Findings of corrupt conduct
The ICAC found that Gary Goodman engaged in serious corrupt conduct by:
- between 1997 and October 2015, dishonestly exercising his official functions as Council CFO by approving, or causing the payment by the Council of, invoices totalling over $5 million, which he knew to be either entirely false or for inflated amounts, and did so in each case to obtain money from the Council for his own benefit and the benefit of others. The invoices were from, or purported to be from:
- Emu Alarms Pty Ltd ($300,073.64)
- CND Computers Pty Ltd ($2,097,021.74)
- On Q Installations ($34,540)
- Truck Service Centre ($536,474.95)
- Computer Intersection (amount not established)
- Australian Landscape Creations ($55,495)
- Jovane Pty Ltd ($1.85 million)
- Green Thumb Landscaping & Gardening Pty Ltd ($132,682)
- Highland Profiles Pty Ltd and Cube Design and Construction Pty Ltd (amounts not established)
- Teletec (amount not established)
- Elias & Son Smash Repairs (amount not established)
- soliciting and receiving $2,000 from Zoran Gajic of Cube Design and Construction and Highland Profiles as an inducement or reward for Mr Goodman exercising his public official functions to favour, or not to show disfavour to, Mr Gajic’s businesses in relation to their work for the Council
- between December 2003 and January 2012, wilfully and intentionally using the Council’s corporate credit cards issued in the name of Peter Fitzgerald, the Council’s then general manager, to incur personal expenditure of $620,091.77, knowing that he was not entitled to do so, and then authorising the payment by the Council of the credit card accounts relating to that expenditure.
The ICAC also found that the following persons engaged in serious corrupt conduct:
- Keith Mark by, between 1997 and 2005, in agreement with Mr Goodman, creating false Computer Intersection invoices, which he submitted to the Council for payment knowing that either he had not done the work claimed or that the amounts claimed had been inflated, with the intention that Mr Goodman would use his position at the Council to dishonestly arrange for payment of the invoices to benefit Mr Goodman
- Mr Mark by, between 16 September and 7 October 2015, in agreement with Mr Goodman, creating false Australian Landscape Creations invoices totalling $55,495, which he submitted to the Council for payment knowing that the work claimed had not been done, with the intention that Mr Goodman would use his position at the Council to dishonestly arrange for payment of the invoices to benefit Mr Mark
- Aleksa Subeski by, between 20 November 2014 and 7 October 2015, in agreement with Mr Goodman, creating false Jovane and Green Thumb Landscaping and Gardening invoices totalling $1,982,000, which he submitted to the Council for payment knowing that the work for which payment was claimed, had not been done, with the intention that Mr Goodman would use his position at the Council to dishonestly arrange for payment of the invoices to benefit himself and Mr Subeski
- Mr Gajic by, on or about 20 July 2015, paying $2,000 to Mr Goodman as an inducement or reward for Mr Goodman exercising his public official functions to favour, or not to show disfavour, to Mr Gajic’s businesses in relation to their work for the Council
- Joe Freitas by, in agreement with Mr Goodman, submitting to the Council for payment false Elias & Son Smash Repairs invoices for work he knew had not been done, with the intention that Mr Goodman would use his position at the Council to dishonestly arrange for payment of the invoices to benefit himself and Mr Freitas
- Sam Alexander by, in agreement with Mr Goodman, submitting to the Council for payment false Teletec invoices for work he knew had not been done, with the intention that Mr Goodman would use his position at the Council to dishonestly arrange for payment of the invoices in order to benefit Mr Goodman
- Marny Baccam by, between around 2013 and October 2015, dishonestly exercising her public official functions as a Council clerical assistant to obtain money from the Council for her own benefit and the benefit of others, by arranging for the payment by the Council of invoices she knew to be false. The false invoices were from, or purported to be from, Ari Landscape Solutions ($245,751), Al-Furat Pty Ltd, and Gardens2NV
- Malcolm Foo by, between around 2012 to 2013 and October 2015, dishonestly exercising his public official functions as Council officer by arranging for the payment by the Council of Gardens2NV invoices, which he knew to be false, in order to obtain the invoiced amounts for his own benefit and the benefit of the contractor Gardens2NV
- Lyndal Marshall by, between 2013 and October 2015, in agreement with Ms Baccam and Mr Foo, creating and submitting to the Council for payment false Gardens2NV invoices totalling approximately between $200,000 and $220,000 for work she knew had not been done, knowing that Ms Baccam and Mr Foo would use their positions at the Council to dishonestly arrange payment of the invoices in order to obtain money from Council to recoup money paid to Ms Baccam or Mr Foo
- Robert Floudas by, between 2013 and October 2015, being party to an agreement between Ms Marshall, Ms Baccam and Mr Foo whereby false Gardens2NV invoices, totalling approximately between $200,000 and $220,000, were submitted to the Council for payment for work that had not been done, knowing that Ms Baccam and Mr Foo would use their positions at the Council to dishonestly arrange payment of the invoices in order to obtain money from the Council to recoup money paid to Ms Baccam and Mr Foo
- Siddik Hussein by collaborating with Ms Baccam to create false Al-Furat invoices to be paid by the Council for work he knew had not been done, knowing that Ms Baccam would use her position at the Council to dishonestly arrange for payment of the invoices
- Lolrraine Cullinane for wilfully and dishonestly failing, in her duty as the Council’s deputy general manager, to cause the taking of disciplinary proceedings against Mr Goodman or to report his misconduct to the NSW Police Force.
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 DPP with respect to the prosecution of:
- Gary Goodman for fraud pursuant to section 192E and section 178BB of the Crimes Act 1900 and soliciting and receiving a corrupt commission or reward pursuant to section 249B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act
- Keith Mark for offences of fraud pursuant to section 192E of the Crimes Act
- Aleksa Subeski for offences of fraud pursuant to section 192E of the Crimes Act
- Zoran Gajic for offences of fraud pursuant to section 192E of the Crimes Act and an offence under section 249B(2)(a) of the Crimes Act of corruptly giving a benefit to Mr Goodman
- Sam Alexander for an offence of fraud pursuant to section 192E of the Crimes Act and an offence of giving false or misleading evidence to the Commission contrary to section 87(1) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, when he denied involvement in false invoicing
- Marny Baccam for offences of fraud pursuant to section 192E of the Crimes Act and an offence of giving false or misleading evidence to the Commission contrary to section 87(1) of the ICAC Act, when she denied submitting false invoices to the Council other than the false invoices submitted through Ari Landscape Solutions
- Malcolm Foo for offences of fraud pursuant to section 192E of the Crimes Act, soliciting and receiving a corrupt commission or reward pursuant to section 249B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, and an offence of giving false or misleading evidence to the Commission contrary to section 87(1) of the ICAC Act, when he denied involvement in or knowledge of false invoicing
- Siddik Hussein for offences of fraud pursuant to section 192E of the Crimes Act
- Suman Mishra for giving false evidence to the Commission contrary to section 87(1) of the ICAC Act, when she denied knowledge of Mr Goodman’s involvement in false invoicing
- Lorraine Cullinane for an offence of misconduct in public office.
The Commission has been advised by Mr Goodman's legal representative that Mr Goodman died on 21 November 2017. In the light of his death, the Commission will not be seeking advice from the DPP in relation to him, but will seek the DPP's advice in relation to the other persons mentioned above.
Updates
Briefs of evidence were provided to the DPP on 16 March 2018 in relation to Samuel Alexander, Marny Baccam, Lorraine Cullinane, Malcolm Foo, Zoran Gajic, Siddiq Hussein, Keith Mark, Suman Mishra and Aleksa Subeski.
On 19 November 2019, the DPP furnished advice in relation to the prosecution of some of the persons referred to above. However, the DPP requested that the Commission not take any action with respect to that advice until further advice in relation to other persons involved in Operation Ricco had been provided.
Saddiq Hussein
On 19 November 2020, the DPP advised that there was insufficient evidence to charge Siddiq Hussein with any offence. The Commission accepts that advice.
Marny Baccam
On 19 November 2020, the DPP advised that there was sufficient evidence to charge Marny Baccam with 71 fraud offences contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. On 2 March 2021, the DPP advised that there was sufficient evidence to charge Ms Baccam with an additional offence of giving false evidence to the Commission contrary to section 87 of the ICAC Act.
Court attendance notices in relation to all of the above offences were served on Ms Baccam on 6 May 2021. The matter was before the Downing Centre Local Court on 4 November 2021. The matter was adjourned and listed for mention on 16 December 2021.On 16 December 2021 and 13 January 2022, the matter was before the Downing Centre Local Court and was adjourned to 3 February 2022 for mention. The matter was before the Downing Centre Local Court on 3 February 2022 and was adjourned to 17 February 2022 for mention. On 17 February 2022, following plea negotiations, Ms Baccam entered pleas of guilty to 3 “rolled up” fraud offences and one offence of giving false evidence to the Commission. The matter was adjourned for sentence to 5 May 2022.
The matter was before the Downing Centre Local Court on 5 May 2022. The matter was adjourned on the offender’s application, to allow further time to obtain a psychiatric report. The matter was listed for sentence on 19 August 2022.
On 19 August 2022, at the Downing Centre Local Court, Ms Baccam was convicted and sentenced to a total aggregate sentence of 2 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 months. On 18 November 2022, at Sydney District Court, Ms Baccam appealed the severity of her sentence. The court did not disturb the indicative sentences, however, she was sentenced to a new total aggregate sentence of 18 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 months.
Malcolm Foo
On 19 November 2020, the DPP advised that there was sufficient evidence to charge Malcolm Foo with 105 offences, including: 2 fraud offences contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act; 102 offences of receiving a corrupt benefit contrary to section 249B of the Crimes Act; and one offence of giving false evidence to the Commission contrary to section 87 of the ICAC Act.
Court attendance notices in relation to the above offences were served on Mr Foo on 13 May 2021.The matter was before the Downing Centre Local Court on 18 November 2021. Mr Foo entered a plea of guilty to one offence of giving false evidence to the Commission contrary to section 87 of the ICAC Act and one offence of receiving a corrupt benefit contrary to section 249B of the Crimes Act. The remaining charges were withdrawn. The matter was adjourned to 3 February 2022 for sentence. The matter was before the Downing Centre Local Court on 3 February 2022 and adjourned to 17 February 2022 for sentence. On 17 February 2022, Mr Foo was convicted and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive correction order.
Suman Mishra
On 3 February 2021, the DPP advised that there was insufficient evidence to charge Suman Mishra with an offence of giving false evidence to the Commission contrary to section 87 of the ICAC Act. The Commission accepts that advice.
Samuel Alexander
On 15 February 2021, the DPP advised that there was sufficient evidence to charge Samuel Alexander with two offences: 1 fraud offence contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act; and one offence of giving false evidence to the Commission contrary to section 87 of the ICAC Act.
Court attendance notices in relation to the above offences were served on Mr Alexander on 5 May 2021. The matter was before the Downing Centre Local Court on 2 December 2021 and Mr Alexander entered pleas of guilty to both offences. The matter proceeded to sentence before the Downing Centre Local Court on 22 December 2021. Mr Alexander was convicted for the offence of fraud, fined $1000 and a community corrections order was imposed for a period of 12 months, on the condition that Mr Alexander is supervised by Community Corrections and is prohibited from offering any services as a contractor to any council in NSW. For the offence of giving false evidence to the Commission, Mr Alexander was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 14 months, with the sentence to be served by way of an intensive correction order, on the condition that Mr Alexander commits no further offences, complies with the supervision of Community Corrections and is prohibited from offering any services as a contractor to any council in NSW.
Zoran Gajic
On 15 February 2021, the DPP advised that there was sufficient evidence to charge Zoran Gajic with offence of receiving a corrupt benefit contrary to section 249B of the Crimes Act.
A court attendance notice in relation to the above offence was served on Mr Gajic on 5 May 2021. The matter was before the Downing Centre Local Court on 18 November 2021. Mr Gajic entered a plea of guilty and the matter was adjourned to 28 January 2022 for sentence. On 28 January 2022, Mr Gajic was convicted and sentenced to a community corrections order for a period of 2 years and a fine of $2,000 was imposed.
Keith Mark
On 15 February 2021, the DPP advised that there was sufficient evidence to charge Keith Mark with 6 fraud offences contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act.
Court attendance notices in relation to the above offences were served on Mr Mark on 5 May 2021. The matter was before the Downing Centre Local Court on 11 November 2021 and 9 December 2021, and was adjourned for mention to 23 December 2021. On 23 December 2021, following plea negotiations, Mr Mark entered pleas of guilty to 4 fraud offences, including one "rolled up" charge, which encompasses the conduct of the 2 charges which were withdrawn. The matter was listed for sentence on 18 February 2022 and was adjourned to 13 April 2022 as the Sentencing Assessment Report was not yet available. On 13 April 2022, the matter was adjourned on the offender’s application, and was then listed for sentence on 23 May 2022. The matter proceeded to sentence on 23 May 2022, and was adjourned to 18 July 2022 to allow a new sentencing assessment report to be completed by NSW Community Corrections as the previous report had been completed by a Queensland authority.
On 18 July 2022, the matter was heard at Downing Centre Local Court. Mr Mark was convicted of four fraud offences and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order, on the condition that he engage with NSW Community Corrections as directed and is subject to a curfew between 10pm and 5am, and electronic monitoring from 18 July 2022 to 17 October 2022.
Aleksa Subeski
On 15 February 2021, the DPP advised that there was sufficient evidence to charge Aleksa Subseki with 218 fraud offences contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. Court attendance notices were not filed as that would have required a physical attendance and, due to the then dynamic nature of the COVID-19 pandemic (and subsequent restrictions) the Commission considered that until there was a substantial improvement in the COVID-19 situation, Commission officers should not be put at risk by requiring their physical attendance. As the Commission has since confirmed that Mr Subeski died on 9 December 2021, no court attendance notices will be issued and the DPP has been advised accordingly.
Lorraine Cullinane
On 6 December 2022, the DPP advised that there is insufficient evidence to proceed. The DPP’s advice not to proceed has been accepted by the Commission.
Recommendations for disciplinary action
Gary Goodman resigned from his position at the City of Botany Bay Council prior to disciplinary action being taken. The Commission, therefore, makes no recommendation in relation to the consideration of disciplinary or dismissal action.
Malcolm Foo’s employment at the Council was terminated prior to disciplinary action being taken. The Commission, therefore, makes no recommendation in relation to the consideration of disciplinary or dismissal action.
Marny Baccam resigned from her position at the Council prior to disciplinary action being taken. The Commission, therefore, makes no recommendation in relation to the consideration of disciplinary or dismissal action.
Given that Suman Mishra no longer works for the Council, the issue of whether consideration should be given to the taking of action against her for a disciplinary offence or the taking of action with a view to her dismissal, does not arise.
Given that Lorraine Cullinane no longer works for the Council, the issue of whether consideration should be given to the taking of action against her for a disciplinary offence or the taking of action with a view to her dismissal, does not arise.
Recommendations for corruption prevention
The Commission has made nine corruption prevention recommendations in this matter. Since the City of Botany Bay Council has now been amalgamated, recommendations relating to Council processes and governance arrangements are made to Bayside Council. Recommendations concerning the local council governance framework are made to the NSW Government.
Recommendation 1
That Bayside Council reviews its financial processes and makes any necessary changes to ensure that:
- its vendor master file is subject to appropriate segregation and review-based controls
- sufficient segregations exist in its invoice payment processes (including the introduction of a three-way match arrangement) to manage the risks associated with fraudulent payments
- operational managers have visibility over, and involvement in, setting budgets and monitoring expenditure against these budgets
- adequate segregations exist across different financial processes.
Recommendation 2
That Bayside Council undertakes a review of the control frameworks governing processes that are vulnerable to corruption (including those related to procurement, invoice payment, fleet management and charge-card usage) and implements any recommendations arising from the review.
Recommendation 3
That Bayside Council reviews the position descriptions of key operational and financial roles to ensure that they include the required skill sets and qualifications.
Recommendation 4
That Bayside Council ensures that the implementation of both internal and external audit recommendations is considered by the elected body when evaluating the performance of the general manager.
Recommendation 5
That Bayside Council undertakes a risk assessment (including an assessment of fraud and corruption risks) to inform its internal audit plan.
Recommendation 6
That Bayside Council ensures that its internal audit function operates independently from management by reporting functionally to its audit committee.
Recommendation 7
That Bayside Council ensures it has a robust system in place to monitor and report on the implementation of internal audit recommendations that is independent from management.
Recommendation 8
That the general manager of Bayside Council conducts a review of the audit committee’s effectiveness and the adequacy of its arrangements to ensure that it fulfils the responsibilities of its charter and provides sufficient assistance to Bayside Council’s governing body on governance processes.
Recommendation 9
That the NSW Government considers adopting a model of local council oversight that is comparable to that applicable to state government agencies. This model could include:
- mandatory administration and governance directives similar to those that apply to state government agencies
- requirements concerning the composition and operation of audit committees that are similar to those that apply to state government agencies
- the requirement for council general managers to attest that audit committees are operating in accordance with requirements.
Response to ICAC recommendations
The action plans and reports posted below have been provided by Bayside Council and the Office of Local Government in response to the ICAC's corruption prevention recommendations. Their publication here is to show the status of the responses. It does not constitute approval or endorsement by the Commission.
24 month progress report - Bayside Council
24 month progress report - Office of Local Government
12 month progress report - Bayside Council
Action plan - Bayside Council - Part A
Action plan - Bayside Council - Part B
Action plan - Office of Local Government