Operation Overbeek investigated 2 former employees of the former Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (Agriculture) and their involvement in the illegal importation of tobacco.
This was a joint investigation commenced by the former Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) and, initially, the Australian Federal Police (AFP). Subsequently Victoria Police and the former Department of Immigration and Border Protection joined the investigation. The National Anti-Corruption Commission took over the investigation from 1 July 2023.
This case study uses pseudonyms.
Corruption at the Australian border
Corruption risks at the Australian border are often associated with trusted insiders. These are employees who exploit their access to sensitive information, data and secure areas – either for personal gain or through extortion – to assist criminal organisations smuggle illicit drugs, tobacco, weapons or other contraband.
The former Agriculture employees at the centre of Operation Overbeek held trusted positions directly related to the Australian border and imports. They used their positions to access and misuse information to facilitate the illegal importation of tobacco. One of them received bribes.
The effective management of Australia’s border facilitates legitimate trade, travel and immigration. Corruption at the border can undermine this, exposing Australia to national security, criminal, economic, environmental and social harms.
Referral
The AFP made a formal notification to ACLEI in 2016 under the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (no longer in force). The term ‘formal notification’ is now known as a mandatory referral under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022.
The notification raised the possibility that a staff member at Agriculture had used their position to facilitate the illegal importation of tobacco. The AFP was conducting a separate investigation which uncovered evidence potentially involving the staff member from Agriculture.
What happened
Graham was an APS6 staff member working within a branch of Agriculture that conducted assessments and inspections of shipping containers at a regional centre in Victoria.
In his role, Graham had access to Agriculture records relating to the processing of international imports into Melbourne airports and seaports. For a period, Graham also acted in an Executive Level 1 position overseeing various team leaders and inspection officers, including Steven, an APS5 team leader who was also his friend.
The joint investigation commenced in June 2016.
The lengthy and complex investigation revealed that Graham had an existing and ongoing relationship with a third party who had an extensive criminal background and had knowledge of Graham’s personal financial situation. They used this to exploit Graham’s vulnerabilities and facilitate his corrupt conduct.
The investigation obtained evidence that Graham, in his capacity as Steven’s supervisor and close friend, asked Steven to conduct an unauthorised access to sensitive records in Agriculture’s database that related to the monitoring of shipping containers. Steven conducted an unauthorised check on consignments that may have contained hidden illicit tobacco.
Graham (with Steven’s knowledge) intended to unlawfully pass this sensitive information on to a third party in return for payment of a cash bribe.
Later, on 3 separate occasions, Graham conducted unauthorised accesses on further sensitive records within Agriculture’s database, using the computers of other staff while they were away from their desks. The records related to the monitoring of shipping containers that may have had consignments of hidden illicit tobacco.
He then unlawfully passed the sensitive information on to the third party, in return for additional cash bribes.
Outcome
ACLEI referred a brief of evidence to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
Graham
Graham initially pleaded not guilty to charges of receiving a bribe as a Commonwealth public official ($10,000 in total), abusing public office, and disclosing information as a public official.
In June 2021, following a trial by jury in the Victorian County Court in Melbourne, Graham was found guilty on 7 of the 8 counts. He was sentenced to 2 and a half years imprisonment and was released on a recognisance after serving 3 months.
Steven
Steven was charged with aiding and abetting the commission of an abuse of office.
In April 2021, Steven pleaded guilty to the charge in the Melbourne Magistrates Court.
The court found the offence to be proven and ordered Steven to be discharged on the condition that Steven give security of $500 to be of good behaviour for 2 months.
Corruption prevention commentary
At the time, ICT security was a significant risk in Agriculture, which had a workplace culture of leaving computers unlocked and sharing login details. This enabled corrupt officials to conceal their activities and cast suspicion on other team members. This highlights the importance of individual vigilance by staff in adhering to secure ICT workplace practices, and the need for agencies to monitor and reinforce this.
Agriculture officers could also be vulnerable to coercion through their personal relationships with individuals associated with organised crime groups. Undeclared associations and breaches of professional boundaries can lead to familiarity or grooming and result in corrupt conduct, such as through the misuse of official information. Annual declarations of associations can assist with the identification and management of conflicts of interest and allow for early intervention in cases of potential grooming. For more information on conflict of interest management, see Conflicts of interest and corrupt conduct: A guide for public officials.
Operation Overbeek demonstrates the serious corruption vulnerabilities created by poor ICT security, which increases the risk of unauthorised access to information. This highlights the need for reducing risk through individual and agency vigilance in implementing and adhering to secure ICT workplace practices – in particular, not leaving computers unlocked or sharing login details.
Further information
For further corruption prevention information, see Corruption prevention and education.
To report a corruption issue, see Report corrupt conduct.