Corporate cop ASIC to await court’s ruling on Clive Palmer

ASIC is adopting a wait-and-see strategy over Clive Palmer since he admitted in the Supreme Court to falsely backdating a document.

ASIC is adopting a wait-and-see strategy over Clive Palmer since he admitted in the Supreme Court to falsely backdating a company document tied to his allegedly dishonest siphoning of $12 million of China’s funds.

The Palmer United Party leader has admitted that as a company director he falsely backdated the key document, which was misleadingly represented as having been produced 11 months earlier.

The admission is in his legal defence to allegations by China’s state-owned Citic Pacific that he had acted fraudulently and dishonestly in taking $12.167m to fund his PUP’s campaign in the federal election, and for personal use.

ASIC has known about the tycoon’s admissions since they were filed in the Supreme Court in Brisbane and reported in The Australian last month. ASIC has not initiated an investigation.

Under the Corporations Act, “a person who makes or authorises the making of a statement that is based on information that to the person’s knowledge is false or misleading in a material particular; or has omitted from it a matter or thing the omission of which renders the information misleading in a material respect” commits an offence. ASIC chairman Greg Medcraft declined to be interviewed by The Australian.

An ASIC spokesman said the regulator had “been aware of the proceedings”. He said: “As a judgment in the matter is yet to be handed down, it would be inappropriate to comment.”

The spokesman added that “where a judge of a superior court of an Australian state makes findings that raise issues or concerns that a breach of the Corporations Act has occurred, we will review the judgment in detail. Generally, when ASIC is called to investigate matters, our approach is we consider a range of factors when deciding whether to investigate and possibly take enforcement action, to ensure that we direct our resources appropriately. The specific factors we consider will vary according to the circumstances of the case.”

As a director of two companies he ultimately owns, Cosmo Developments and Queensland Nickel, Mr Palmer signed and executed the controversial document — titled “Port Management Services Agreement” — which was purported by him to have come into existence on June 1 last year, the date next to his signature on the paperwork.

The Chinese examined the document and alleged that it was a fabrication and a “sham transaction” to try to provide an explanation for his siphoning of the cash for purposes other than the operation of a port.

Supreme Court judge David Jackson QC is expected to make findings early next year.

Mr Palmer has strenuously denied that he was not permitted to use the funds deposited by the Bank of China in the “Port Palmer Operations” bank account as he saw fit.