A Royal Commission Case Study
The request was successful.
From: Phillip Sweeney
Dear Australian Federal Police,
Royal Commissioner Hayne will see his legacy as the Royal Commissioner in extensive law reform to be recommended in his report.
This Freedom of Information Request forms part of a Case Study on dealing with serious white-collar crime.
There is a simple law reform that I will be including in my submission to the Royal Commission for consideration by the Royal Commissioner that I believe could dramatically reduce white-collar crime in the banking, superannuation and financial services industries.
Members of Parliament and Senators such as Senator Williams are keen to encourage Whistleblowers to come forward on a voluntary basis, even though the general history of whistleblowers is to be ignored and vilified by the “Regulators”, to find yourself unemployable , to discover so called “Whistleblower Protection Laws” are not worth the paper they are written on and promises of any compensation are just a cynical con by politicians.
To add insult to injury the white-collar criminals will generally also escape any serious punishment if they are punished at all.
Very few people are foolish enough to voluntarily destroy their own and their family’s lives when Australia is a ‘paradise’ for white-collar criminals as confirmed by the previous Chairman of ASIC.
My recommendation to Royal Commissioner Hayne is that a provision similar to Section 316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) be included in Commonwealth legislation that places a positive duty of employees, consultants and members of the public to report actual and suspected serious white-collar crime in the banking, superannuation and financial services industries to the appropriate authorities who must then investigate the allegations - no 'discretion' allowed to 'do a friend a favour' and claim that there is 'insufficient evidence' when no investigation has been undertaken in the first place .
An important question is what penalty should be imposed for failing to report knowledge of an actual or suspected serious white-collar crime to the relevant authorities.
The maximum penalty for contravening Section 316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) is two years imprisonment – however is this penalty sufficient?
Senator Williams is a Senator from New South Wales and the Senator has in his possession four letters sent to him by three ASIC Officers who provided false and misleading information to the Senator in contravention of Section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth).
The motive for this misconduct was to prevent widows and superannuation fund members establishing a case for compensation for the loss of their superannuation pensions as a result of misconduct by a major bank.
This misconduct then enlivens Section 142.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – Abuse of Public Office, which is a serious indictable offence and which enlivens Section 316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
Senator Williams now has a positive duty to provide copies of these letters from three ASIC Officers to the Australian Federal Police which administers the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
The document I seek is a copy of the covering letter from Senator Williams to the Australian Federal Police providing copies of these four letters to the Australian Federal Police.
The name of the ASIC Officers can be redacted.
If Senator Williams has complied with his statutory duty, then this would indicate that a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment is sufficient to ensure “compulsory whistleblowing” with respect to serious white-collar crimes.
If Senator Williams has instead contravened Section 316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) this would indicate that a maximum penalty of two years is not adequate to ensure “compulsory whistleblowing” with respect to serious white-collar crimes.
Even a white-collar crime where a large number of widows have had their survivorship pensions stolen. Senator Williams is also privy to the Deeds that confirm the widows’ pension benefit and Senator Williams should also provide copies of these Deeds to the Australian Federal Police since these were the Deeds that the three ASIC officers were attempting to assist a bogus trustee conceal from the widows and fund members.
Australian Federal Police
Thank you for your email.
Please note that this is an automated response to confirm that your email was sent to the Australian Federal Police Freedom of Information (FOI) inbox.
This FOI inbox is monitored between 8am and 4pm Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays and the period from 27-31 December.
If you wish to lodge a request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act), please ensure that your request is in writing, states that it is an application for the purposes of the FOI Act and provides sufficient detail describing the documents you wish to access.
If you are requesting personal information about yourself then please ensure you enclose a copy of your photographic identification.
Further details on how to make a valid FOI request can be found on the Australian Federal Police’s website at: http://www.afp.gov.au/about-the-afp/foi-...
The Australian Federal Police will acknowledge your request in accordance with the legislative requirements of the Act.
The FOI Team can be contacted on 02 6131 6131
Australian Federal Police
Dear Mr Sweeney,
Please find attached correspondence in relation to your FOI request with
TEAM MEMBER, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Tel +61(0) 2 61316131
Australian Federal Police