A barrister’s explanation for why a Queensland mayor was found with $50,000 cash in a suitcase in Melbourne has raised further questions about “highly irregular” circumstances, a peak state legal body says.
Barrister Sam Di Carlo has said he asked his friend, the Ipswich mayor, Paul Pisasale, to collect the money on behalf of a client for the settlement of a supreme court case.
The Australian federal police seized the money as suspected proceeds of crime after sniffer dogs detected it in Pisasale’s luggage on 13 May.
The seizure prompted an investigation by Queensland’s Crime and Corruption Commission and raids on an Ipswich council office and Pisasale’s home before he resigned as mayor on Tuesday.
Di Carlo told the Courier-Mail on Wednesday that he had come forward with his explanation to defend the reputation of his friend.
Pisasale, who appeared before the media clad in a gown and pyjamas at a Brisbane hospital where the longtime multiple sclerosis sufferer had checked in for treatment following the raids, denied any wrongdoing. No one has been charged in relation to the matter.
Pisasale, who had reportedly been in Melbourne to present an award to the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, was filmed accepting a package from a delivery man in the lobby of his hotel, the Courier-Mail reported.
Di Carlo said Pisasale had been unable to immediately offer his explanation of the circumstances “because of my legal privilege obligations”.
He said the money, which related to his client who was in China, was “not in any way, shape or form associated with Mr Pisasale”.
“As a friend, in what I thought were urgent circumstances, I asked him to bring the money so that it could be paid from one party to another, pursuant to a settlement agreement where the $50,000 was nominated and reduced to writing on the 7th of March, 2017,” Di Carlo said.
Christine Smyth, the president of the Queensland Law Society, said that although what had happened was “unusual”, it was not illegal. However, it would raise questions about what “a civic leader is doing collecting $50,000 in cash on behalf of a barrister”.
The circumstances would very likely attract the interest of the CCC and possibly the Legal Services Commission, she said.
Smyth said it was “highly unusual for a barrister to receive money on behalf of a client because barristers [unlike solicitors] are not permitted to run trust accounts”.
Solicitors, who are obliged to report any receipt of $10,000 or more to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, run trust accounts so funds can be audited and traced.
A professional rule for barristers in Queensland states that they “must not administer any trust estate or fund for any person”.
Smyth said the key legal question was what amounted to administering funds.
“Mr Di Carlo himself has stated that Mr Pisasale was collecting the money on behalf of one of Mr Di Carlo’s clients in relation to a settlement,” she said. “The questions that have to be answered are about greater detail around this arrangement. It might be unwise and unusual to carry [large amounts of] money but it’s not illegal.
“It’s the circumstances around that which raise questions.”
Smyth said those questions “may be answered innocently” but in their absence “people make unhelpful speculative commentary and the integrity of the justice system is undermined”.
Christopher Hughes, the president of the Bar Association of Queensland, said the barristers’ peak body “will not be making a public statement at least until the full facts and circumstances are ascertained”.
Guardian Australia sought comment from both Pisasale and Di Carlo, who did not return calls.
One prominent Brisbane barrister, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Guardian Australia that barristers could act for clients without solicitors in a “direct access brief” but these were “extremely dangerous”.
“They are extremely dangerous for the very reason that barristers can’t have trust accounts,” he said. “For anything involving a settlement, even a personal injury claim, it’s just rife with problems.”
Payments would normally be made directly between parties in legal cases and usually by bank transfers. Those found with what could be deemed “unexplained wealth” under federal criminal proceeds laws could also face charges “and in effect the onus is on you to prove where it came from and that it came from a legitimate source”.
“If you think about the risks involved [in transporting large amounts of cash], the bag can get lost, you don’t take those risks.”
Both the barrister and a prominent Brisbane solicitor, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said legal professional privilege should not have prevented Pisasale from offering his explanation at the outset.
“Financial dealings by lawyers are not subject to any form of privilege,” the solicitor said.
.png?w=600)
