Legal Eagle, the article author, reports the use of the term 'honey trap' by Richard Pratt's defence team in describing the ACCC action of "getting Mr Pratt to admit he had met with Mr Jones, promising that this evidence would not be used against him, when in fact this was untrue.". Its use has prompted me to wonder whether that was the only 'honey trap' set for Richard Pratt in a saga that may extend back in time to 1989.

A most disturbing feature of this whole pursuit of Richard Pratt has been the immunity from prosecution extended to Amcor, in circumstances in which there are strong indications that Amcor may not have qualified within the terms of the ACCC leniency policy for such immunity.

One such indicator was the threat, delivered in a letter from the ACCC to Amcor immediately upon Amcor's having revealed its involvement in cartel conduct with Visy on 22 November 2004, that Amcor would prejudice its immunity if it, Amcor, went ahead and notified the ASX that it had confessed to cartel conduct, as was a requirement in law that it should. It is my understanding that the ACCC indicated to Amcor that the reason it wished no report to the ASX be made was that such might prejudice AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION. A corollary of there being an ongoing investigation is that the ACCC already knew of Amcor's involvement in a cartel, a circumstance that would have disqualified Amcor from receiving immunity in terms of the ACCC leniency policy.

It may well be that the Amcor board, at the time of its reporting the cartel to the ACCC, did not know prior to that time of the actions of some of its executives in having implemented the cartel. That does not mean that there had not been an ongoing ACCC investigation being conducted undercover within Amcor, simply, if it is the truth that nobody on the Amcor board knew of the cartel, that such investigation was done without Amcor's knowledge or co-operation.

A most disturbing appearance as to procedure.

TBC

Continued

Another indicator that an ongoing ACCC investigation may have been occurring existed in reports that the ACCC had been informed of the existence of an Amcor - Visy cartel in 1996. This post, and subsequent ones by me in a now-archived general discussion thread, document and link to some of those reports: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2625#59389 . In the light of hindsight, collectively those reports may be seen to be more disturbing than they may have been individually when first published.

It is not beyond imagining that the Hodgson tapes, from which the Amcor board claimedly first officially learned of the cartel's existence, whether elicited in the first instance by an undercover ACCC investigation 'playing' Amcor in order to get at Visy, or elicited by Amcor 'playing' the ACCC in order to get the ACCC to take down Visy (Amcor's competitor), were brought into being for the purpose of giving Amcor a believable reason for dobbing itself in and thus 'earning' immunity from prosecution.

A sleazy aspect of the Hodgson tapes, tapes that constituted much of the 'evidence' to the Amcor board that there was a cartel, was the revelation that Richard Pratt's personal life had been the subject of relatively intense surveillance. If there is substance to the construction that the elicitation of the tapes, no matter by whose interests brought about, was primarily to provide scenery and excuse for Amcor's confession and claim for immunity, then it becomes very believable that another 'honey trap' may well have been set for Richard Pratt around 1995 with the desired intent of disrupting Pratt family relationships. Should such ever prove to have been the case Jeanne Pratt could take Amcor to the cleaners.

Either way, the fact that the ACCC case effectively alleges the cartel commenced with verbal agreements in 2001 between Jones and Pratt, when there was documentary evidence of a cartel existing presented to the ACCC in 1996, would seem to betray an intent to get Richard Pratt to the exclusion of all else, welfare of container customers included.

I tend to agree with Ginx on this.

Philanthropy would suggest an altruistic concern for the welfare of others. Does the means by which a philanthropist amasses his fortune count for anything? Is he to be absolved of responsibility merely by the act of philanthropy?

Lets rather praise those un-sung volunteers who go about quietly providing help to the needy, who may live on a meagre pension but give of their time, their company and even a little of what they can little afford to spare.

I am not advocating we demonise the man, but lets also not get too carried away with standing ovations despite his huge donations to worthy causes.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/04/22/richard-pratt-rich-man-beggar-man-thief/

I suppose for a man like Richard Pratt whose life
was such a paradox, as James Kirby points out in
his article in, The Age, 26 Apr. 2009, his
"strengths and flaws are magnified."

Kirby tells us that Pratt, "constantly topped the lists
of Australia's most charitable, giving away $14 million
a year, he also topped the lists of tycoons in trouble
with the law."

It's therefore understandable that public opinion about
Richard Pratt would be divided.

However, the charges against him have been dropped.
The evidence against him was somewhat murky. He paid
the penalty of $36 million. The matter should have
ended there. What personal agenda the lawyers had in
pursuing Pratt - who knows.
We don't need to "glorify," him, as one poster commented,
however, we don't need to blacken him either.

The man is dead.

May he rest in peace.

I can understand a close friend Mark Leibler claiming "He'll at least pass into the next world knowing that he has been vindicated, and he is innocent,", but when the Age's Ari Sharp writes of Richard Pratts's 'historic victory' over the ACCC then I feel things have gone a little far since it was very far from that.

Foxy is probably right in that it is not appropriate that we pass judgement on the man at this time, but I get the feeling there was enough murkiness around the man's business dealings for many of us to be unwilling to ever call it one way or the other.

While acknowledging the contribution to the 'common wealth' many Australians needed to be convinced that the amount contributed to charity was greater than any amount made by nefarious means. The tragedy of Mr Pratt is that his conviction on price fixing has seeded doubt.

However this was also the fate of a person I know who was found to have stolen $400 from a small sporting club to fund a gambling habit. A record of more than 20 years of contributing time, effort and money to the club did little to redeem her in the eyes of the members.

Along with a sense of a 'fair go' in this country comes a notion of 'copping it sweet' as this lady has done. In a sense this is what Mr Pratt had done with his 'statement of facts' but it doesn't apply just to the deed itself but also the judgement of the community.

The loyalty and grief of those close to him will obviously excuse them from readily accepting that judgement but entreaties for the rest of us to glorify this man I think are in vain. Ultimately the best on offer is a sense that he was a larrikin Australian who had a 'red hot crack', gave a bit back and like us loved his footy, but also like most of us had decent servings of good and bad.

Certainly not a saint but obviously a blue.

R.I.P. Richard Pratt.

I have to agree with Pericles on this on ; Mr Pratt was in all essence a very good man ; both in business and in spirit – his successes came from the innovative and professional abilities – Not just in the simple Cardboard industry , but in the design and manufacturing of advanced technologies- as well as power plants-
It is the innovative, and the exploitation of such talents in cutting fields of engineering, and associated fields.


It is my understanding, the only thing he was guilty of was to submit to the Useless Idiots propaganda to end the entire saga of the accusations – but as it is typical of Useless idiots and Government departments – it became a badge – or better explained – A scalp and a trophy of a less talented and intellectually challenged bureaucrat.


The second part to this argument is Now there are less of these forward thinking innovative minds – who are by virtue of their success , are very generous and Philanthropic ;-

I would like someone to explain in a simple language; how it is Governments and their Bureaucrats become the new Philanthropic consciousness , when they actually are the statutory recipients of Wealth of those people who have something to offer – then it is divided into taxes to support the New age Proletariat Philanthropy paradigm;-

I often wondered when all the People like Mr Pratt, and others like them are gone or destroyed-
Where will the new age proletariat philanthropy – no -, it just does not sound right- But that is Government and its departments for you