The court heard that in 2014, former Commonwealth Bank executive, Keith Waldron, received multiple mystery payments into his CBA account totaling $US1,899,931.68. This included payments in May, July, August, November, and December. Waldron was dismissed from the bank after internal investigators discovered these payments. Defence barrister Peter Lange argued that Waldron was not the instigator of the corrupt scheme, but rather a willing participant. He suggested that Waldron should be subject to an Intensive Correction Order, a custodial sentence served in the community, with additional conditions such as community service and supervision.
The Crown alleged that the corrupt scheme involved “corruption at the highest levels of the bank” and that Waldron’s main motivation was to enter into procurement contracts that would benefit a US company, ServiceMesh, resulting in bribes for Waldron. David Morters, SC, for the Crown, argued that Waldron had little regard for the bank’s commercial interests and actively avoided processes in place to assess contractual arrangements. He stated that Waldron was intimately involved in discussions and agreements that resulted in significant benefits for himself, placing his actions at the highest level of criminality.
The court heard evidence that Waldron had stated in an email to his wife in December 2013, “By the way, confirmed: $1.5 million.” This message was sent before the first payment of $US99,971.02 was transferred to Waldron’s CBA account in May 2014. Lange argued that the corrupt scheme did not originate from Waldron, but rather from those superior to him. He suggested that Waldron was acting in the interests of the bank, even if conflicted due to the undisclosed payments he received. Judge Phillip Mahony will deliver Waldron’s sentence on September 27.
Despite the defence’s arguments that Waldron was not the instigator of the corrupt scheme, the Crown maintained that Waldron’s primary motivation was personal gain through procurement contracts that benefited ServiceMesh. Morters emphasized Waldron’s active determination to avoid the bank’s assessment processes and his focus on the benefits accruing to himself. The Crown argued for a harsher sentence, pointing to Waldron’s state of mind and his clear focus on personal interests, placing his actions at the highest level of criminality. The Commonwealth Bank was approached for comment on the matter but did not provide a statement at the time.
In conclusion, the case against Keith Waldron involves allegations of corruption and bribery at the highest levels of the Commonwealth Bank, with Waldron receiving significant payments into his personal account in exchange for entering into procurement contracts that benefited a US company. While Waldron’s defence maintains that he was not the instigator of the scheme and was acting in the bank’s interests, the Crown argues that Waldron’s actions were driven by personal gain and a disregard for the bank’s commercial interests. The court will determine Waldron’s sentence on September 27, considering both the defence’s arguments for a community-based custodial sentence and the Crown’s assertions of Waldron’s high level of offending.
