A credit-card-abusing cop from the Australian Federal Police, a person who accessed tax records without permission, and an Australian Tax Office employee who accepted a bribe are the first three people to be convicted after investigations linked to the new federal corruption watchdog, Crikey can reveal.
All three were convicted after probes by another federal investigative body that was subsumed into the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) upon its creation last year, but nevertheless represent the first three scalps claimed by the commission.
Crikey was first to reveal two of the three convictions on Thursday. Now new information has emerged that paints a fuller picture of some of the work the NACC has pursued since its inception in July 2023.
The first to be convicted was Spiro Kalliris, a superintendent with the AFP’s protective services who used an AFP credit card for personal purchases. Court records show he was convicted on two counts of dishonestly causing a loss on September 1, 2023, fined $5,000, and released on a three-year good behaviour order. The Daily Telegraph reported on his conviction three days later, without mentioning the fact that the NACC had overtaken the investigation from the former corruption watchdog, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI).
According to the Telegraph, Kalliris used $17,000 of his employer’s funds to buy “dozens of household-type items such as shoes, clothing, a PlayStation, motor vehicle GPS, phone chargers, gym equipment and even white goods such as a fridge and microwave over a period of several years”.
The second NACC conviction was an individual known as Sarfraz Khan, who was convicted in Sydney’s Downing Centre Local Court on January of unauthorised access to taxation records. Court information indicates he was convicted but not sentenced. Instead he paid $2,000 and was ordered to be of good behaviour for 18 months.
Crikey applied for the police fact sheet and other documents in Khan’s case but was refused by the court, whose deputy registrar pointed to a section of NSW’s Criminal Procedure Act that states document inspections must be made within two working days of the criminal proceedings.
The third was Wenfeng Wei, an ATO employee who was sentenced to five years in prison last Tuesday. According to the NACC, which announced Wei’s conviction in a media release on Wednesday, he was convicted in Sydney’s Parramatta District Court on several counts, including accepting a bribe as a Commonwealth official, abuse of public office, and unauthorised access and disclosure of restricted data.
The NACC said it inherited the three cases on July 1, 2023, after they were formerly led by investigators from the ACLEI. All three were prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
Crikey was provided with the names of Kalliris and Khan after making inquiries earlier in the week.
Apart from finishing off investigations commenced by the ACLEI, and overseeing investigations by other agencies, the NACC has also begun several of its own probes.
In an update on Wednesday, the NACC said it was conducting 13 corruption investigations, including four alongside other agencies, and was monitoring 25 probes by other agencies. It had seven investigations inherited from ACLEI.
The watchdog had received 2,637 referrals in total, 2,022 of which had been excluded from consideration, either because they didn’t involve a Commonwealth public official or didn’t raise a corruption issue. There were 403 referrals under assessment, including 13 under preliminary investigation.
My my! Three civilians so far, how good is that! I wonder when the first batch of Polies will be revealed or are we protecting them? I could name a few. But I even see a few photos on this page! Maybe we have to wait for the good Commissioner to do that!
Given the NACC inherited all the ongoing cases of the ACLEI, and the ACLEI’s remit was tightly restricted to investigations of officials in a small number of departments, it seems inevitable the first few investigations the NACC completed would be the ones that were already well advanced and none of them could involve politicians. So it’s not really something to get bothered about.
Hopefully that is the case but fundamentally whilst it’s considered legally and socially acceptable for people and corporations to donate to political parties and offer politicians jobs the whole thing is a waste of time.
This sloppy language spreads serious misunderstanding of the NACC (and any such crime commission). It does not and cannot convict anyone. What happens is that some of its investigations finds prima facie evidence of an offence that can be prosecuted, and if that happens and the relevant prosecuting authority (DPP or whoever) agrees the case should go to court (possibly after further investigation by police or another enforcement body), the relevant court might convict. The NACC is not a court. It does not try cases. It does not convict. It is constitutionally impossible for it to do so.
You’re correct, but I think the story makes clear that NACC took over ACLEI’s investigations, the DPP prosecuted, and the courts made the judgement. Thanks for reading!
Thanks for replying. I raised the point because it is clear a sizable number of people believe the NACC, and other commissions, can find someone guilty of crime. The phrase ‘NACC conviction’ jumps out when, for comparison, nobody seems inclined to report a typical finding of guilt as a ‘police conviction’ (that would more likely be interpreted as some police being found guilty), but I can also see your problem; there is no handy single word for the NACC’s role in these cases, and it’s a bit verbose and clumsy to keep repeating phrases like ‘the second conviction related to findings of a NACC investigation was…’
100%
Is Brereton going to do an annual presser, at which he puts the frighteners on MPs and APS employees, like Burgess does with ASIO?
So what is happening to the politicians who are and have been seen to be corrupt
17,000 for a taxi issue seems a waste of time and money
A Greek, a Pakistani and a Chinaman walk into a bar ….
What! Is this some kind of racist joke?