Lawyer acquitted

Press, 21 April 1982, Page 27

Lawyer acquitted

From page 7 A deception could only arise if Leary believed that the identity of “Hromadek” was material to the transaction and he intended that the documents be dealt with on that basis. “I see no way in which the jury could have reached such a conclusion," his Honour said. On the third charge against Leary, that with intent to defraud, he used the disposal authority to obtain an advantage for himself, his Honour said that before a jury could convict on that charge it would have to be satisfied that Leary knew that “Hromadek” was the beneficial owner of the vehicle. Or, alternatively, that he had no honest belief that Sinclair was the true owner

and that he.knew the proceeds of , the sale were accountable to “Hromadek." If the circumstances were as the Crown asserted, why should Leary account to Sinclair? He could have retained the whole . $20,000 for himself. The charge could not stand. “Any member of . our profession who is prepared to go along with the machinations of villains must inevitably be faced with problems, apart from his bookkeeping. Such a person treads a narrow path. His conduct may attract the sanctions of the criminal law, or merely the condemnation and judgment of his chosen profession. The first alternative is not open on the evidence," said his Honour.