The short version
- Jeremy Greenwood told the Independent Commission Against Corruption that a fuchsia-colored note was not a recent invention, despite failing to mention it in earlier interviews.
- Investigators are examining allegations that Greenwood and associates received millions from Jean Nassif in exchange for political favors regarding property developments.
- Counsel assisting Peggy Dwyer SC highlighted significant conflicts of interest involving Toplace executive Sharangan Maheswaran acting as Greenwood's solicitor.
The Independent Commission Against Corruption heard testimony on Wednesday from Jeremy Greenwood, a Liberal Party operative who has denied fabricating a specific piece of paper he claims records an agreement with fugitive property developer Jean Nassif. The inquiry is focused on allegations that Greenwood, along with Charles Perrottet and Christian Ellis, received approximately $2 million in payments between 2020 and 2023. These funds are alleged to have been exchanged for political outcomes benefiting Nassif’s development projects.
Greenwood testified that the only written evidence of a deal involving his lobbying firm, Beckington, was a note stored in the back of a phone case belonging to a Toplace general manager. He described the document as being folded in half and colored fuchsia or purple-pink. According to Greenwood, this note outlined an arrangement where Beckington would receive $1 million for each of up to five Toplace projects if they were successfully fast-tracked through regulatory processes.
Counsel assisting Peggy Dwyer SC challenged the authenticity of this document during cross-examination. She suggested that Greenwood had invented the note recently, either on Monday or shortly before, to explain the nature of his arrangement with Nassif after failing to mention it in a preliminary interview with the watchdog. Greenwood firmly rejected this characterization, stating that the claim was absolutely incorrect and that the note was not a recent fabrication.
The inquiry has highlighted significant discrepancies in Greenwood’s account. Dwyer pointed out that he did not disclose the existence of the pink paper during his initial interactions with investigators. This omission led to accusations that the document was a convenient addition to his narrative designed to substantiate claims of a formal agreement where none previously existed on record. The tension between his current testimony and earlier silence remains a central point of contention.
Beyond the disputed note, the commission examined Greenwood’s legal representation during the period in question. He stated that Sharangan Maheswaran, an executive at Toplace and someone Greenwood described as a very close friend, acted personally for him as a solicitor. Greenwood admitted to paying Maheswaran $30,000 under a verbal agreement for costs, noting that there was no written record of this financial arrangement.
Dwyer pressed Greenwood on the obvious conflict of interest inherent in this arrangement. Maheswaran was representing Toplace in efforts to challenge large payments made to Beckington, while simultaneously acting as Greenwood’s legal advisor. Dwyer argued that it is a fundamental legal principle, understandable even to non-lawyers, that a solicitor cannot represent two clients with opposing financial interests. She characterized the situation as an obvious breach of professional ethics.
Greenwood defended his position by claiming he was not fully aware of the complexities regarding legal conflicts. He asserted that Maheswaran was transparent about his actions and openly discussed how his dual role might negatively impact Greenwood’s interests. Despite this, Dwyer maintained that the inconsistencies in Greenwood’s story were unraveling quickly under scrutiny. She emphasized that the lack of written records for both the lobbying agreement and the legal fees raised serious questions.
Charles Perrottet, brother of former New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet, and Greenwood have both denied accepting illegal political donations. Christian Ellis, who co-controlled Beckington with Greenwood, is currently overseas and is not expected to provide evidence during these hearings. Dominic Perrottet is not listed as a person of interest in this specific inquiry and faces no accusations of wrongdoing related to these allegations.
Maheswaran is named as a person of interest in a separate allegation under investigation by the commission and is scheduled to appear later this week. His testimony may provide further clarity on the nature of his relationship with Greenwood and the legal services he provided. The inquiry continues to examine the flow of funds and the political influence allegedly wielded by these individuals.
Jean Nassif, who is currently in Lebanon, is scheduled to testify via video link. He had previously withdrawn from an appearance last week after submitting a medical certificate. His testimony is expected to be crucial in establishing whether any quid pro quo arrangements existed between him and the political operatives. The commission aims to determine if public office was abused for private gain through these financial transactions.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗Liberal operative denies he invented pink paper record of agreement with fugitive developer, Icac hears
