The former husband of a Sydney businesswoman accused of defrauding the National Australia Bank of millions of dollars has told her criminal trial that he assaulted his then-wife and his best friend after finding them in a “compromising situation”.
Helen Rosamond, 47, is standing trial in the NSW District Court in Sydney on charges relating to her alleged role in defrauding NAB. She has pleaded not guilty to 60 counts of giving a corrupt benefit and 32 counts of dishonestly obtaining, or attempting to dishonestly obtain, a financial advantage by deception.
The jury has been told charges total $15 million.
Geoffrey Rosamond in 2019.Credit: Jessica Hromas
Her former husband, Geoffrey Rosamond, has been called to give evidence in her trial. He has previously told the court he was unaware of how his former wife had paid for an overseas holiday and hundreds of thousands of dollars in landscaping for their Mosman home.
He told the Downing Centre District Court in Sydney on Friday that he had asked her about how they were paying for the 2015 holiday and his then-wife had told him she had used upgrades, frequent flyer points and their contacts at a travel agency.
He was also asked on Friday about the circumstances in which he assaulted Helen and his best friend, Jeremy Best, on January 10, 2015, outside the couple’s Mosman home.
Rosamond was charged later in 2015 with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm on Best and assaulting his then-wife occasioning actual bodily harm. He subsequently pleaded guilty to the charges.
He said he had found Best “in a compromising sexual situation with Helen in the street at 3.30 in the morning”.
Rosamond told the court he saw Best shortly after the incident, before charges were laid, and “I apologised for my actions and [expressed] regret and remorse for what had happened”.
“It was a complete overreaction on my behalf and there’s no reason ... for physical violence. We stayed friendly; we saw each other [on two occasions at social events],” he said.
During cross-examination by Helen Rosamond’s barrister, Dr Anton Hughes, Rosamond said he had fractured Best’s eye socket. He also agreed Best later tried to sue him for damages over the assault.
Asked if he had caused long-lasting impairment of Best’s vision, Rosamond said this had been “alleged” and was part of the agreed facts in court for the purposes of his sentencing for the assault.
Helen Rosamond outside court on August 16.Credit: Oscar Colman
Hughes put it to Rosamond that his ex-wife and friend had been kissing in the street, prompting Rosamond to reply that “the agreed facts were that they were kissing”. He said the agreed facts also stated that he was in pyjama shorts and bare feet when he came across the pair, and “the kiss had turned intimate”.
Rosamond said he left Australia on April 29, 2015, to go to the British Virgin Islands and the United States. He was charged over the assaults on his arrival back in Australia on September 30, 2015.
Rosamond said he “started divorce proceedings shortly after I arrived back” in Australia.
The Crown alleges Helen Rosamond sent falsified and inflated invoices from her event management company Human Group to NAB between 2013 and 2017 and paid millions of dollars in kickbacks to Rosemary Rogers, chief of staff in the office of the bank’s then-chief executive, to ensure they were paid.
The court has previously heard allegations Rosamond paid for luxury travel, accommodation, and a vehicle for Rogers, in return for Rogers approving inflated invoices that incorrectly attributed Rosamond’s personal expenses to NAB, including $228,747 for an interior designer to furnish her Potts Point home.
Rogers has been prosecuted and jailed for her role in the NAB arrangement, the jury has been told, and she is expected to give evidence in the trial.
Helen Rosamond’s barrister said in his opening address to the court that the central issue in the case would be whether she was party to an agreement with Rogers to defraud the bank.
“[The] interpretation that it was all Ms Rosamond’s idea is very much disputed,” Hughes said.
“The defence is likely to raise an alternative interpretation, that it was Ms Rogers who took those benefits for herself.”
The trial continues.
Our Breaking News Alert will notify you of significant breaking news when it happens. Get it here.