Victoria's CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 176

Receipt or solicitation of secret commission by an agent an indictable offence

    (1)     Whosoever being an agent CORRUPTLY receives or solicits from any person for himself or for any other person any valuable consideration— 

        (a)     as an inducement or reward for or otherwise on account of doing or forbearing to do or having done or forborne to do any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business; or 

        (b)     the receipt or any expectation of which would in any way tend to influence him to show or to forbear to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business

From the appeal in Norm Gallagher's case.

In charging the jury as he did, the learned trial Judge followed the ruling concerning the meaning of corruptly in offences under para. (b) of s176(1) and s176(2) of the Crimes Act made by Brooking J in R v Dillon and Riach [1982] VicRp 43; [1982] VR 434. Brooking J's ruling arose in the course of the trial of two persons charged with corruptly giving and receiving, respectively, valuable considerations. Counsel for the alleged recipient took exception to the direction concerning what constitutes "corruptly receives" which his Honour indicated he proposed to give. The direction which his Honour contemplated was that the accused (the receiver) acted corruptly if, at the time he received the benefit, he believed the giver intended that it should influence him to show or refrain from showing favour or disfavour in relation to the principal's affairs or business. After reviewing authorities, Brooking J, at p. 436, expressed his reasons for his intended direction as follows: "In my view, an agent does act corruptly if he receives a benefit in the belief that the giver intends that it should influence him to show favour in relation to the principal's affairs. If he accepts the benefit which he believes is being given to him because the donor hopes for an act of favouritism in return, even though he does not intend to perform that act, he is, by the mere act of receiving the benefit with his belief as to the intention with which it is given, knowingly encouraging the donor in an act of bribery or attempted bribery, knowingly profiting from his position of agent by reason of his supposed ability and willingness, in return for some reward, to show favouritism in his principal's affairs and knowingly putting himself in a position of temptation as regards the impartial discharge of his duties in consequence of the acceptance of a benefit." 

Determination of this ground of appeal, therefore, depends upon our view of the correctness of Brooking J's ruling

It therefore clearly emerges from the decisions and opinions of the Court of Appeal, and from what was said by Cussen J in R v Scott [1907] VicLawRp 84; [1907] VLR 471 and Hood J in R v Stevenson [1907] VicLawRp 85; [1907] VLR 475, that it is the intention of the person either giving or receiving, as the case may be, at the time of the passing of the consideration which is relevant to whether the behaviour charged was corrupt within the meaning of the section. This emerges in the passage cited by Bray CJ in C v Johnson [1967] SASR 279, at p. 290, from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Ontario in R v Gross [1946] OR 1: "The word 'corruptly' in the section sounds the key note to the conduct at which the section is aimed. The evil is the giving of a gift or consideration, not bona fide but mala fide, and designedly, wholly or partially, for the purpose of bringing about the effect forbidden by the section

Thus Brooking J's ruling is consistent with the weight of authority founded upon Cooper v Slade

Where could anyone at S&G have got the idea that what the WRA was involved in amounted to the receipt of corrupt money?

Julia (Sgt Schultz) Gillard knew nuzzink about nuzzink.

Wilson had briefed Murphy about the Welfare a/c.

Hang on! Wasn't there a deposit into that account from a Theiss cheque made out to the WRA?

You would expect Wilson to have told Murphy about the deposits into the Welfare a/c so that he could advise him properly.

Could he have told Murphy what was really going on between him and Theiss?

We know Murphy at least opened a file in relation to the advice he gave Wilson because Gordon referred to it in his press release about what caused the departure of Gillard and Murphy from S&G.

Do you think some other partners may have had a little peek at what Wilson told Murphy?

Possibly, seeing as how they were probably shitting their pants at their potential liabilities to third parties.

Ah , the mystery remains; why on earth would Murphy talk about “corrupt payments”.

Where did he get that idea from?

ENDS

And this considered opinion from a clearly well informed Julia Gillard who had seen enough and "thought" about it enough to "think" she knew about the character of the money.