Markets 
Weather 
Maguire tells Eldridge he had tried to ask Hawatt about paying commission, as Hawatt was in touch with the property developer Charbel “Charlie” Demian, and he expected ICAC would be looking at that in Demian’s texts.
But Maguire says he has been asking about commission on behalf of a “mate”.
“The question is, ‘Well, did you step over the line?‘. I suspect. And the answer is ‘no, never’,” Maguire says.
“‘Did you make any representations that … were inappropriate?’ No, definitely bloody not.”
Eldridge anticipates Maguire would be asked: “Did you receive a benefit or did anyone with a close nexus to you receive a benefit?”
Maguire replies: “I never asked for a dollar, they never offered a dollar, nor would I take a dollar.
“I don’t know that anyone that they dealt with actually bought property. I don’t know what happened. But I certainly didn’t receive a benefit nor would I expect a benefit. That would be just stupidity.”
Maguire says it is “not illegal to make money or buy property … so long as you’re transparent”.
“That’s never been a problem for me. Issue is [that] you’ve got to make it. I haven’t made it,” he says. “Government corruption, systemic corruption, it’s about decision-making and all those things which I have nothing to do with, and nor would I want to influence, like Eddie Obeid or someone.”
Obeid, a former Labor minister, is awaiting a third trial next year accused of misconduct in public office.
Maguire’s lawyers unsuccessfully argued against the Eldridge call being evidence in the hearing.
But Crown prosecutor Philip Hogan alleged it demonstrated Maguire prepared a “misleading version” for ICAC and “created a story that he’s going to tell”.
Maguire ‘changed his evidence’
In Maguire’s initial evidence to the 2018 inquiry, shown to the court, he was asked whether he had been made to believe “by anyone” that he would benefit if he identified properties for Chinese company Country Garden to buy and develop, to which he replied, “No, no.”
Asked whether he made any approach to Hawatt “with a view to making money out of a business in 2016”, Maguire said: “Not me, personally.”
Prosecutors allege it was when Maguire was played a number of his covertly recorded calls with Hawatt that he “changed his evidence” about not expecting a financial benefit.
In one call on May 9, 2016, during which Maguire says he had a client with “mega-money”, the two men discuss the potential sale of Demian’s 300-unit Campsie development for an estimated $48 million.
“What’s he going to give you to sell it?” Maguire asks.
Hawatt thought it would be around 1.5 to 2 per cent, with the possibility of 3 per cent.
“1.5 per cent isn’t enough divided by two, if you know what I’m talking about?” Maguire says. “Three per cent is a lot better.”
Asked in his ICAC evidence what he had meant, Maguire said, “a dividend to be shared by two” and “you’d have to assume … an interested person”. Asked who that was, he said: “Well, I suspect it was me.”
Counsel assisting the commission, David Buchanan, SC, said it appeared Maguire was probing Hawatt “to identify properties which could be sold to interests that you had contact with … with a view to money being made by you and Mr Hawatt”.
“You could assume that,” Maguire said.
Loading
Buchanan asked whether Maguire and Hawatt “were going to share or were planning in sharing commissions obtained from property developers who sold their properties to clients of yours”.
“I believe it was the intent,” Maguire said. He agreed no commission ever eventuated.
Then-ICAC commissioner Patricia McDonald, SC, asked: “But if it was successful, your expectation was that you would have shared a commission with Mr Hawatt?”
“I would agree to that,” Maguire said.
Prosecutors allege a “fair reading” of Maguire’s evidence was an acceptance he and Hawatt had expected to profit.
The court heard Maguire’s son-in-law was terminally ill and died days after the ICAC testimony. It is not yet clear whether anything will be made of that turmoil in his life by his lawyers, or whether Maguire will give evidence when his hearing resumes in May.
Maguire’s barrister Rebecca Gall has argued the Crown cannot prove the charge, and he should be acquitted.
Hawatt and Demian have pleaded not guilty to giving false or misleading evidence to a public inquiry and are due to face separate hearings later this year.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
Read the full article here
