follow-up from today's Crikey .....

Australia's most notorious and important insider trading episode –
Steve Vizard's secret share trading while he was a director of Telstra – never
went to court. Why? Because ASIC, the authority charged with regulating
corporate behaviour, claimed the key witness in the case, Vizard's accountant
Greg Lay, was uncooperative.

As we reported yesterday, ASIC was wrong. A letter to Crikey this week
from the lawyer representing Lay made the crucial point that “at no point of
time was Mr. Lay asked to give sworn evidence against Mr. Vizard.”

Today we'll go one step further. Based on information from sources
interviewed by Crikey, we now believe that not only was Greg Lay never asked to
give evidence against Vizard, but that Lay would be a fully cooperative
witness. While he did not sign a witness statement on legal advice, Crikey
understands that this should not suggest he wouldn't be a willing, truthful and
productive witness in court – the witness who could reveal the full story
behind the Vizard share transactions. As Magda Kron – the solicitor to Roy
Hilliard, who is being pursued by Westpac in a another Vizard-related court
case in September – told Crikey today: "As far as we're concerned, Greg
Lay has proved himself to be a truthful witness. He obviously is a man who
takes an oath seriously – going by his testimonial at the committal [hearing,
in 2003]."

Today in Crikey, former National Crimes Authority chairman Peter Faris
QC writes that, on the basis of the letter from Lay's lawyer, "ASIC must
now ask Mr Lay to give sworn evidence against Mr Vizard and 'cooperate with the
authorities'. On being told yes, Vizard must be criminally prosecuted." 

Steve Vizard may be a funny man, but there is nothing funny about the
disgraceful way ASIC has mishandled arguably the most important case of
corporate morality in Australian business history.

Peter Faris QC – leading criminal lawyer and
former chairman of the NCA who has prosecuted for the DPP and ASIC – writes: 

“At no point of time was Mr. Lay asked to
give sworn evidence against Mr. Vizard.”

This is the sensational new evidence obtained by Crikey.
It shows that the Vizard insider trading matter is not over. On the basis of
this evidence, Vizard can and should be prosecuted. In addition, there is
serious collateral damage to Commonwealth DPP Damian Bugg and ASIC Chairman
Jeffrey Lucy. Both these men should be moving (or moved) on. 

Vizard was never charged with criminal offences for his admitted
insider trading and use of confidential information obtained when he was a
director of Telstra. Instead, he was simply proceeded against by a soft “civil
prosecution” (read slapped on the wrist).

Both the DPP and ASIC (through Bugg and Lucy) led everyone to believe that the
decision not to prosecute was based upon the refusal by the central witness,
Greg Lay, to sign a witness statement he had made. It was inferred that Lay was
a hostile witness and would refuse to give evidence. Lay was Vizard's
accountant and the man who carried out his orders to implement the insider
trading.

Lay's longtime legal advisor, Graham Lederman of Melbourne solicitors
Ledermans, has written to Crikey disputing this (see below). In fact, Lay's
lawyer claims he was always a willing witness against Vizard – he was just
never asked if he would give evidence.

I cannot stress this strongly enough. The ASIC investigators took a statement
from Lay which he refused to sign (on legal advice). According Lay's lawyer
they then walked away from him without ever asking him if he would give
evidence. Disgraceful.

In a letter to Crikey dated 20 June 2006, Lederman exposes this investigation
for the sham it was (see below for the full letter). Lederman says: 

“We have acted for Mr Lay for many years,
including in relation to all matters directly and indirectly connected with Mr
Vizard…

Mr Lay had never previously agreed to sign a Witness Statement in
relation to Mr Vizard…

We are able to state categorically, both on our instructions and on our own
personal knowledge, that at no stage did Mr Lay refuse to testify against Mr
Vizard. The simple truth is that – notwithstanding the relevant publicity
associated with public statements by personnel of the Australian Securities and
Commission and by Mr Damian Bugg [DPP] – at no point of time was Mr Lay asked
to give sworn evidence against Mr Vizard, nor was he ever served with a
subpoena to do so.”

Lederman then went on to reject the inference that Lay “had refused to
cooperate with the authorities”. 

The next step is simple. On the basis of this letter, ASIC must now ask
Mr Lay to give sworn evidence against Mr Vizard and “cooperate with the
authorities”. On being told yes, Vizard must be criminally prosecuted.