news, crime,
An undercover police officer posed as a client of the Aulich law firm and secretly recorded conversations that led to two of the firm’s partners being accused of conspiring to launder criminal funds. The revelation came in the ACT Magistrates Court on Wednesday as a barrister representing Ben Aulich and Bridie Harders said police had been “effectively bugging the offices for months”, seemingly in an effort to “create” a crime. The two solicitors were arrested in December alongside Kingston accountant Michael Papandrea, with police alleging the trio were part of an illicit scheme to buy a business and clean “large quantities” of tainted cash through it. Both Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders have pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to engage in money laundering, while Mr Aulich has also denied an allegation that he recruited Mr Papandrea to assist in criminal activity. Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders appeared in court on Wednesday to seek variations to bail conditions that prevented them contacting each other or a junior Aulich solicitor, Satomi Hamon, other than via email and only “for the purposes of providing legal services”. Their barrister, Steven Whybrow, said this had become “unworkable” in relation to contact that did not involve this case. He relied upon an affidavit sworn by Aulich managing partner Peter Woodhouse, who said Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders needed to work together on complex matters as part of their day-to-day business. Mr Woodhouse also described a number of other “difficulties” with the conditions. Prosecutor Skye Jerome argued, however, that the affidavit contained only “frivolous complaints about inconvenience”, singling out mention of the impact on lunchtime quizzes at the Aulich offices. She said the conditions in question were “necessary to achieve the purpose of [preventing the defendants] interfering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or otherwise obstructing justice”. Ms Jerome named Ms Hamon as one witness at risk, saying the junior solicitor had “refused to be cooperative with police” despite it being “clear that [she] has evidence to provide”. Ms Hamon would inevitably be called to give evidence in court, the prosecutor said, and it was crucial she was not pressured to lie by defendants who represented her source of income. Ms Jerome told the court that the alleged offending had involved “secret communication”, some of which took place in the Aulich offices. “It also involved handwritten communication, some of which was immediately destroyed,” she said. But Mr Whybrow said the prosecution’s concerns were “speculative” and the restrictions on contact were “absurd”. He told the court the “secret meetings” Ms Jerome referred to had been with someone Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders had believed to be a client. He said that person had turned out to be an undercover police officer who had been “effectively bugging the [Aulich] offices for months” as part of an operation that ran from April 2020 until arrests were made in December. It is understood that the officer, who used the cover name Alex Torosian, originally approached Aulich asking for legal assistance in getting back money that had been unlawfully seized by police. There is no evidence of legal conferences that did not involve the undercover officer being recorded. Exactly how the police probe led to the charges being laid is yet to be revealed in court, and Mr Whybrow said even the defence still did not know much. He said a 33-page police document outlining the allegations had been provided to Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders, but prosecutors were still unable to properly particularise the charges or say which of them would proceed. He said the material handed over so far suggested that as the months went by, police seemed to be thinking: “What crime are we trying to uncover, or perhaps create?” Special Magistrate Jane Campbell ultimately agreed to the proposed bail variations, saying police already seemed to have obtained key evidence in the form of the covert recordings. She said that evidence could not change, and it was unclear what else Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders might be able to interfere with. The cases of Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders are due back in court on April 12, while Mr Papandrea is set to return on March 1. The accountant has previously pleaded not guilty to recruiting a person to engage in criminal activity, and is yet to enter pleas to other charges. For faster access to the latest Canberra news, download The Canberra Times app for iOS and Android.
/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/37pQecASsxP5kZpQjfMrnhn/06003160-10ec-495d-88d0-6cf506ee2485.jpg/r0_191_3885_2386_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg
An undercover police officer posed as a client of the Aulich law firm and secretly recorded conversations that led to two of the firm’s partners being accused of conspiring to launder criminal funds.
The revelation came in the ACT Magistrates Court on Wednesday as a barrister representing Ben Aulich and Bridie Harders said police had been “effectively bugging the offices for months”, seemingly in an effort to “create” a crime.
The two solicitors were arrested in December alongside Kingston accountant Michael Papandrea, with police alleging the trio were part of an illicit scheme to buy a business and clean “large quantities” of tainted cash through it.
Both Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders have pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to engage in money laundering, while Mr Aulich has also denied an allegation that he recruited Mr Papandrea to assist in criminal activity.
Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders appeared in court on Wednesday to seek variations to bail conditions that prevented them contacting each other or a junior Aulich solicitor, Satomi Hamon, other than via email and only “for the purposes of providing legal services”.
Their barrister, Steven Whybrow, said this had become “unworkable” in relation to contact that did not involve this case.
He relied upon an affidavit sworn by Aulich managing partner Peter Woodhouse, who said Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders needed to work together on complex matters as part of their day-to-day business.
Mr Woodhouse also described a number of other “difficulties” with the conditions.
Bridie Harders and Ben Aulich, who are fighting allegations, including that they conspired to launder money. Picture: Blake Foden
Prosecutor Skye Jerome argued, however, that the affidavit contained only “frivolous complaints about inconvenience”, singling out mention of the impact on lunchtime quizzes at the Aulich offices.
She said the conditions in question were “necessary to achieve the purpose of [preventing the defendants] interfering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or otherwise obstructing justice”.
Ms Jerome named Ms Hamon as one witness at risk, saying the junior solicitor had “refused to be cooperative with police” despite it being “clear that [she] has evidence to provide”.
Ms Hamon would inevitably be called to give evidence in court, the prosecutor said, and it was crucial she was not pressured to lie by defendants who represented her source of income.
Ms Jerome told the court that the alleged offending had involved “secret communication”, some of which took place in the Aulich offices.
“It also involved handwritten communication, some of which was immediately destroyed,” she said.
But Mr Whybrow said the prosecution’s concerns were “speculative” and the restrictions on contact were “absurd”.
He told the court the “secret meetings” Ms Jerome referred to had been with someone Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders had believed to be a client.
Michael Papandrea, right, outside court with lawyer Kamy Saeedi in December. Picture: Blake Foden
He said that person had turned out to be an undercover police officer who had been “effectively bugging the [Aulich] offices for months” as part of an operation that ran from April 2020 until arrests were made in December.
It is understood that the officer, who used the cover name Alex Torosian, originally approached Aulich asking for legal assistance in getting back money that had been unlawfully seized by police.
There is no evidence of legal conferences that did not involve the undercover officer being recorded.
Exactly how the police probe led to the charges being laid is yet to be revealed in court, and Mr Whybrow said even the defence still did not know much.
He said a 33-page police document outlining the allegations had been provided to Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders, but prosecutors were still unable to properly particularise the charges or say which of them would proceed.
He said the material handed over so far suggested that as the months went by, police seemed to be thinking: “What crime are we trying to uncover, or perhaps create?”
Special Magistrate Jane Campbell ultimately agreed to the proposed bail variations, saying police already seemed to have obtained key evidence in the form of the covert recordings.
She said that evidence could not change, and it was unclear what else Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders might be able to interfere with.
The cases of Mr Aulich and Mrs Harders are due back in court on April 12, while Mr Papandrea is set to return on March 1.
The accountant has previously pleaded not guilty to recruiting a person to engage in criminal activity, and is yet to enter pleas to other charges.
