FOI evidence proves government behind prosecution, says Clive Palmer

Businessman Clive Palmer yesterday made a final bid to have criminal charges against him thrown out.

Businessman Clive Palmer. Picture: AAP

Clive Palmer claims new evidence obtained under Freedom of Information laws proves the corporate watchdog’s decision to prosecute him over an alleged breach of takeover law was influenced by the government.

The businessman yesterday made a final bid to have criminal charges against him thrown out, appealing against an earlier decis­ion by a Queensland Supreme Court judge who rejected his attem­pt to ­permanently stay proceedi­ngs against him in the Brisbane Magistrates Court.

The criminal prosecution against Mr Palmer and his company Palmer Leisure Coolum came after he was charged last year by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission. It alleged that Mr Palmer breached the Corporations Act in his failed takeover of a body corporate group at his Coolum resort.

The United Australia Party leader, who failed in his attempt to win a Senate seat at the federal election last month, claimed the charges were part of a government conspiracy against him.

Mr Palmer, 65, was charged with aiding the commission of an offence by Palmer Leisure Coolum, which allegedly announced its intention to take over the President’s Club timeshare scheme in 2012 but failed to make an offer for the securities in the company within the legis­lated two-month period.

The charges carry a maxim­um penalty of two years’ jail and fines of $11,000 for an indivi­dual and $55,000 for a corporation.

In the Brisbane Court of ­Appeal yesterday, barrister Christopher Ward, acting for Palmer Leisure Coolum, claimed ASIC pursued the company only so it could get to Mr Palmer.

He said newly available internal emails from ASIC — accessed under FOI laws — showed ASIC dithered about charging Palmer Leisure Coolum for six months.

It decided to pursue the case after a minister asked for a briefing on the matter and a “history report” on Mr Palmer. The ­Appeal Court’s decision will be handed down at a later date.