(b) obtaining money by deception from Taouk (section 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900 [NSW]).

Accordingly, the conduct referred to constitutes corrupt conduct for the purposes of the ICAC Act.

False swearing – section 87, ICAC Act

The Commission is also satisfied to the requisite standard that Sassine gave false and misleading evidence to the Commission pursuant to section 87 of the ICAC Act in that Sassine:

denied that he completed the Individual Contractor Licence application form on behalf of Taouk;

denied that he created Dib Taouk’s résumé;

stated that he sighted the original of the TAFE Certificate and that it was produced by Taouk;

denied that he received $1,700 cash from Taouk;

stated that Taouk endorsed the DFT refund cheque for $342 to Sassine.

B. In relation to Boulos’s application

Findings of fact

Sassine represented to El Khoury that he or his partner worked with DFT as an inspector issuing licences.

He obtained a copy of Boulos’s drivers licence and photograph through El Khoury.

He received a sum of money (at least $3,000) and $342 for fees from El Khoury on behalf of Boulos.

He received another $12,000 from Boulos.

He filled out an application on behalf of Boulos and forged Boulos’s signature to it.

He falsely created the following documents:

o an application form for an Individual Contractor Licence;

o a résumé; o an Associate Diploma in Applied Science;



o a DFT Statement of Practical Experience form under the name Romanous;

o a personal reference by Romanous under the letterhead of Romanous Constructions Pty Ltd.

He attached these false qualifications and references to the application form, lodged it with DFT and paid the application fees of $342.



Section 8(2) of the ICAC Act in that his conduct adversely affected or could have adversely affected, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by the DFT, a public authority, and which involved the following matters under that section:

ss(a) official misconduct (breach of trust and fraud in office), in that as a Justice of the Peace Sassine certified documents that were not copies of originals as true copies. He created falsified documents and certified them as being true copies. He used his position as a Justice of Peace to carry out this fraud;


ss(u) forgery, in that he had entered false representations on Boulos’s application form for licence and signed Boulos’s signature.

Sassine’s conduct breached Section 9 of the ICAC Act as it involved criminal offences, namely:

(a) making and using copies of false instruments (sections 301(1) and 301(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 [NSW]); and

(b) obtaining money by deception from Boulos (section 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900 [NSW]).


C. In relation to Bejjani’s application

Findings of fact

Sassine made representations to Bejjani that he was a commercial licenser and he would be able to obtain a building licence for Bejjani.

Sassine obtained the DFT Statement of Practical Experience forms, gave them to Bejjani to complete and asked him to obtain some personal references.

Bejjani had the forms completed and obtained personal references and handed them to Sassine. He also gave Sassine legitimate copies of his qualifications and academic transcripts.

Bejjani paid Sassine $2,000 around the time he completed these forms and $2,000 at the time when he received his first licence.

Sassine provided some of the information on the application form (at least the first page), obtained Bejjani’s signature and completed the remaining parts of the application form.

Sassine lodged the application form with DFT.

DFT processed the application form, and granted and issued a licence to Bejjani.

Sassine completed at least the first page of a second DFT application form for variation of the licence.

Sassine had Bejjani sign the application for variation and completed the remaining parts.

Sassine submitted the form to the DFT with false information and forged documents.

DFT processed this application and issued another licence to Bejjani.

Sassine made a statement to the DFT dated 16 October 2001, knowing that its contents were false.



Section 8(2) of the ICAC Act in that his conduct adversely affected or could have adversely affected either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by DFT, a public authority, and which involved the following matters under that section:

ss(a) official misconduct (breach of trust and fraud in office), in that as a Justice of the Peace Sassine certified documents that were not copies of originals as true copies. He also falsified documents and certified them as being true copies. He used his position as a Justice of Peace to carry out this conduct;

ss(e) fraud, in that he fraudulently created false documents;




ss(u) forgery in that he entered false information on Bejjani’s application form for a licence after Bejjani had signed it.

Sassine’s conduct also breached section 9 of the ICAC Act as it involves criminal offences, namely:

(a) making and using false instruments (sections 301(1) and (2) of the Crimes Act 1900 [NSW]) and

(b) obtaining money by deception from Bejjani (section 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900 [NSW]).




denied receiving payment from Bejjani for his services in relation to lodging Bejjani’s applications with DFT.

stated that the original of the Certificate in Plumbing – Technology was produced to him by Bejjani.

stated that the original of the Transcript of Academic Record As at 22 Jun 99 was produced to him by Bejjani.

stated that the original of the Transcript of Academic Record As at 22 Dec 00 was produced to him by Bejjani.

D. In relation to Tomovski’s application

Findings of fact

Sassine represented to Tony Nehme that he specialised in arranging licences and other permits relating to such matters as immigration and building.

Sassine, through Nehme, made an agreement to organise a building licence for Tomovski for a cost of $20,000.

Sassine gave the DFT application and reference forms to Nehme who passed them on to Tomovski to complete.

Sassine either organised to be taken or personally took four photographs of buildings that were either managed or built by Tomovski.

Sassine received the completed application form and references from Tomovski via Nehme.

Sassine received $10,000 cash from Tomovski, also via Nehme.

The application consisted of the DFT Individual Contractor Licence application form, a TAFE certificate for Furniture Craftsmen’s (Cabinetmaking) Trade Course for Tomovski, and various supporting references.

Sassine amended and falsified the application form in that he inserted the following details:

o his own mobile telephone number; o his business partner’s postal address, PO Box

3648, Parramatta; o the qualification Associate Diploma in Applied

Science (Building), South Western Sydney TAFE.

Sassine also attached to the application:

o a falsified copy of the Qualification of Associate Diploma In Applied Science (Building) under the name of Luke Tomovski, which he certified as being a true copy of the original;

o a falsified copy of the Transcript of Academic Record (Certificate 111 in General Construction – Trade) under the name of Luke Tomovski, which he also certified as being a true copy of the original.

Sassine lodged the application with DFT on 8 March 2001 and paid the application fees of $342 in cash.

Sassine gave Tomovski another DFT application form via Nehme and asked that the form be completed for a Company Contractor licence under the name Tomoski Developments [sic].

Tomovski had the form filled in and returned it to Nehme to hand over to Sassine.

Sassine collected this application form and amended it by inserting his business partner’s post office box number (3648, Parramatta); his own mobile telephone number and added the qualification of Associate Diploma in Applied Science (Building), South Western Sydney TAFE.

Sassine lodged this application with DFT on 3 April 2001.



Sassine received a refund cheque from DFT made out to Luke Tomovski on 23 October 2001 for $171. The cheque was posted to PO Box 3648, Parramatta.

Sassine endorsed the cheque to ‘Mikhail & Sons Pty Ltd’ by falsifying Tomovski’s signature, presented it on 20 November 2001 and payment was made to him.

He returned $10,000 cash to Tomovski through Nehme.

Sassine made a statement to the DFT dated 16 October 2001, the contents of which he knew to be false.




ss(a) official misconduct (breach of trust and fraud in office), in that as a Justice of the Peace he certified documents as copies of originals which he knew to be false. He also falsified documents. He used his position as a Justice of the Peace to carry out this conduct;


ss(u) forgery, in that he had entered false information on Tomovski’s application form for a licence and forged Tomovski’s signature to it.

Sassine’s conduct also breached section 9 of the ICAC Act as it involves criminal offences, namely:

(a) making and using false instruments (sections 301(1) and (2) of the Crimes Act 1900 [NSW]); and

(b) obtaining money by deception from Tomovski (section 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900 [NSW]).




denied that he completed certain parts of the Individual Contractor Licence Application on behalf of Tomovski upon instructions;

stated that he met Tomovski when the documents were certified;

stated that he sighted the original of the TAFE Certificate and Academic transcript produced to him by Tomovski.

denied receiving $10,000 cash from Tomovski for his services in submitting the application;

denied receiving the refund cheque from DFT.

E. In relation to Abdul Ahad’s application

Findings of fact

Sassine represented to Abdul Ahad that he did work for DFT and was able to organise licences.

Sassine obtained the DFT reference forms and gave them to Abdul Ahad to complete and asked that he get some personal references and produce his qualifications, driver’s licence and passport in support.

Sassine told Abdul Ahad that he had to do a lot of work for the processing of the application forms and that his fee would be $6,000 with half payable upfront and the other half on receipt of the licence.

Abdul Ahad gave the completed reference forms, the personal references, copies of his driver’s licence and passport to Sassine.

Abdul Ahad paid Sassine $3,000 in cash as a fee for his services.

Sassine filled in the front page of the DFT application form on behalf of Abdul Ahad and obtained his signature on the front page.

After his signature was obtained Sassine completed the remainder of the form including the details of ‘Specialist Work and Qualifications’.

Sassine then attached the false documents to the application and lodged it at the Parramatta DFT office on 15 May 2001. He paid the application fee of $140 in cash on the same day.




The application was rejected.

Following contact from DFT, Abdul Ahad pursued Sassine and demanded the refund of his $3,000.

Sassine made a refund to Abdul Ahad of $3,000 by cheque. This cheque was dishonored when presented.

Following further requests by Abdul Ahad, Sassine refunded the sums of $1,500 and $800 respectively in cash.

Sassine made a statement to the DFT dated 16 October 2001, the contents of which he knew to be false.


The Commission is satisfied to the requisite evidentiary standard that Sassine’s conduct breached sections 8 and 9 of the ICAC Act, particularly:


ss(a) official misconduct (breach of trust and fraud in office), in that as a Justice of the Peace he certified documents as copies of originals which he knew to be false. He also falsified documents. He used his position as a Justice of the Peace to carry out this conduct;


ss(u) forgery, in that he had entered false information on Abdul Ahad’s application form for a licence after Abdul Ahad had signed it.

Sassine’s conduct also breached section 9 of the ICAC Act as it involved criminal offences, namely:

(a) making and using false instruments (sections 301(1) and (2) of the Crimes Act 1900 [NSW]); and

(b) obtaining money by deception from Abdul Ahad (section 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900 [NSW]).




stated he did not lodge an Individual Contractor Licence Application with DFT on behalf of Abdul Ahad;

stated that he sighted the original of the TAFE Trade Certificate and that it was produced to him by Abdul Ahad;

stated that he sighted the original of the TAFE Technology Certificate and that it was produced to him by Abdul Ahad;

stated that he sighted the original of the Transcript of Academic Record As at 30 June 2000 and that it was produced to him by Abdul Ahad;

stated that he sighted the original of the Transcript of Academic Record As at 22 December 2000 and that it was produced by Abdul Ahad;

stated that he did not receive $3,000 cash from Abdul Ahad; and

stated that the $3,000 cheque he made out to Abdul Ahad was not a refund of the fees he had charged Abdul Ahad.

Section 74(2) statement – Sassine

In making this report the Commission is obliged, pursuant to section 74A(2) of the ICAC Act, to make a statement in respect of each of the ‘affected persons’ as to whether or not in all the circumstances the Commission is of the opinion that consideration should be given to the prosecution of the persons for a specified criminal offence, the taking of action against the person for a specified disciplinary offence, or the taking of action against the person as a public official on specified grounds, with a view to dismissing, dispensing with the services of or otherwise terminating the services of the public official.

An ‘affected person’ is one against whom, in the opinion of the Commission, substantial allegations have been made in the course of or in connection with the investigation.

In relation to this investigation, I have determined that the only affected person is Sassine.



In accordance with the requirement of section 74A(2) of the ICAC Act, the Commission is of the opinion that consideration should be given to the prosecution of Sassine.

Based on the findings outlined in this report, the Commission recommends:

1. That the DPP consider prosecution action against Sassine in relation to the following conduct:

(a) Obtaining benefit by deception from:

i. Dib Taouk for the sum of $1,700; ii. Salim El Khoury Boulos for the sum of

between $15,000 and $17,000; iii. Donald Bejjani for the sum of $4,000; iv. Antonious Abdul Ahad for the sum of

$3,000; v. Luke Tomovski for the sum of $10,000.

(b) Making and using false instruments in respect of applications submitted to DFT for licences on behalf of:

i. Dib Taouk; ii. Salim El Khoury Boulos; iii. Donald Bejjani; iv. Antonious Abdul Ahad; v. Luke Tomovski.

(c) Giving false and misleading evidence on 21 occasions when giving evidence before the Commission on 5 March 2003.

2. That the Attorney General consider removing Sassine from the position of Justice of the Peace.



37

This chapter discusses the corruption prevention issues that have been revealed by this investigation. These issues relate to the processes involved in applying to DFT for an individual contractor licence or qualified supervisor licence.

Originally this matter was reported by DFT to the Commission. DFT had identified a problem with the qualifications submitted by one applicant when they were conducting standard random qualifications checks with TAFE. Subsequently, DFT identified other applications with similar problems. As a result of receiving the report from DFT, the Commission undertook an investigation.

As described in this report, the Commission’s investigation concerned five separate licence applications that were made through the Parramatta Fair Trading Centre. Each of these applications had falsified or forged documents submitted as part of the application. The common thread linking these five applications was Tony Sassine.

What was the corrupt conduct?

This report makes a number of findings of corrupt conduct against Tony Sassine. These include findings that Sassine engaged in official misconduct, fraud, forgery, making and using false instruments and obtaining money by deception.

The investigation has revealed that Sassine represented himself to each of the licence applicants as a type of ‘broker’. That is, he presented himself as someone who could, on their behalf, submit licence applications to DFT that would be assured of success. From the evidence, it seems that Sassine was somewhat opportunistic in his approach to each of the individuals concerned. His approaches to these individuals seem to have occurred in quite different and random circumstances; for example, he met one of them at a party, and another he met at an Internet café. Whatever their individual circumstances, each of these individuals was apparently taken in by Sassine’s claims that he could get them the particular licence they sought, or the licence that he suggested they could get. Each person also paid Sassine a substantial amount of money for that service. The unfortunate fact is that two of these applicants would most likely have been granted a licence on the merits of their existing qualifications and experience.

The size of the problem

DFT receives thousands of applications for contractor and supervisor licences each year. They are received in two ways: over the counter at any of its 23 Fair Trading Centres (regional offices) throughout the state, and in the mail. A little more than half of the applications are submitted over the counter, with the rest – a little less than half – received in the mail. During the 2000-01 financial year a total of 15,048 applications were received by DFT, so the five investigated applications represent a very small proportion of the total number of applications submitted in that year. The table below shows a breakdown of applications received in the 2000-01 year.

Applications for Contractor and Qualified Supervisor Licences received by DFT for the financial year 2000-2001

Type of licence

Received over the counter

% of total

Received by mail

% of total

Total number received

Contractor 7,125 59% 5,010 41% 12,135

Qualified supervisor

1,473 51% 1,440 49% 2,913

Totals 8,598 6,450 15,048

Action by DFT

After identifying four files with linked problems, three separate searches were undertaken by DFT of the contractor and qualified supervisor licence applications received during the relevant periods of time. In these searches applicants’ files were scrutinised to see if they contained any similarities to the files already identified.

The first search occurred prior to the matter being reported to the Commission. DFT undertook a search of all the relevant licence applications received through the Parramatta Fair Trading Centre between October 2000 and May 2001. This resulted in 67 files being examined. No further problem files were found.

The second search took place after the matter had been reported to the Commission. The Commission requested that DFT conduct a search of the applications received in the period August to October 2000. This was the three-month period prior to the dates of the previous search. This second search was conducted because there was a possibility that applications with similar problems may have

Chapter 4 — Corruption prevention



submitted prior to the period already identified. No further problem files were identified.

A third search was undertaken by DFT at the Commission’s request. This time the licence applications received through the mail were scrutinised. This was done because, as shown in the table above, a substantial proportion of contractor and qualified supervisor licence applications are received through the mail. In the 2000-2001 financial year an average of more than 530 licence applications per month were received this way, and so it was logical that a search of a sample of mailed applications should be undertaken. All the applications received during a one-week period in March 2001 were checked. One further problem file was found that DFT had treated as a complaint because of the way it came to their notice. It had been referred to DFT’s own investigators but at the time of the search, it had not been dealt with. This file was therefore also included in the investigation.

How could DFT have avoided this problem?

The Department of Fair Trading sets and maintains the competency standards for builders and other tradespersons in the NSW home building industry. The licences issued by DFT certify to the community that the holders of those licences are competent. While the number of problems revealed by this investigation is small relative to the total number of individual contractor and qualified supervisor licence applications that are processed, nonetheless there are risks to the community if unqualified people are able to obtain such licences.

What Sassine did is very difficult for DFT to control. Any person in the community can assist someone applying for a licence. There is nothing inherently wrong with that assistance being provided – licence applicants may need assistance for any number of legitimate reasons. For example, DFT provides brochures in community languages other than English for people who are not confident about their English language skills. However, the problems with these applications arose because each of the applicants gave Sassine an undue degree of control over the application process on their behalf, to the point where Sassine submitted the applications on their behalf without them seeing the completed documents beforehand. Sassine was able to gain the

trust of the applicants to the point where two of them signed their applications prior to the applications being completed. Two other applicants did not sign any documents prior to them being submitted by Sassine, who forged their signatures. None of the five applicants saw their completed applications prior to Sassine submitting them to DFT. As a consequence, Sassine was able to submit five applications that contained forged or false documents, a fact apparently not known to the applicants themselves.

Minimising further risks of this type

As acknowledged at the beginning of this chapter, it was DFT itself that uncovered the problem applications through its routine system of conducting qualifications checks. In the main, the DFT system is predicated on the considerable expert knowledge of the processing officers and supervisors who check each application. Particular attention is given to the applicant’s claims in relation to their experience and qualifications, as these are the fundamental criteria for gaining a licence. Each qualifications document submitted is looked at in some detail. For example, if it is an Australian certificate then the subjects that have been taken to gain that certificate are looked at to check their relevance. If an applicant has overseas qualifications, they must obtain and submit a VTAB (Vocational Training and Advisory Board) certificate with their application. This indicates that checks have been done and that the overseas qualifications are acceptable for that particular licence application.

If anomalies are identified in an applicant’s qualifications then the relevant checks are made with the relevant institution. DFT also conducts other standard checks on 10% of the applications it receives, for example, to ensure an applicant is not bankrupt. DFT is currently as satisfied as it can be about its risk management in relation to qualifications.

There is a major government information technology (IT) initiative being implemented across the New South Wales public sector that has particular significance for DFT and this investigation. The NSW Government Licensing Project will ultimately have a major impact on the capacity of DFT to take a new and different approach to managing the risks associated with licence applications. The project is a whole-of-government approach to create a new IT-based management system for licensing. Once fully



Chapter 4 — Corruption prevention 39

rolled out it will replace many different business and occupational licensing systems that are currently being used in a number of agencies. One of the project’s objectives is to:

improve the integrity of licence assessments and counter the possibility of fraud, [as] agencies will be able to check academic, financial and criminal records at the source, subject to security and privacy provisions.1

As well as improving DFT’s capacity to undertake on-line checks of applicant’s qualifications, other key areas of impact from the project that are relevant to this investigation include the introduction of on-line licence applications and payments, and the issuing of photo licences. These major changes to the way licences are applied for, issued, renewed and controlled by DFT are beginning to be piloted, with implementation some way down the track. Progressive rollouts across the state will continue from 2003 to 2005. Once available, these advances in technology will provide new and enhanced opportunities for DFT to minimise fraud, forgery and other risks associated with the issuing of licences.

The newly-created Division of Home Building within the Office of Fair Trading, Department of Commerce will contribute significantly to identifying and effectively managing risks associated with applications for contractor and qualified supervisor licences. The Home Building Service within the Division contributes to the corporate objective of:

maximum compliance with regulatory requirements - through effective licensing, and responsive enquiry services.2 [emphasis added]

There are, however, a number of safeguards that DFT can consider in the interim that would help to minimise opportunities for the same problems to recur. One strategy recommended here is to strongly reinforce that applicants are fully responsible for the veracity of their application and associated documents.

1 NSW Office of Fair Trading (2003) NSW Government Licensing

Project. Retrieved 4 August 2003 from the World Wide Web;

www.oit.nsw.gov.au/pages/5.4.5.summary.htm

2 NSW Office of Fair Trading (2003) About NSW Fair Trading

Divisions, Property and Licensing Division. Retrieved 4 August

2003 from the World Wide Web;

http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/secondarymenus/

aboutnswfairtrading/divisions.html#Compliance and Standards

Division

Within the foregoing parameters, the following recommendations are made to address the problems that were the subject of this investigation.

Recommendation 1

1.DFT should consider requiring applicants to submit a copy of both sides of their driver’s licence when lodging their application. This would act as a verification of the applicant’s signature and address in relation to all documents that are being submitted. It would also mean that any written communication from DFT, including receipts issued or fees refunds, would be addressed directly to the applicant rather than a third party, as was sometimes the case in this investigation. This strategy may also help to minimise the likelihood of bogus fees being charged by third parties, as any receipts and/or refunds would be sent to the name and address on the driver’s licence.

Extensions of signature crosschecks could include:

a.Requiring applicants to sign each page of their application. This would minimise the risk of having pages submitted without the applicant’s knowledge. It would also assist in reinforcing the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the information provided in his/her application is true and accurate.

b.Requiring applicants to put a single line through and initial changes on the application. This would help to prevent third party interference with the information. Having a policy of not accepting changes made using correction fluid would also assist in this regard.



DFT would need to make appropriate adjustments to their instructions for completing the application form, giving explicit directions to applicants to follow these procedures.

Recommendation 2

DFT should consider including a statement in the brochure Getting a Contractor Licence (DFT 203) which emphasises the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the application is a true record of his/her qualifications and experience. Such a statement could be added at the end of the paragraph titled ‘How to get a Contractor Licence’. Similarly, the licence application form has a section on the front page titled ‘Declaration by Applicant’. This Declaration could also include such a statement.

Recommendation 3

DFT should consider implementing a system of spot-checking qualifications cited as part of licence applications. This would also help to ensure that applications were genuine. Given the advances in consumer technology (which make it relatively easy to forge official documents) and recent publicity about the rise in detected plagiarism and forgery of qualifications, it may be timely to consider such a system. This could act as an interim measure until the technological innovations foreshadowed previously are available.

Recommendation 4

Providing prospective licence applicants from non-English speaking backgrounds with information in languages other than English about how to apply for a licence would help to prevent misunderstandings about that process. Both Abdul Ahad and Bejjani thought that Sassine’s suggested way of obtaining a licence was the ‘normal’ way of doing things. The two key documents are the licence application form and the “Getting a Contractor Licence” brochure. Both are available only in English. Providing the brochure in

languages other than English should be considered. The licence application form could provide information, in English and other languages, about how to access interpreter services.

Recommendation 5

Providing verbal or written information to TAFE students on completion of their courses is a way of getting advance information out to prospective applicants about how to apply for a licence. DFT could liaise with professional associations and trade unions as a way of getting accurate information to tradespersons about licence applications, for example through newsletters to members. Building supply companies, local councils and libraries are examples of other avenues DFT might consider for distributing their brochure and information about how to access their excellent website.

DFT cooperation in this investigation

The Commission acknowledges that DFT recognises the needs of people from non-English speaking backgrounds by providing a number of key documents in community languages other than English. DFT is also one of a number of volunteer agencies cooperating with the Commission in a pilot project designed to raise awareness in communities with people from non-English speaking backgrounds about recognising and preventing corruption in the New South Wales public sector. The Commission has made some suggestions here that would be an extension of that commitment.

The Commission appreciates the cooperation given by DFT in this investigation. DFT has provided willing assistance to the Commission in its inquiries. It was DFT’s own vigilance that initially detected evidence of the corrupt activities that have been investigated and reported here.



41

Corrupt conduct is defined in section 7 of the ICAC Act as any conduct which falls within the description of corrupt conduct in either or both subsections (1) or (2) of section 8 and which is not excluded by section 9 of the ICAC Act. An examination of conduct to determine whether or not it is corrupt thus involves a consideration of two separate sections of the ICAC Act.

The first (section 8) defines the general nature of corrupt conduct. Section 8(1) provides that corrupt conduct is:

(a) any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority, or

(b) any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of his or her official functions, or

(c) any conduct of a public official or former public official that constitutes or involves a breach of public trust, or

(d) any conduct of a public official or former public official that involves the misuse of information or material that he or she has acquired in the course of his or her official functions, whether or not for his or her benefit or for the benefit of any other person.

Section 8(2), specifies conduct, including the conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority, and which, in addition, could involve a number of specific offences which are set out in that subsection. Such offences include: official misconduct (including breach of trust, extortion and imposition) (s.8(2)(a)); bribery (s.8(2)(b)); and obtaining or offering secret commissions (s.8(2)(d)).

Section 9(1) provides that, despite section 8, conduct does not amount to corrupt conduct unless it could constitute or involve:

(a) a criminal offence, or

(b) a disciplinary offence, or

(c) reasonable grounds for dismissing, dispensing with the services of or otherwise terminating the services of a public official, or

(d) in the case of conduct of a Minister of the Crown or a Member of a House of Parliament - a substantial breach of an applicable code of conduct.

Three steps are involved in determining whether or not corrupt conduct has occurred in a particular matter. The first step is to make findings of relevant facts. The second is to determine whether the conduct, which has been found as a matter of fact, comes within the terms of section 8(1) and/or (2) of the ICAC Act. The third and final step is to determine whether the conduct also satisfies the requirements of section 9 of the ICAC Act.

In applying the provisions of section 9 of the ICAC Act it is appropriate to recall the approach outlined by Priestley JA in Greiner v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125. His Honour said that the word ‘could’ was to be construed as meaning ‘would, if proved’. In the course of discussing the proper construction of section 9(1)(a) of the ICAC Act, he said:

Despite s8, conduct does not amount to corrupt conduct unless, in the case of a criminal charge which could be tried before a jury, the facts found by the ICAC as constituting corrupt conduct would, if the jury were to accept them as proved beyond reasonable doubt, constitute the offence charged …

Such a construction is applicable to sections 9(1)(b), (c) and (d).

A finding of corrupt conduct against an individual is a serious matter. It may affect the individual personally, professionally or in employment, as well as in family and social relationships. In addition, there is no right of appeal against findings of fact made by the Commission nor, excluding error of law relating to jurisdiction or procedural fairness, is there any appeal against a determination that a person has engaged in corrupt conduct. This situation highlights the need to exercise care in making findings of corrupt conduct.

In Australia there are only two standards of proof: one relating to criminal matters, the other to civil matters. Commission investigations, including hearings, are not criminal in their nature. Hearings are neither trials nor committals. Rather, the Commission is similar in standing to a Royal Commission and its investigations and hearings have most of the

Appendix 1 — Corrupt conduct defined and the relevant standard of proof



characteristics associated with a Royal Commission. The standard of proof in Royal Commissions is the civil standard, that is, on the balance of probabilities. This requires only reasonable satisfaction as opposed to satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in criminal matters. The civil standard is the standard which has been applied consistently in the Commission. However, because of the seriousness of the findings which may be made, it is important to bear in mind what was said by Dixon J in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336:

... reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or fact to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters ‘reasonable satisfaction’ should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences. (at 362)

This formulation is, as the High Court pointed out in Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170, to be understood:

... as merely reflecting a conventional perception that members of our society do not ordinarily engage in fraudulent or criminal conduct and a judicial approach that a court should not lightly make a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, a party to civil litigation has been guilty of such conduct. (at 171)

See also Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517, the report of McGregor J into Matters in Relation to Electoral Redistribution in Queensland in 1977 and the report by the Hon W Carter QC into An Attempt to Bribe a Member of the House of Assembly (Tasmania) in 1991.

As indicated above, the first step towards making a finding of corrupt conduct is to make a finding of fact. Findings of fact and determinations set out in this report have been made applying the principles detailed in this Appendix.



Appendix 2 — About the Independent Commission Against Corruption

43

The Commission was created in response to community and Parliamentary concerns about corruption, which had been revealed in, inter alia, various parts of the public service, causing a consequent downturn in community confidence in the integrity of that service. It is recognised that corruption in the public service not only undermines confidence in the bureaucracy but also has a detrimental effect on the confidence of the community in the processes of democratic government, at least at the level of government in which that corruption occurs. It is also recognised that corruption commonly indicates and promotes inefficiency, produces waste and could lead to loss of revenue.

The role of the Commission is to act as an agent for changing the situation which has been revealed. Its work involves identifying and bringing to attention conduct which is corrupt. Having done so, or better still in the course of so doing, the Commission can prompt the relevant public authority to recognise the need for reform or change, and then assist that public authority (and others with similar vulnerabilities) to bring about the necessary changes or reforms in procedures and systems and importantly, promote an ethical culture, an ethos of probity.

The principal functions of the Commission, as specified in section 13 of the ICAC Act, include: investigating any circumstances which in the Commission’s opinion imply that corrupt conduct, or conduct liable to allow or encourage corrupt conduct, or conduct connected with corrupt conduct, may have occurred; and co-operating with public authorities and public officials in reviewing practices and procedures to reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of corrupt conduct.

It is not part of the Commission’s function to prosecute for offences that an investigation undertaken by the Commission may reveal. However, the Commission may form and express an opinion as to whether or not any act, omission or decision which falls within the scope of its investigation has been honestly and regularly made, omitted or arrived at, and whether consideration should or should not be given to the prosecution or other action against any particular person or persons, be they public officials or not.