THE SHEPPARD MALADINA COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT
The complete transcript is below all this text. Two lawyers in partnership, Greg Sheppard (GS) and
Harvey Maladina (HM) divulge all to visitor GW, not knowing they were being secretly videotaped.
Programme aired on SBS Dateline television programme 24th June 2015
THIS SHOCKING VIDEOTAPE WILL NOT STOP CORRUPTION IN PNG NOR EVEN SLOW IT DOWN UNLESS THE PEOPLE OF PNG COME OUT IN FORCE AND PROTEST NONVIOLENTLY BUT PERSISTENTLY. ALL STUDENTS IN ALL SCHOOLS MUST GO ON NONVIOLENT BOYCOTT AND PROTEST. THE CORRUPT PEOPLE WILL DO THEIR BEST TO SET UP VIOLENT ACTS WITHIN THE PROTESTS TO DISCREDIT THE PEACEFUL PROTESTORS. BE AWARE OF THAT TO START!
During the late 1990s when the corrupt Bill Skate was PM, an Australian immigrant businessman, Muja Sefa, made a secret videotape of Bill Skate bragging about giving the orders to have a security guard of then Moresby mayor David Unagi murdered. Skate also talked about bribery. The videotape in the end was successfully covered up by the PNG Corruption Mafia, of which Peter O'Neill was a
part even back then.
IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN UNLESS ALL OF US IN PNG GET OUT AND START PROTESTING NOW. THE PEOPLE UNITED CAN NOT BE DEFEATED. HOWEVER IF WE CONTINUE TO ALLOW OURSELVES TO BE DIVIDED AND CONQUERED BY PETER O'NEILL AND HIS CRONIES THE PNG CORRUPTION MAFIA WILL WIN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY WILL LOSE.
Following are Greg Sheppard's and Harvey Maladina's written lawyerly disclaimers and refutals after they realised they had been trapped. Obviously they did not realise the full extent of the damaging words they said that were caught on tape as Harvey Maladina's denials don't even fit the content of what they said on the secret videotape. Bingo! Point scored. Have they perhaps given the hidden truth away by their own lawyerly deceptions?
Greg Sheppard's Response to SBS/Dateline
I do not recall meeting with anybody identifying themselves as a representative of “New Botany Fund” on the date you mentioned, or at all. I have since receiving your email checked all of my firm’s records and can confirm that New Botany Fund was never at any time a client of this firm and therefore, no legal advice was given to it through its representative. I am often approached informally by a variety of people who are not clients to share aspects of my knowledge and practical experience in PNG, and in these areas of the law. My comments on these occasions are by the very nature of the exchange, general, hypothetical and merely descriptive. I always assume that those who ask me for this kind of information are doing so to broaden their understanding of the issues and practices here under the relevant laws. It is illogical to think someone would be looking for this type of information to ensure their conduct is illegal. Any information I share, is in the context of the overarching requirement to comply with the laws of PNG. If your anonymous source was one of these people, I regret that he did not clearly understand this. I consider the allegations contained in your letter to be false and highly defamatory, and you ought not to publish them. I reserve all of my rights pertaining to this matter, and have forwarded a copy of your email and this reply to my solicitors.
Harvey Maladina's Response to SBS/Dateline
These allegations are not true. I met an American businessman at the Airways Hotel in Port Moresby last year but at no time did I make or insinuate that illegal payments can be made through my firm or through my Partner Mr Greg Sheppard. I told him that yes through the media I have read that this was common in PNG but that was it. We (Greg & I) have been in practice now for over 30 years and we have never assisted anyone bribe or facilitated an illegal payment from the firm or through my partner Greg Sheppard. I recall this expatriate asking me how he could bribe the Minister for Forest. I declined to comment for the reason because I have never made or assisted in this illegal practice before and never will in future. I have never introduced this person to Greg; any suggestion that I introduced this person to Greg through me is an outrageous lie. I met him once for a short meeting and have never met him again since. It is quite extraordinary that you have been able to make a story line from this meeting that implicates my partner and me of these ludicrous bribery and money laundering insinuations.
FULL TRANSCRIPT
GW- Interviewer
HM - HARVEY MALADINA
GS - GREG SHEPPARD
PART ONE - HARVEY MALADINA
[00:00] Um… my brother, he’s a close friend of the Prime Minister’s, very close links
[00:08] Oh, how close?
[00:10] Um, well they were … couple of years ago we had the inquiry here Papua New Guinea
[00:18] You had the inquiry here every week?
[00:19] Yeah
[00:20] What was this …?
[00:21] This was quite a big one.. it was called the NPF inquiry, National Provident Fund. Some
people were implicated in pilfering the fund.
[00:34] OK and what was the fund for? A provident fund is normally a ...
[00:37] Yeah it’s a … all the workers in Papua New Guinea they contribute to it a certain percentage
of their income to the fund
[00:45] Oh ok. Is this for sort of pensions at the end of it? Yeah ok.
[00:52] You know there was an inquiry at the … there was two guys that were implicated, that’s the
prime minister and my brother.
[01:02] Seriously?
[01:03] Yeah.
[01:04]Oh.
[01:05] And now they’re in power.
[01:07] So it won’t make any difference. Is your brother ok?
[01:11] Well he’s the chief government advisor.
[01:14] On?
[01:15] On anything.
[01:16] Oh anything, ok. So he survived the inquiry?
[01:20] Yes both survived the inquiry. One is the prime minister and one is the government advisor.
[01:27] So they got through it and wealthier for it. So what was the.. what was the.. was this an
offshore thing as well?
[01:37] No local. It was funded by World Bank. The inquiry.
[01:42] The inquiry was funded by the World Bank?
[01:44] Yeah, yeah.
[01:48] Anyway, there was in the center of the, in town… there’s a, they say city, there’s this
massive building, it’s called the Deloittes tower. And anyway, there’s this Japanese company that
constructed … and they wanted two extra stories on the tower. So they borrowed some money from
the bank.
[02:19] From the National Provident Fund?
[02:21] No they borrowed some money from a local bank, it’s called Papua New Guinea Banking
Corporation. And now it’s BSP Bank South Pacific And at that time the chairman of the bank was the
current prime minister.
[02:39] Oh ok. Right.
[02:41] So the inquiry chased the funds that was the loan that was given to this Japanese company
and it went right around the circle. And went back again to the guy lending the money.
[02:53] Back to the prime minister?
[02:54] Back to the prime minister yeah. The problem was there was a missing link in this chain and
that was my brother. He had a law firm here.
[03:06] Oh he is a lawyer as well?
[03:09] So he took off to Australia and they didn’t extradite him so that saved the prime minister.
[03:19] GW: So how did he manage to avoid extradition?
[03:22] HM: He went to court in Australia.
[03:25] GW: Oh he went to court in Australia? Under what jurisdiction?
[03:29] HM: Um, well they sued him in Australia, too.
[03:32] GW: Was it a civil suit?
[03:35] HM: Yeah yeah civil suit. And um, he managed to stay in Australia until the inquiry was over.
He’s back in the country now.
[03:42] GW: So is Peter very … presumably very… I can’t think of the world?
[03:50] HM: Very loyal to him.
GW: Very loyal yes. [Laughter] How much money do they make?
[03:57] HM: Oh it’s estimated around 2 million.
GW: Kina?
HM: Yeah
[4:04] GW: Ok, which is uh... So what did Peter do before? Before he was a politician?
[04:12] HM: He’s a business man, yeah.
GW: Oh he is?
HM: Yeah.
GW: I didn’t know that, I didn’t know what his background is.
[04:18] HM: And he goes in a lot of politics and stuff like that, and he is good friends with former
prime ministers and that’s how he built himself proper…
[04:28] GW: So he’s a kind of financial political figure?
HM: Yeah. So he got himself appointed to the bank as the chairman and that’s when they reached
proof of (?) the money and that is why (?) this Japanese company….
GW: Who paid it back to them.
HM: Who paid it back to them.
GW: Where? Here?
HM: Here, here.
GW: In their own bank accounts? Isn’t that a bit foolish?
[04:51] HM: Yeah well exactly so they chased the money right back to the prime minister.
GW: Have they got a bit smarter?
HM: Of course.
[laughter]
[05:02] HM: Anyway the missing link was my brother, he took off to Brisbane in Australia.
GW: There are a lot of people in PNG from Australia, aren’t there?
[05:12] HM: Yeah. And they didn’t extradite him and the inquiry wound down and there was a report
presented but…
[05:12] GW: Why was there not an extradition if he was being potentially charged with, was it ..
presumably.. he and Peter were charged with a criminal, a potential criminal offence. That would be
fraud, was it fraud, or?
[05:31] HM: Yeah fraud. And um well they didn’t extradite him. And um, he um he came back again.
Um, there’s a case against him in the National Court, but that’s been going for donkey’s years now.
Because he’s able to buy some smart lawyers from Australia to come up and …
GW: He has?
HM: Yeah.
GW: Right. We were thinking of going to Australia for some smart lawyers. This wouldn’t be Mr
Molloy, would it?
[06:00] HM: Oh we’ve got some smarter ones than Mr Molloy. Mr Molloy is good but we normally
engage a guy called Varitimos, Mal Varitimos.
GW: Mal Varitimos?
HM: Varitimos.
GW: How do you spell that?
HM: V-A-R-I-T-I-M-O-S
GW: Varitimos?
HM: Yes.
GW: Ok, and is he in Brisbane?
HM: He’s based in Brisbane.
GW: And he is a good lawyer?
HM: He’s a good lawyer, yes. He does a lot of local cases up here.
[06:33] GW: Right. Does commute over? Cause it’s good to have … we were thinking of some
representation from Australia. If we are going to move a significant kind of fund here, initially we
thought we might get Australian representation… but we also thought we ought to really get a local
[06:54] HM: We work with Varitimos and he is a QC and he is very good.
[07:03] GW: You might… you might .. one of the things that was advised to us is that some of the
payments might go to Australia for people here, um but then I had a…I was talking to someone
informally and he said to me “you have to make sure that payment didn’t come directly via PNG”
because Australians are quite hot on tracing money at the moment, if you want to you know reward
somebody who has helped you, if you do it from a PNG account straight to Australia, it’s getting a bit
tricky.
[07:34] HM: When we engage him, if you wanted him to represent you, you engage us, we engage
him, and we do our bills, we do one bill to you, you pay us and we send him money to Australia, to
his Australian account.
[07:54] GW: How much scrutiny does that come under?
[07:58] HM: Umm like the financial institutions here, they give us a ceiling; I think it’s around
250,000.
GW: Is that per
HM: No, that we’re allowed to deal with in a month.
GW: Ok monthly.
HM: Yeah monthly. And after that they tell us [?] for the following month.
[08:21] GW: Can that be used to get money out effectively via Australia maybe but only up to a
ceiling of 250?
HM: Yeah, like um…
GW: So what’s that annually, that’s six million dollars. Is that…no, six million kina.
HM: Yeah
GW: Which is not [inaudible]
HM: I’ll just check on that um…
[08:42] GW: I don’t want to put you know suggest something that you haven’t already used that isn’t
going to work. I mean if you’re saying this is a mechanism that you’ve tried and worked, that is fine,
but I don’t want to test it out.
[08:56] HM: Like um yeah he’s billed us more previously we are able to pay him.
[09:05] GW: Right. So is he happy to adjust the bill so that it is higher so you can get the money out
to Australia?
HM: Sure.
GW: OK well that’s the key thing, as long as both parties are comfortable with it, and there isn’t a…it
doesn’t go above that monthly ceiling. I mean how are revenue here?
HW: Sorry?
[09:24] GW: How are revenue? Because I mean obviously the degree of scrutiny that revenue exert
on different jurisdictions …
HM: …see most of the guys, a lot of the guys here that come under scrutiny, they ship a large
amount of money on a one-off basis to an account in Australia, that comes under scrutiny. And most
of these guys normally like…
GW: Well that’s what we’ve been cautioned against.
[09:59] HM: They are under investigation by the police here and [in audible] red flag [inaudible]
already with the Australian Federal Police to keep an eye out on these particular transactions.
[10:11] GW: So this way of getting a larger bill from Australia and paying it and then there’s a
balance which we can we can be released, do you think that gets through that kind of scrutiny?
[10:23] HM: Yes normally if it’s through the law firms it’s um, they don’t usually question it, because
it’s…especially if it’s the firm that I’m working with (?), it’s a prestigious firm.
[10:37] Yeah. How do the accountants work here by the way? Because that was another ..Um, I
thought of going see EY who we work with in Africa, but I want some accountants who are good who
are pukka but who are creative.
HM: The local accountants, the Australian based firms here they …
GW: And do they, would they help with this if we needed to get money from here to Australia to
reward somebody.. would they, are they creative enough to provide mechanisms? I mean have you
worked with any?
[11:19] HM: We umm I’ve got a partner here and my partner is a Western Australian guy, we’ve
been in business together for twenty years or something.
GW: From Perth?
HM: From Perth yes. I know that he has a Singaporean accountant and funds are transfer there and
from there to Australia
[11:39] GW: Uh huh well that’s kind of what we are looking for. Is your partner available for a chat?
HM: Yes he is.
GW: Do you think I could talk to him because I think the mechanism that we are looking for umm
because we have some big mouths to feed.
HM: Oh yeah, you wanna do that payment offshore.
GW: Yeah.
[12:05] HM: There’s a lot of my…guys I know in politics … and they go to offshore to collect. Like one
of my good mates he’s now in charge of the gaming board?
GW: The gaming board?
HM: Yeah.
GW: Ok.
[12:22] HM: And he went offshore and I…he flew over to Singapore recently and I asked him “what
do you do over there?” and he said “Oh I want to collect some payments”. There were some funds
remitted to his account over there, to an account. And he went to collect it so he came back quite a
happy man so umm…
PART 2 GREG SHEPPARD
[12:55] GW: To be honest it’s quite an eye opener doing business here. I mean I’ve worked in West
Africa which is quite rough and tumble but this is…
GS: Yeah
GW: This is.. I’m trying to think of a word that adequately describes…
GS: Which is probably why you’re talking to me.
GW: Maybe yeah.
[13:18] GW: One of the things that has been made quite clear to us is that we have quite a lot of
mouths to feed. The cost of doing business here is… it’s not just the total cost, it’s the number of
mouths to feed and the way it’s done. Now I’ve had some kind of initial steer in terms of for example
I mean I’m assuming OK the initial payments…
GS: Everything here is confidential between you and me.
GW: OK. Um, I’ve looked at, well I haven’t looked at yet, I mean I’ve not been out of Port Moresby
but I’ve spoken with three or four people who have got land to sell and they said well it’s gonna
need some big mouths to feed.
[14:01] GS: Some ministerial approvals
GW: Some ministerial approvals. Which will be contingent probably on the payment, fairly, well I’ve
had differing kind of, differing things, one is a percentage of the deal, but it wouldn’t really be
prudent to start talking about what we are going to deal, so it can’t be that, bluntly. You know what
I’m saying.
[14:23] GS: I wouldn’t go near somebody who says that.
GW: Yeah well that is what we thought, I mean that would be bonkers.
GS: Um, it’s something that needs to be handled very, very carefully um because these days it’s a
different story than it was even 5 to 10 years ago.
GW: Here?
GS: Yeah.
GW: OK.
GS: All those sorts of mobilisation fees really ought to originate from offshore.
GW: Ah ok, well that wouldn’t be a… I have to say I was a little uncomfortable with that as a
mechanism. It seemed crude and I think some of the people even as you say three, four, five years
ago, they are basing it on that time and I think things may have, if you like, the environment for
scrutiny is greater.
GS: Here?
GW: Here, yeah. I think so, that is
GW: So does that mean all political transactions are subject to scrutiny then?
GS: Yeah, basically. Unless you want to front up with a bag of cash.
GW: Well that was being suggested but I just frankly think that ..
GS: Why not just throw the money down the street.
[16:17] GW: Yeah I mean we can’t account for it, it can’t be.. yeah. What was suggested to me was
as a more reliable or more desirable route was that in terms of ministerial feeding, we’d be
approached and that we’d have to do it via another jurisdiction so it would never come anywhere
near here which would seem to me as a cleaner and more safe way of doing it.
[16:49] GS: Yeah. Those particular ministers would probably have their own arrangements already in
place.
GW: Yeah. Well I’m told I know certainly one of them has, but I’m assuming they would
automatically have some sort of facility in Singapore, Hong Kong, whatever, that would be useable.
My concern is anything coming onshore here.
[17:22] GS: It has to be, you have to have, any transaction that you do because even Singapore and
Hong Kong these days are not confidential. The monetary authority in Singapore routinely demands
explanations
GW: Oh ok.
[17:40] GS: And they seize your money and they close you down and they charge you with criminal
offences. So you’ve got to have a very commercial aspect to everything you do.
GW: Well yeah OK that would appear to be step one is the appearance of a commercial transaction.
GS: Yeah.
GW: But I presume then that it would be either for services or a company to company…
[18:09] GS: You um yeah you could uh, services is always a good one. But you know you really need
to make sure it’s documented so that it has unquestionably a commercial …
GW: Right.
[18:33] GS: You know. I had some clients recently who made a deposit to a Hong Kong company. The
Hong Kong company then sent a large percentage of that money to Singapore.
[phone call]
[18:49] GS: And um, the Hong Kong side said it was for maintaining computer equipment. The
Singapore side said it was a commission. The Singapore authorities saw the inconsistency and
arrested everybody.
GW: OK. OK so there needs to be a clear and irrefutable chain to give it authenticity.
[19:24] GS: A consistent chain and something that is commercial. Um, all I can really say is that a
contract for services is what you need, is the way you need to go. And the people who are making
those demands will probably have their own suggestions. The proper way of looking at it is that you
can’t do these things, it’s illegal.
GW: Yeah.
[19:51] GS: But there are other commercial arrangements which aren’t illegal that you may be
permitted to enter into providing you get a clearance from your lawyer.
GW: Ok, yeah.
GS: Because you know if the CIB come knocking on your door, you want to be able to say “oh this
transaction was for this reason, bang bang bang, here is the clearance from my lawyer”. You don’t
want to have one side saying it was services and the other side saying it’s … [inaudible]
GW: Well that’s a continuity issue.
GS: Yeah, yeah.
GW: I mean there are some greater considerations, I mean there is the sheer kind of well for a start
are we likely to be, is there a repetition likely for this? Um, you know someone suggested seven
figures to me, which is you know a percentage.
[20:51] GS: Look if you were to pay seven figures to anybody, the world would fall in on top of you.
Just don’t even contemplate that sort of nonsense.
GW: Right.
GS: Um, small dribs and drabs are the only way to go.
GW: Really? Oh OK, so –
[21:10] GS: Anybody who says they want seven figures, they are inviting prosecution.
GW: Right.
GS: Why would any company produce seven figures for anybody? I mean what is the commercial
reason behind it? Well you need to have one.
GW: Of course. Um, yeah this will ... this was for ministerial support. You still think it’s too high?
[21:44] GS: Well you’d want to hear what his arrangements would be, how he intends to handle it.
GW: Yeah well that’s a given.
GS: And it would have to be something that didn’t raise suspicion, something that was ostensibly
commercial.
GW: Yeah
[22:05] GS: You know the days of banging a million bucks into this secret-numbered account in
Singapore is over. Justification for it, that’s ok.
GW: OK. Um, I’m only here till tomorrow. May I sort of take a risk and trust you with a name?
Obviously I’d ask that …
[22:34] GS: What you mean the name of the minister? Is it Pruiatch?
GW: Funnily enough it is. How did you?
GS: He’s, he’s an old client.
GW: OK so you know him. He’ll be able to provide something substantive that we can actually, I can
recommend, in what kind of commercial terms will it be?
GS: Who knows.
GW: Does he have many or is it gonna be one?
[23:04] GS: That I don’t know either. But he…he will have his own way of doing it.
GW: OK. Um, ok. And you think seven figures is too high?
GS: Yeah, he’s the minister for forests isn’t he?
GW: He was, until recently. He’s currently Treasurer.
GS: Mhm.
GW: But I think he’s held like well unusually actually here he’s held quite a number of portfolios.
[23:44] GS: Yeah the other problem with Patrick is he’s already being scrutinised by the
Ombudsman.
GW: Oh is he?
[23:57] GS: Because he did some crazy thing like he let some Malaysian timber guy buy him a house.
GW: Right.
GS: So there was a house in his name and it was paid for by the Malaysian timber guy who wound up
with a nice …
GW: Nice bit of timber?
GS: Yeah, stupid it was.
GW: When he was Forest minister? And it all happened here?
[24:22] GS: They purchased the house here in Port Moresby in Patrick’s name paid for by a bank
check from the Malaysian, you know.
[24:32] GW: That’s not very reassuring. Is that recently?
[24:35] GS: No, this was six to eight years ago.
[24:38] GW: OK, I trust he’s got smarter since then.
[24:44] GS: I hope so. He will have a plan. But if it’s just popping it into my bank account, don’t even
bloody think about it.
[24:59] GW: No. It would appear to me that almost all the politicians in PNG are constantly in
litigation. I mean great for you presumably as a lawyer but I mean it’s one of the most litigious
societies I’ve ever been in.
[25:15] GS: Isn’t that wonderful? What do you think I’m here for, my health?
[25:20] GW: You know all those things. Umm, but I still think
[25:25] But then the rewards are huge. Everything is an elephant here, there’s no pygmies.
