Shakespearean defence launched against corruption probe

Property developer John Woodman called an IBAC report "302 pages of lies, half truths and hoax". Pictures: DIEGO FIDELE, AAP

By Rachael Ward, Aap

Two key figures in a property development scandal examined by a corruption watchdog have launched a colourful defence, claiming they never paid or accepted bribes.

Developer John Woodman and former Casey councillor Sameh Aziz presented their cases during an eccentric 90-minute address plagued by technical difficulties on Monday.

It involved snippets from a silent film, a poster stating “something is wrong in the state of IBAC” in reference to a Shakespeare’s Hamlet and a video of a football bouncing across an NRL pitch.

A report from the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s tabled in parliament last week found Mr Aziz and his colleague Geoff Ablett accepted almost $1.2 million in payments to promote the interests of Mr Woodman and his clients.

The Operation Sandon report said the pair repeatedly failed to declare conflicts of interest and continued trying to influence other councillors even when they did.

Beyond the council, Mr Woodman also donated more than $470,000 to the Labor and Liberal parties between 2010 and 2019 to access state decision-makers and to the election campaigns of three Labor MPs.

During the press conference on Monday, Mr Woodman and Mr Aziz denied anything inappropriate took place.

Mr Woodman called the report “302 pages of lies, half truths and hoax” and was frustrated the commission did not include his lengthy submission in its final report.

He denied bribing any Casey councillors and said there was nothing improper about donating to political parties as long as there was nothing expected in return.

Mr Aziz spent much of the presentation clicking through slides for Mr Woodman before saying he did not accept bribes and would defend any allegations against him.

He said regretted once paying cash to Mr Woodman in a suitcase but insisted it was connected to an investment scheme and he received interest on the money.

“If I had my time again, I don’t think I would have conveyed the money to him in that manner, because obviously the issue of a suitcase and cash raises all this imagery about bribery and impropriety,” Mr Aziz said.

The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission declined to comment.