I find a few parts of this report, particularly interesting.
"Ms Tough's file-notes and other documents show she considered fraud, conspiracy and other criminal charges but concluded that police would need the co-operation of a key party, who declined to help"
So, I wonder who the "key party" was, who declined to help?
And this...
."The police running-sheet states that "suspect withdrawals" were made to buy a Melbourne house at the centre of the alleged fraud, in Kerr Street, Fitzroy, in 1993. Mr Blewitt was the legal owner of the house, purchased with allegedly stolen money for the use of Mr Wilson in a transaction handled and part-financed by Slater & Gordon solicitors. The firm waived its conveyancing fees.
Mr Blewitt, 66, has now broken a 17-year silence on the matter in an interview with The Australian in which he has admitted his wrongdoing and pledged to co-operate in new investigations in Victoria and Western Australia. He said he would fully expose the alleged fraud and conduct of others to police and prosecutors in return for an assurance that he would not be prosecuted."
So clearly, there was criminal activity, and Gillard was the solicitor for Slater and Gordon, who was involved in these transactions.
And, damage control from the present Slater and Gordon.I'll bet they regret having a certain female in the company now. They will have to change their company name.
"Ian Cambridge, then national head of the AWU (and now a Fair Work commissioner), stated in an affidavit in the Industrial Relations Court in 1996 that he was "unable to understand how Slater and Gordon, who were then acting for the Victoria Branch of the Union, could have permitted the use of funds which were obviously taken from the union, in the purchase of private property of this nature, without seeking and obtaining proper authority from the union".
Asked to respond to Mr Cambridge's concern and the new revelations, Andrew Grech, managing director of the Melbourne-based firm, said: "These matters occurred some 17 years ago. Slater & Gordon is obviously a very different law firm to the small partnership that existed some 17 years ago"
There are so many unanswered questions. This would require a Royal Commission of Inquiry, to force those persons, who were previously uncooperative, to do so now.
Make your own mind up on this one, but I recall a time where the position of Prime minister of Australia was held in high esteem and was held by persons of good character (generally).
