Major Fraud Group Victoria Police
Corruption is contagious and does not respect sectoral boundaries.
TIO Evidence File No 3-A is an internal Telstra email (FOI folio A05993) dated 10 November 1993 from Chris Vonwiller to Telstra’s corporate secretary Jim Holmes, CEO Frank Blount, group general manager of commercial Ian Campbell and other important members of the then-government-owned corporation. The subject is Warwick Smith – COT cases, and it is marked as CONFIDENTIAL:
“Warwick Smith contacted me in confidence to brief me on discussions he has had in the last two days with a senior member of the parliamentary National Party in relation to Senator Boswell’s call for a Senate Inquiry into COT Cases.
“Advice from Warwick is:
Boswell has not yet taken the trouble to raise the COT Cases issue in the Party Room.
Any proposal to call for a Senate inquiry would require, firstly, endorsement in the Party Room and, secondly, approval by the Shadow Cabinet. …
The intermediary will raise the matter with Boswell, and suggest that Boswell discuss the issue with Warwick. The TIO sees no merit in a Senate Inquiry.“He has undertaken to keep me informed, and confirmed his view that Senator Alston will not be pressing a Senate Inquiry, at least until after the AUSTEL report is tabled.
“Could you please protect this information as confidential.”
Exhibit TIO Evidence File No 3-A confirms that two weeks before the TIO was officially appointed as the administrator of the Fast Track Settlement Proposal (FTSP), which became the Fast-Track Arbitration Procedure (FTAP), he provided the soon-to-be defendants (Telstra) with privileged, government party room information about the COT cases. Thus, the TIO breached his duty of care to the COT claimants and compromised his future position as the official independent administrator of the process.
It is highly likely the advice the TIO gave to Telstra’s senior executive, in confidence (that Senator Ron Boswell’s National Party Room was not keen on holding a Senate enquiry), later prompted Telstra to have the FTSP non-legalistic commercial assessment process turned into Telstra’s preferred legalistic arbitration procedure, because they now had inside government privileged information: there was no longer a significant threat of a Senate enquiry.
Major Fraud Group - Victoria Police
All the main statements presented on this website, including those that are merely comments, are supported by at least one, and often three to five, pieces of evidence. However, I want to highlight a specific statement regarding what Neil Jepson, Barrister for the Major Fraud Group, said to me in the Chambers of the Supreme Court of Victoria. We were both called to provide evidence on behalf of Barrister Sue Owens, but I cannot support this statement with documents. Since my next statement relies solely on my word regarding what Mr Jepson said, I ask that everyone who has read the comments on absentjustice.com keep this in mind when considering his remarks; he has since passed away.
Mr Jepson’s remarks expose a deeply sinister reality: the evidence presented to the Major Fraud Group regarding the duplicitous statements made by Dr Gordon Hughes to Laurie James, the esteemed President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia, is nothing short of shocking. Dr Hughes claimed that he and his technical advisors had meticulously reviewed all 24,000 documents; however, these documents were never submitted for appropriate arbitration assessment.
The Major Fraud Group, along with Tony Morgon, the Chief Loss Assessor from GAB Robins—international assessors appointed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman—unearthed a disturbing truth: I did not submit these 24,000 FOI-released documents for arbitration due to Telstra's deliberate delays, which left me with inadequate time for a thorough review. In a further act of malice, Dr Hughes categorically denied me the opportunity to present a mini-report that I had painstakingly compiled from these documents.
Dr Hughes's actions amounted to a calculated misrepresentation of Laurie James during an official investigation, and his refusal to confront the lies—whether he or his advisors were responsible—constitutes a grave betrayal of trust that weighs heavily on all involved.
Mr Jepson also pointed out that the Major Fraud Group continues to investigate the dubious claims made by Arbitration Project Manager John Rundell regarding the Brighton Criminal Investigation Branch. Rundell pretended that they were preparing to interrogate me about alleged criminal damage to his property; however, no such inquiry ever materialised. If there had been any legitimate suspicion against me, the Major Fraud Group and Victoria Police would not have sought my expertise on the fraud allegations involving Sue Owens’ clients. This entire scenario reeks of complicity and corruption at multiple levels.
It is both tragic and infuriating that Mr Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, continued to operate with alarming impunity for several years after this disclosure. He made outrageous accusations against Laurie James, alleging that I had written to him claiming I had called Dr Hughes’ wife at 2:00 AM. Yet no such letter exists in any official records. This assertion is not only patently false, but our thorough investigation has also confirmed that I neither penned such a letter nor made that fateful call.
It is utterly heartbreaking that I must navigate through life bearing the scars inflicted by these insidious lies.
Five Chapters: The Officials Who Misrepresented the Truth.
It is essential to inform the reader that if they click on Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues, and read that chapter—attached to the Open Letter dated 25/09/2025—followed by Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete, Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter, Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter, and Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter, they will be left with no doubt whatsoever that my claims surrounding mR Neil Jepson are true and correct
After reading the five chapters above, it becomes undeniably clear that the three named arbitration officials—Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator handling my case; John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager; and John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and second appointed administrator, failed to accurately represent the facts during my arbitration and throughout the critical period leading up to 1996.
Arbitration in Australia—A System Compromised by Deception and Betrayal
For decades, I have fought to expose the corruption embedded within the Australian arbitration system, particularly as it relates to the Casualties of Telstra (COT) cases. What follows is not speculation. It is a documented account of lies, fabrications, and institutional complicity that thwarted legitimate appeals and silenced voices seeking redress.
Fabricated Allegations to Discredit and Silence
In an attempt to undermine my arbitration appeal, a false allegation was circulated claiming that I verbally harassed the wife of Dr. Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator overseeing my case. This defamatory claim originated from John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was sent to Laurie James, the President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I categorically deny this allegation. It was a deliberate effort to damage my reputation and divert attention from the serious flaws in the arbitration process.
Dr. Hughes, aware of the falsehood, chose silence over integrity, allowing this lie to undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings. The emotional toll of being wrongfully accused—and of being betrayed by those meant to uphold justice—has been profound. Nonetheless, my commitment to uncovering the truth remains unwavering.
During my pending appeal process, my attorneys at Law Partners in Melbourne advised me to contact John Pinnock for documents related to my arbitration that could help challenge the unjust award given by Dr. Hughes. Unbeknownst to me, this request would lead to further deceit. In his letter dated January 10, 1996, Pinnock dismissed my request for these records, stating he would not provide any documents held by his office. This was just the beginning of a lengthy ordeal filled with treachery.
Dr. Hughes was central to this scheme. He refused to release my pre-arbitration files—evidence that would reveal his role as an "assessor" in four COT cases, contrary to the impartial arbitrator he claimed to be. His actions manipulated the arbitration agreement and undermined the genuine contract, further entrenching corruption. By October 1995, five months after my arbitration had concluded, I had to involve the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Working with the Ombudsman's Director of Investigations, John Wynack, we challenged Telstra’s misleading claims regarding the destruction of key files.
In 2008, driven by outrage, I launched a two-stage appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, only to uncover further institutional collusion by the government itself. Even now, in 2025, I remain blocked from accessing the one document that could expose the corruption at the heart of this process. This betrayal runs deep within a system that rewards secrecy and punishes whistleblowers. Throughout my 30 years as a seafarer and in various roles on the Australian waterfront, I have encountered many resilient individuals. Yet, none have resorted to hiding behind others for protection as Dr Gordon Hughes continues to do.
The Disclosure That Never Came
On January 23, 1996, Dr Hughes wrote to John Pinnock regarding my situation, expressing concerns about the potential costs and implications of responding to the allegations raised against him. His letter hinted at the complex and fraught nature of the proceedings unfolding.
I would like to emphasise once again that Mr Neil Jepson and several senior police officers from the Major Fraud Group were greatly concerned about Telstra's apparent disregard for the seriousness of the investigations being conducted by the Victoria Police, as indicated in the witness statement below.
I am referencing two witness statements from File 766 - AS-CAV Exhibit 765-A to 789, as they demonstrate that at least one police officer, while working with Telstra Corporation during the investigation, found himself at a loss. This situation was similar to that faced by the COT Cases, who were compelled to go into arbitration against a powerful entity. The arbitrator and the administrator of the COT arbitrations hesitated to withdraw from the process due to Telstra's influence over the Australian legal system.
Please examine the following two witness statements. The Major Fraud Group archive documents will be confirmed as faxes sent from my office, and Mr Jepson did not arrive, despite my Telstra fax account showing that the faxes were indeed sent.
This situation troubled Mr Jepson and Detective Sergeant Rod Kuris, who was assisting us in piecing together documents related to the fraud. It is evident from Des Direen's testimony, the former Principal Telstra Security Officer, that Mr Rod Kuris was visibly shaken when Des Direen informed us that we were under electronic surveillance, as indicated in the following witness statement.
"I can recall that during the period 2000/2001, I had arranged to meet Detective Sergeant Rod KURIS from the Victoria Police Major Fraud Squad at the foyer of Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. At the time, I was assisting Rod with the investigation into alleged illegal activities against the COT Cases.
Rod then stated that he wanted me to follow him to the left side of the foyer. When we did this he then directed my attention to a male person seated on a sofa opposite our seat. He then told me that the person had been following him around the city all morning. At this stage Rod was becoming visibly upset and I had to calm him down. Rod kept on saying that he couldn't believe in what was happening to him. I had to again calm him down".
Points 21 and 22 in Mr Direen’s statement also record how, while he was a Telstra employee, he had cause to investigate “… suspected illegal interference to telephone lines at the Portland exchange,” but when he “… made inquiries by telephone back to Melbourne (he) was told not to get involved and that another area of Telstra was handling it” and that “... the Cape Bridgewater complainant was a part of the COT cases” (my Cape Bridgewater Holiday Camp) business.
Major Fraud Group Evidence 1
This evidence was prepared at the request of Mr Neil Jepson and was highly praised for its professional quality, as noted by Barrister Sue Owens in Transcript (1). The reports in question are the Telstra's Falsified BCI Report 2 and "Tampering with Evidence." Mr Jepson believed that combining these two reports could help strengthen my arbitration appeal. This is also supported by statements made in the (see Major Fraud Group Transcript (1).
Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.
Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:
- The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office, on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
- The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
- The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible
Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.
The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:
“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .
“They show that
- the header strip of various faxes is being altered
- the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
- In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
- The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
- Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
- The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”
The fax imprint across the top of this letter, dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:
“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14
On 15 July 1995, two months after the arbitrator's premature announcement of findings regarding my incomplete claim, Amanda Davis, the former General Manager of Consumer Affairs at AUSTEL (now known as ACMA), provided me with an open letter to be shared with individuals of my choosing. This action underscores the confidence she placed in my integrity and professional character:
“I am writing this in support of Mr Alan Smith, who I believe has a meeting with you during the week beginning 17 July. I first met the COT Cases in 1992 in my capacity as General Manager, Consumer Affairs at Austel. The “founding” group were Mr Smith, Mrs Ann Garms of the Tivoli Restaurant, Brisbane, Mrs Shelia Hawkins of the Society Restaurant, Melbourne, Mrs Maureen Gillian of Japanese Spare Parts, Brisbane, and Mr Graham Schorer of Golden Messenger Couriers, Melbourne. Mrs. Hawkins withdrew very early on, and I have had no contact with her since.
The treatment these individuals have received from Telecom and Commonwealth government agencies has been disgraceful, and I have no doubt they have all suffered as much through this treatment as they did through the faults on their telephone services.
One of the striking things about this group is their persistence and enduring belief that eventually there will be a fair and equitable outcome for them, and they are to admired for having kept as focussed as they have throughout their campaign.
Having said that, I am aware all have suffered both physically and their family relationships. In one case, the partner of the claimant has become seriously incapacitated; due, I beleive to the way Telecom has dealt with them. The others have al suffered various stress related conditions (such as a minor stroke.
During my time at Austel I pressed as hard as I could for an investigation into the complaints. The resistance to that course of action came from the then Chairman. He was eventually galvanised into action by ministerial pressure. The Austel report looks good to the casual observer, but it has now become clear that much of the information accepted by Austel was at best inaccurate, and at worst fabricated, and that Austel knew or ought to have known this at the time.”
After leaving Austel I continued to lend support to the COT Cases, and was instrumental in helping them negotiate the inappropriately named "Fast Track" Arbitration Agreement. That was over a year ago, and neither the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman nor the Arbitrator has been succsessful in extracting information from Telecom which would equip the claimants to press their claims effectively. Telecom has devoted staggering levels of time, money and resources to defeating the claiams, and there is no pretence even that the arbitration process has attemted to produce a contest between equals.
Even it the remaining claimants receive satisfactory settlements (and I have no reason to think that will be the outcome) it is crucial that the process be investigated in the interest of accountabilty of publical companies and the public servants in other government agencies.
Because I am not aware of the exact citrcumstances surronding your meeting with Mr Smith, nor your identity, you can appriate that I am being fairly circimspect in what I am prepared to commit to writing. Suffice it to say, though, I am fast coming to share the view that a public inquiry of some discripion is the only way that the reasons behind the appalling treatent of these people will be brought to the surface.
I would be happy to talk to you in more detail if you think that would be useful, and can be reached at the number shown above at any time.
Thank you for your interest in this matter, and for sparing the time to talk to Alan. (See File 501 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541 )
Four months after the arbitrator Dr Hughes prematurely brought down his findings on my matters, and fully aware I was denied all necessary documents to mount my case against Telecom/Telstra, an emotional Senator Ron Boswell discussed the injustices we four COT claimants (i.e., Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, Graham Schorer and me) experienced prior and during our arbitrations (see Senate Evidence File No 1 20-9-95 Senate Hansard A Matter of Public Interest) in which the senator notes:
Next Page ⟶“Eleven years after their first complaints to Telstra, where are they now? They are acknowledged as the motivators of Telecom’s customer complaint reforms. … But, as individuals, they have been beaten both emotionally and financially through an 11-year battle with Telstra. …
“Then followed the Federal Police investigation into Telecom’s monitoring of COT case services. The Federal Police also found there was a prima facie case to institute proceedings against Telecom but the DPP , in a terse advice, recommended against proceeding. …
“Once again, the only relief COT members received was to become the catalyst for Telecom to introduce a revised privacy and protection policy. Despite the strong evidence against Telecom, they still received no justice at all. …
“These COT members have been forced to go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to force Telecom to comply with the law. Not only were they being denied all necessary documents to mount their case against Telecom, causing much delay, but they were denied access to documents that could have influenced them when negotiating the arbitration rules, and even in whether to enter arbitration at all. …
“Telecom has treated the Parliament with contempt. No government monopoly should be allowed to trample over the rights of individual Australians, such as has happened here.”
