Findings of corrupt conduct
The Commission found that, during 2013, Anthony Andjic and Shadi Chacra engaged in serious corrupt conduct by agreeing that Mr Andjic would improperly exercise his official functions to financially benefit Mr Chacra. This agreement involved Mr Andjic arranging for the awarding of departmental contracts to Triton for the project management of the Camden and Picton courthouses upgrade project, and the departmental construction contracts for the Cessnock, East Maitland and Tamworth courthouses upgrades, and the Spring Street, Sydney, office refurbishment, and the awarding of contracts to SAFF for the project management of the Cessnock, Cowra, East Maitland and Gunnedah courthouses upgrades and a consultancy services contract.
Mr Andjic and Fayrouz Hammoud engaged in serious corrupt conduct by agreeing that Mr Andjic would improperly exercise his official functions to financially benefit Mr Chacra and Fayrouz Hammoud. This agreement involved Mr Andjic arranging for the awarding of the departmental construction contract to Triton for the Cessnock courthouse upgrade and the awarding of the departmental contracts to SAFF for the project management of the Cessnock, Cowra, East Maitland and Gunnedah courthouses upgrades and a consultancy services contract.
Mr Andjic and Fatima Hammoud engaged in serious corrupt conduct by agreeing to financially benefit Fatima Hammoud through the preparation and submission to the Department of an application by Fatima Hammoud for employment as a project development officer, which they both knew contained false information, with the intention that the false information would assist her to obtain a higher paying position within the then Department of Attorney General and Justice, and whereby Mr Andjic would improperly favour Fatima Hammoud in the selection process by recommending she be appointed to the position.
Recommendations for prosecutions
The Commission must seek the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on whether any prosecution should be commenced. The DPP determines whether any criminal charges can be laid, and conducts all prosecutions. The Commission provides information on this website in relation to the status of prosecution recommendations and outcomes as advised by the DPP. The progress of matters is generally within the hands of the DPP. Accordingly, the Commission does not directly notify persons affected of advice received from the DPP or the progress of their matters generally.
The Commission is of the opinion that consideration should be given to obtaining the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions with respect to the prosecution of:
- Anthony Andjic, Shadi Chacra and Fayrouz Hammoud for offences under section 192E(1) and section 192G of the Crimes Act 1900, and of Mr Chacra and Fayrouz Hammoud with offences under section 193B(2) of the Crimes Act, of knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime in relation to their dealings with the money improperly obtained from the Department
- Fatima Hammoud with an offence under section 193C(2) of the Crimes Act of dealing with property where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the property is proceeds of crime in relation to her dealing with part of the money improperly obtained from the Department
- Mr Andjic and Fatima Hammoud for an offence of conspiracy to commit an offence under section 192G of the Crimes Act in relation to the publishing of a false application for the position of project development officer
- Mr Andjic, Fatima Hammoud and her mother, Hakime Hammoud for offences under section 87 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988.
A brief of evidence was provided to the DPP on 21 April 2017.
On 10 March 2020, the DPP advised that there is sufficient evidence to charge the following people with the following offences:
- Anthony Andjic with one count of dishonestly obtaining property by deception, eight counts of misconduct in public office, one count of dishonestly making a false or misleading statement to obtain an advantage and one count of giving false or misleading evidence at a compulsory examination
- Shadi Abou Chacra with one count of dishonestly obtaining property by deception and four counts of accessory before the fact to misconduct in public office
- Fatima Hammoud with one count of dishonestly making a false or misleading statement to obtain an advantage and two counts of giving false or misleading evidence at a compulsory examination
- Fayrouz Hammoud with four counts of accessory before the fact to misconduct in public office.
On the same date, the DDP advised that there was insufficient evidence to charge Hakime Hammoud.
Court attendance notices were served on Anthony Andjic and Fatima Hammoud on 9 April 2020, and on Shadi Abou Chacra and Fayrouz Hammoud on 20 April 2020. On 18 June 2020, brief service orders were made for 30 July 2020 and the matters were listed for reply/mention on 13 August 2020. On that date, all of the accused matters were adjourned to 24 September 2020 for charge certification. On 24 September 2020, the matters were again stood over to 15 October 2020 for charge certification.
On 15 October 2020, the court ordered that the charge certificate be filed by 22 October 2020, a case conference be held by 26 November 2020 and the matter listed for case conference mention on 10 December 2020.
On 14 October 2020, the DPP advised that further charges were to be laid for Anthony Andjic and Fatima Hammoud, namely two counts of giving false and misleading evidence to the Commission pursuant to section 87(1) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 for Mr Andjic and four counts of giving false and misleading evidence to the Commission pursuant to the same section for Ms Hammound. Those new charges were filed and served on 22 October 2020 and listed for first mention on 3 December 2020.
Recommendations for disciplinary action
Anthony Andjic and Fatima Hammoud are no longer employed by the NSW Department of Justice. It is therefore not necessary to consider any recommendation in relation to disciplinary or dismissal action.
Recommendations for corruption prevention
The Commission has made the following six corruption prevention recommendations to the NSW Department of Justice to help it prevent the recurrence of the behaviour that was examined in this investigation.
That the NSW Department of Justice ensures that the implementation of its upcoming program of capital works contains a mechanism to periodically review the program to ensure that its projects remain consistent with its business strategy and operating environment.
That the Department of Justice finalises its restructure of Asset Management Services as a priority and recruits staff to permanently fill the associated positions.
That the Department of Justice completes the implementation of its proposed electronic document and records management system.
That the Department of Justice develops a framework for governing its procurement activities that:
• assigns governance roles and responsibilities for different types of procurement, such as goods and services procurement and construction procurement
• has mechanisms to detect non-compliance with procedural controls, such as the mandated use of pre-qualified suppliers.
That, when developing its procurement governance framework, the Department of Justice reviews its resourcing of procurement governance to ensure that this resourcing is sufficient to successfully fulfil the associated procurement governance roles and responsibilities.
That, as part of the implementation of its new enterprise resource planning system, the Department of Justice reviews its procure-to-pay processes to ensure that:
• there is scrutiny around the creation of new vendors, especially if they are newly established companies
• system controls are designed to make certain an individual who certifies performance of service is familiar with the work in question.
Response to ICAC recommendations
The action plan posted below has been provided by the NSW Department of Justice in response to the ICAC's corruption prevention recommendations. Its publication here is to show the status of the response. It does not constitute approval or endorsement by the Commission.