Sacked lawyer denies cash fraud allegations were bid to save himself

A Brisbane lawyer sacked over allegations he stole from his firm has denied giving evidence to the CCC against his former colleagues in a bid to secure indemnity for his own criminal offending.

Michael Bosscher outside the Supreme Court. Picture: Liam Kidston

A Brisbane lawyer sacked over allegations he stole from his firm has denied giving evidence to the Crime and Corruption Commission against his former colleagues in a bid to secure indemnity for his own criminal offending.

Timothy Meehan entered his third day on the witness stand at the fraud trial of his former colleague Michael Frederick Bosscher in the Brisbane District Court on Wednesday.

Bosscher, 54, has pleaded not guilty to one charge of fraud and eight counts of falsifying documents.

Mr Meehan gave evidence that he was accused of stealing and terminated from his position at Bosscher Lawyers on August 16, 2016 during a meeting with Bosscher, his wife Alison who was the firm’s legal practice director, and another lawyer Alex Jones.

When asked by Crown Prosecutor Greg Cummings who had sacked him, Mr Meehan said it had been Bosscher.

Bosscher, who is representing himself, put to Meehan: “I suggest you said to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that I sacked you because it fits with the narrative of me being this domineering puppet master of all those that I survey.”

Mr Meehan responded: “No it’s because it was my recollection that you were the one who spoke to me and terminated my employment on that day.”

Lawyer Michael Bosscher. Picture: Dan Peled / NCA NewsWire

The court heard that in the weeks after being terminated from Bosscher Lawyers, Mr Meehan went to the CCC in mid-September and gave evidence over a number of days about allegations including that he, Bosscher, and others at the firm had taken cash payments from clients.

Mr Meehan agreed with Bosscher’s statements that in those interviews he promised to be “full and frank and tell the truth”, that the purpose “was you wished to effectively confess your sins”, “to take whatever punishment was coming your way” and that it was an “opportunity to clear your conscience”.

“But it wasn’t any sort of manipulation or scheme by you to try and avoid any wrongdoing that you might have done?,” Bosscher asked.

“No,” Mr Meehan replied.

Bosscher put to him: “When you told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that you went into the CCC to confess your sins, purge your soul and take what was coming, that’s not the case I suggest to you, you were actually going in there to try and get an indemnity.”

“No I don’t accept that,” Mr Meehan replied.

“Let’s see if I can tell these guys at the CCC enough bad stuff about my colleagues that they’d choose not to prosecute me,” Bosscher put to him,

Mr Meehan responded: “That’s one way of looking at it.”

“And I suggest to you that was the plan,” Bosscher said.

“No, as I said I felt no hope of receiving an indemnity whatsoever,” Mr Meehan said.

He told the court ultimately he did not receive indemnity from prosecution.

Mr Meehan earlier told the court on Tuesday that he was charged and pleaded guilty to fraud and falsification of records and that his sentence was discounted on the basis he would give evidence at Bosscher’s trial.

Tim Meehan leaving court. Picture: Liam Kidston

Mr Meehan also gave evidence that while he worked at the firm, he produced a number of documents including cost agreements and memorandums of fees in relation to a client Paul Luu and his associates in response to a request from the CCC.

Mr Meehan told the court he had produced the documents and forged signatures of clients on a number of them, allegedly at the direction of Bosscher.

Mr Meehan said no one helped him create the documents and he did not believe anyone else was aware of their existence.

“Certainly nobody else knew that they were false documents?,” Bosscher asked.

Meehan replied: “I don’t recall, I don’t even recall telling Alex (Jones) about them”.

He agreed he was concerned that the CCC was making inquiries about Mr Luu.

“And you were concerned that, on your evidence, Mr Luu had paid money that had been shared between you, Alex and I,” Bosscher asked and Mr Meehan agreed.

“And that the CCC were potentially aware of that fact.

“Yes that was my concern,” Mr Meehan said, agreeing he was concerned about the ramifications of that to himself, Bosscher, Jones and the wider practice.

“And so your evidence is that you and I alone concocted some sort of plan to deal with that by producing these documents,” Bosscher asked.

“Yes that’s right,” Mr Meehan replied.

Bosscher put to him: “And that at no stage even though it directly affected him did you ever inform Mr Jones of this plan that we concocted. But it had the potential of the same impact upon him as it did upon you and me.”

“Yes,” Mr Meehan replied.

The trial continues.