Clive Palmer folds, admits key date falsified over China funds

CLIVE Palmer falsely backdated a document to provide an explanation for his siphoning of $12 million in Chinese funds for his own use.

CLIVE Palmer signed and executed a document that he falsely backdated by 11 months to provide an explanation for his siphoning of $12 million in Chinese funds for his own use.

The document, titled “Port Management Services Agreement’’, has been previously ­described as a “sham transaction” and a fabrication by the Chinese government-owned companies which accuse the Palmer United Party leader of dishonesty and fraud.

The Weekend Australian can reveal Mr Palmer now admits the key document, which came from his company, was not created on June 1 last year, the date next to his signature on the paperwork.

Mr Palmer admits in his formal legal defence, filed in the Supreme Court in Brisbane, that the document was created 11 months later, in April or May this year. This means the document was produced long after he took the funds, which bankrolled the PUP into the federal election in September last year.

Mr Palmer’s legal defence states “the defendants (Mr Palmer and his company, Cosmo ­Developments) admit that the PMSA was executed in or about April or May, 2014”. He also ­admits that it “came into existence” in the same period.

GRAPHIC: Palmer extracts

But the federal member for Fairfax strenuously denies that it was a “sham transaction” to try to justify his withdrawals of about $12m.

His legal defence states that the document “was prepared by Palmer” for the purposes of ratifying and expanding on an oral agreement that he made with his own companies (Mineralogy and QNI) in June last year to charge a $12m fee for port services.

The surprise disclosure gives weight to allegations that the document has been falsely held out as having been created and executed two months before Mr Palmer withdrew $10m in Chinese funds, in August last year. He withdrew another $2.167m in early September last year to pay the Brisbane agency managing the PUP’s campaign advertising in the federal election, Media Circus Network.

The document may also have misled the Supreme Court and separate confidential quasi-­judicial arbitration proceedings as it was tendered as legitimate evidence in those proceedings.

Mr Palmer signed and executed the document on behalf of his companies. It was not witnessed.

Mr Palmer’s acknowledgment that the document was from April or May this year, which followed The Australian’s reports that the Chinese companies were rigorously examining his claims that the $12.167m he withdrew was spent on “port management services’’, shapes as a major problem in an upcoming civil trial in Brisbane over alleged dishonesty.

The Chinese government-owned companies under the Citic Pacific umbrella claim the document was concocted after it ­became clear to Mr Palmer that his siphoning of the funds would be subjected to a “searching ­inquiry” by Beijing.

They have previously alleged in the Supreme Court that the document was most likely brought into existence in April or May this year “in order to attempt to justify the ($12.167m) payments as legitimate expenses for, or in respect, of port management services when, to Palmer’s knowledge, they were not”.

Paul Robinson, Mr Palmer’s executive in charge of overseeing operations at the West Australian iron ore export port of Cape Preston, has given evidence that he was not aware of the document until last May. Mr Robinson had not budgeted for expenses of $12m for the port as Mr Palmer’s company, Mineralogy, was not in possession of the port.

The Chinese companies have said the document “bears all the hallmarks of having been created with extreme haste”, being littered with multiple drafting ­errors and mis-spellings.

They accuse Mr Palmer, to whom they paid $US415m six years ago fto mine his iron ore tenements, of being involved in a “dishonest and fraudulent” breach of trust over the $12.167m, and say the document was backdated by 11 months.

The acknowledgment by Mr Palmer that the document was falsely dated will raise further questions in his Supreme Court civil trial this month about who backdated it and whether the ­intent was improper. The Citic Pacific-owned companies seek declarations including “that Palmer dishonestly procured or was involved in” a breach of trust, and that he knowingly assisted the company he controlled, Mineralogy, “in its dishonest and fraudulent breach of trust”.

The Chinese side has told the court: “Mineralogy was not in possession of the port, had not budgeted to provide $10m worth of services to the port in the second half of 2013 and had no plan to incur any such expenditure.”

Mr Palmer’s defence, which was filed on Thursday, admits the budget made no such provisions, and that he authorised the payments of $2.167m and $10m. Mr Palmer ­denies he acted fraudulently or dishonestly. His defence insists he “did not know that the funds in the bank account were trust funds — if it be the case, which is denied …”

Justice David Jackson QC, who will conduct the civil trial, has previously rejected Mr Palmer’s counter-claim that the ­Chinese side was trying to damage his reputation for an improper purpose.