Prominent Canberra lawyer Ben Aulich has accused police of "the clearest and most profound instance of entrapment imaginable" as he contests claims he conspired to launder money purported to be the proceeds of crime.
Aulich's barrister, David Campbell SC, made the accusation in the ACT Magistrates Court on Thursday, when he applied to cross-examine the undercover police officers who targeted the well-known solicitor.
The Canberra Times has previously revealed police went after Aulich with a so-called "major controlled operation", which was conducted over the course of about eight months in 2020.
The sting involved an undercover officer, calling himself "Alex Torosian", posing as a client of Aulich's self-titled law firm and purporting to be a criminal involved in the illegal importation of cigarettes.
Police allege Aulich and accountant Michael Papandrea conspired to help the undercover officer buy a supermarket for the purpose of laundering a "wardrobe full of f---ing cash" from the fictitious tobacco venture.
Aulich, 49, and Papandrea, 56, have both pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering. The lawyer also denies a charge of recruiting the accountant to engage in criminal activity.
The court heard on Thursday that Aulich and Papandrea initially had "high-level", general discussions with the undercover officer about business structures and the types of enterprises the man might set up.
These were said to include cafes, restaurants, panel beaters, and a business centred on "tomato cans".
Papandrea's barrister, Sam Pararajasingham, told the court the conversations were "wide-ranging, meandering" and generally hypothetical until a second undercover officer was thrown into the mix.
This operative seemed to introduce "a sort of urgency" and "aggressively" push things in a certain direction, Mr Pararajasingham said, telling magistrate Michael Crompton questions arose as to whether the officer had acted within the scope of the authority granted to conduct the major controlled operation.
Mr Pararajasingham said this was an important issue in the case and one that should be explored prior to any trial to ensure fairness for the defendants.
Mr Campbell subsequently mounted another attack on the validity of the police probe, having previously been denied access to the application officers made to conduct it.
He said while Aulich's legal team could not have this document, he believed cross-examining the undercover operatives and other police officers "instrumental in the process" would make it clear "the whole operation ... could not reasonably have been issued".
"From the inception of this undercover operation ... a process is embarked upon, actively utilising [money] to create an offence and implicate Mr Aulich in it," Mr Campbell told the court.
"It is the clearest and most profound instance of entrapment imaginable."
Mr Campbell added that major controlled operations could not be carried out to induce someone to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed.
But he said police had "persisted for many months, right to the point of trying to put $75,000 into the hands of Mr Aulich and Mr Papandrea at the heel of the hunt, which, of course, was money never accepted".
Mr Campbell described the actions of police as "deliberate, protracted, intentional illegal conduct".
But prosecutor Mark Tedeschi KC argued the defendants' claims were "seriously misconceived".
Mr Tedeschi told the court the investigation was not limited by the authority issued to conduct the major controlled operation, which was merely about protecting the undercover operatives from prosecution if they had to carry out any illegal conduct as part of the probe.
He also claimed Mr Campbell had "misconceived the defence of entrapment", giving an example of a husband who feared major financial losses after his wife threatened him with a divorce.
The prosecutor said it would not be entrapment if this person merely complained about "his problem" to a hit man, who offered to "bump off" his wife in order to fix it.
In this case, Mr Tedeschi argued, the undercover police had merely spoken about the "problem" of what to do with money that was purportedly the proceeds of crime.
"Then you have [Aulich and Papandrea], who come up with a solution," Mr Tedeschi said.
He ultimately told Mr Crompton the defendants were required to satisfy five grounds if they wished to cross-examine witnesses during a contested committal hearing, arguing they had failed to do this.
Mr Crompton indicated he would rule on the issue on January 16 next year.
