On 14 January 1995 Alan Bond, Peter Mitchell and Tony Oates were charged with conspiracy to defraud under the WA Criminal Code and various other offences under the Companies (WA) Code. Those charges represented the culmination of what must have been one of the lengthiest and most exhaustive criminal investigations ever conducted in Australia.

Before I turn to the uses which were made of computer technology in the investigation and trial preparation stages of the Bond case, I should give some background of the magnitude of the issues that had to be dealt with.

I should note that whilst Bond and Mitchell have been convicted, Oates has yet to be tried and, accordingly, I do not intend to make any reference to his alleged role. In brief, the charges related to an allegedly fraudulent scheme to strip the company Bell Resources Ltd ("Bell") of its cash assets and channel them into the debt ridden Bond Corporation Holdings Limited ("Bond Corp"). Bond Corp had acquired control of the cash rich Bell after a take-over bid but there continued to be a significant number of minority shareholders. The scheme involved what were known as back-to-back loans, that is the passing of funds through an apparently independent intermediary. This had the effect of concealing where the money was going. Initially over $500 million in a series of transactions was removed in this way. Over $50 million went directly to Bond’s private company, Dallhold. These "loans" were replaced with different types of facilities over time. Ultimately it was alleged that a total of $1.2 billion was involved in the fraud. These events occurred over a period of about one year between August 1988 and June 1989.

The fact that such a huge amount of money representing the majority of Bell’s assets had been loaned to Bond Corp without security and on terms which were highly favourable to Bond Corp was not disclosed until April 1989. As you can imagine, there was considerable disquiet amongst the minority shareholders of Bell. To describe Bond Corp as being a bad credit risk at this time is a triumph of understatement. The shareholders, were, however, somewhat mollified by a proposal to clear the debt by selling Bond Corp’s brewing assets to Bell. After a delay of many months this transaction fell through and, only then, did the full extent of the damage begin to become apparent.

Initially an investigation was commenced by the National Companies and Securities Commission ("NCSC") in September 1989. That investigation was focussed on determining whether the share market had been kept fully informed. Later, in March of 1990, another investigation headed by Mr John Sulan was commenced (as a special investigation under the Companies Code). That investigation was frustrated to some extent by challenges brought by Bond and others in the WA Supreme Court and the Federal Court. On 1 January 1991 the Australian Securities Commission ("ASC") came into existence and took over responsibility for the investigation. The investigations of both the NCSC and Sulan had been very wide ranging and were not focussed on obtaining admissible evidence for criminal prosecutions. The Sulan investigation was wound up on 1 March 1991. By that time, 325 notices to produce documents had been issued, 65 witnesses had been examined, some more than once, meaning that 97 examinations had been conducted occupying 90 hearing days and over 8,300 pages of transcript. An estimated 200,000 documents had been collected, processed and reviewed.

At this stage the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ("DPP") was asked to review the available material in order to identify those matters which might be best suited to further investigation with a view to the proof of criminal offences. This was done and in August 1991 a joint Federal Police/ASC investigation team was established. It was focussed, in particular, on the alleged $1.2 billion fraud on Bell. This investigation proved to be more complex and difficult than had been envisaged. In fact it took almost three years to complete, a brief being finally delivered to the DPP on 30 June 1994.

By the end of the criminal investigation 177 potential witnesses had been interviewed, some on several occasions. Those witnesses had been interviewed in several states and also in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Singapore and Bermuda.

Approximately 478,000 pages of documentation had been reviewed and retained. An even larger quantity of documents, including 350 archive boxes and 50 filing cabinets, had been examined and deemed irrelevant.

The brief, containing only witness statements, transcripts, explanatory material and the most essential documents, occupied over 55 lever-arched files. Copies of the remaining relevant documents took up a further 54 files.

It is perhaps obvious that this was a case where computer technology was vital in bringing the matter to a successful conclusion. The need to utilise computer technology and to adapt it to the particular needs of the Bond Investigation was appreciated by the ASC and the DPP at an early stage.

Rather than endeavouring to explain what types of equipment and software were used (which I am not competent to do) I would like to make reference to a number of areas where technology provided practical solutions to problems that were otherwise seemingly insurmountable.

The criminal investigation inherited a small mountain of documents from the Sulan investigation which quickly grew into a large mountain. From the outset rigorous document control was required.

The first concern was to properly catalogue the documents. Documents had not only been produced by Bond Corp and Bell but by banks, firms of solicitors, accountants, Government Departments and private individuals. It was necessary to be able to easily determine the provenance of every potentially relevant document to ensure that it was admissible at any future trial.

Initially documents were catalogued to file level. When it was determined that a file contained relevant documents then those documents were individually catalogued. Information regarding the type of document, when and where it was obtained and its identifying number were manually entered into a database. The system used generated unique seven digit numbers for each recorded document. Labels with these numbers were placed on the original. This process was completed immediately any documents were obtained and before any copies were made to ensure the number appeared on all copies.

The unique identifying numbers were used whenever documents were discussed during interviews or examinations or mentioned in statements. Because all statements and transcripts were entered on a network database to which the whole team had access it was easily possible to conduct searches using the computers to determine which witnesses had been shown a particular document.

As the investigation progressed and it became clear that the number of documents was becoming difficult to manage in the context of the need for copies to conduct interviews, the ASC determined that document imaging was necessary. It was fortunate that the ASC was responsible for this investigation because it had at that time, and I think still has, one of the most advanced facilities for large scale document imaging in Australia at its Information Processing Centre in Traralgon, Victoria.

Of the 478,000 pages of material that had been retained by the investigation, 240,000 were assessed as being most relevant. These were packaged and transferred from Perth to Victoria. A member of the investigation team accompanied the original documents and oversaw the imaging process to ensure that no issues as to continuity could arise and to also ensure that the computer images were verifiable reproductions of the originals. The documents were barcoded so that the images could easily be linked to the document register. The imaging process was completed within 8 weeks with staff at the Information Processing Centre working on a 24 hour shift basis.

The imaging of documents had a number of significant practical advantages for the investigation:

This was an investigation where preparation for interviews with witnesses was of crucial importance. Some witnesses had been interviewed two and perhaps more times before. Their patience was wearing thin and they needed to be dealt with as efficiently as possible. The investigators had to be fully familiar with prior transcripts and be alert to possible inconsistencies. The ability to search and cut and paste from transcripts and statements was of great assistance.

It was also possible to search for particular documents to obtain a list of those who may be able to give admissible evidence about it. Better still, when preparing to interview a person a search of all documents ever shown to the person could be generated. The system was capable of showing both a statement or transcript and, by splitting the screen, also simultaneously showing a document that may have been referred to. This meant that statement preparation was faster and more accurate. Investigators rarely had to remove original documents from the exhibit room – virtually all that they needed was accessible from their computer terminals.

New statements or interview transcripts were immediately loaded onto the database so all investigators could have access to them and take into account new developments as they occurred. The result was that the investigation team tended to be well informed of progress and well focussed on what remained to be achieved.

The system developed by the ASC was designed to be compatible with the DPP’s computer systems. Thus the DPP was able to receive the information available in the ASC’s Bond database in an almost seamless way. The DPP could use, thus, all the same tools in preparing the case for trial and in proofing witnesses.

The entire brief, including statements, transcripts and all relevant documents could be placed upon CD’s. A brief that could have filled a small room was delivered to senior counsel on a small computer.

My experience of very large document intensive fraud cases is that where the defendant is well resourced such cases can become a war of attrition. The defendant with means can consume much court time seeking access to other documents deemed to be inessential by the prosecution. Subpoenas may result in the production of enormous quantities of documents. The defendant may turn this to their tactical advantage by insisting on lengthy adjournments to give them an opportunity to examine the documents.

The DPP, conscious both of the risk of delays and of the trend in recent decisions from the United Kingdom and Australia to set aside convictions where material information in the possession of the Crown, even if unknowingly, is not made available to a defendant, has been moving to a liberal disclosure policy. In practice this means that where the prosecution has selected the material upon which it will rely to prove its case from a much larger quantity of material collected during an investigation, the "unused" material should be made available to the defence for examination.

In this case the documents upon which the prosecution intended to rely were narrowed down to some 2,000. Images of these documents, together with relevant statements and software were provided as part of an election brief to the defendants’ solicitors. Thankfully, those solicitors were reasonably receptive to receiving the prosecution brief in this form. That may well have been because the DPP had utilised the same method in the "La Promenade" prosecution of Alan Bond.

Rather than wait for requests or subpoenas seeking access to unused material, it was decided to pre-empt this by providing on CD’s all of the 478,000 pages of documents from which the Crown case had been selected. We also provided, on disk, the NCSC and Sulan transcripts. In addition there were the boxes and filing cabinets of irrelevant material kept in off-site storage. Though not imaged, a computer index had been kept of this material and that index was also provided, both in hard copy and disk format. An invitation was issued to inspect the material in off-site storage. All of this was achievable only with the benefit of computer technology. Importantly, it was also achieved many months in advance of the trial so that there would be no excuse for delay on the part of the defendants.

Not only did this disclosure pre-empt the possibility of any delaying tactics it also obviated the need to spend hours supervising defence access to the original relevant material. The prosecution team was, thus, able to focus on preparing its case rather than in servicing defence requests for information. Not that there weren’t such requests in any event. Regrettably Bond’s solicitors requested a copy of the 478,000 documents in hard paper form and this produced 14 large boxes of paper. However even this task was easier as it was far simpler to print out copies from the images than to make photocopies of the originals.

The last matter I want to raise is the use to which we put computer technology in producing presentation aids. The Crown case in substance was quite a simple one but this was in danger of being obscured by the sheer weight of the evidence required to prove it. The challenge was to produce charts, schedules or diagrams that would enable a judge or jury to draw together the evidence and perceive its total effect.

Flow-charts are not, of course, novel but using the computer system developed for this case the DPP was able to create charts that were interactive with the images of documents. So, for example, by clicking on a part of a flow-chart representing the flow of funds the banking and accounting documents that proved that part could be brought up. Whilst great effort went into developing such charts they received little emphasis, perhaps because the defendants could so readily perceive the futility in challenging them.

Schedules of the banking and accounting documents that proved the transactions were prepared. These demonstrated how the transactions were proven. In the early stages they disclosed any gaps in the evidence, which were then filled. When these schedules were provided to the defendants it was readily accepted that no issue would be taken with the fact that the transactions had actually occurred. As is so often the case, if the work on proving such basic facts is done effectively the defence more quickly focuses on the more substantive issues.

A lengthy schedule, extending to over 100 A4 pages, particularising the prosecution case was also prepared. This was invaluable in disclosing any weaknesses or gaps in the case. It also was used to great effect during the committal proceedings. As evidence was given during those proceedings the schedule of particulars was noted with the transcript page and witness name or the exhibit number which proved an alleged fact. This could be printed out at any stage to show the progress of the case and the evidence still required. At the end it was handed up to the magistrate as providing a simple guide to the evidence which the Crown said established that there was a case to answer.

The database of images and statement was, as I have noted, compatible with DPP equipment. In particular the DPP was able to incorporate the data with relative ease into a computer presentation system for use in Court. This system had also been used very successfully in the La Promenade committal and trial. I will not dwell on the DPP presentation system as it has been the subject of a paper given at an earlier session.

As I have said, the matter did proceed to a committal and the case presentation system was used. The use of computers meant that the Court, like the investigation, was largely paperless. The original documents remained for the most part in archive boxes stacked against the wall. Not only were the proceedings able to be conducted far more efficiently but the evidence flowed in a much more understandable way. The magistrate made a point in commending the use which had been made of technology and the obvious benefits that flowed from it.

Bond and Mitchell subsequently pleaded guilty prior to their trial which had been listed in the Supreme Court of WA for April 1997. I like to think that computer technology helped them to see more clearly the strength of the case against them.

Stephen Hall

Assistant Director, Corporations Branch

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions