Dear National Anti-Corruption Commission,

The document or documents I seek is/are copies of documents that might be classified as "prosecution guidelines" to assist the staff of the NACC priortise what complaints concerning the conduct of Commonwealth Public Officials that might warrant criminal presecution including contravents of subsection 142.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) - Abuse of Public Office.

(1) A Commonwealth public official commits an offence if:

(a) the official:

(i) exercises any influence that the official has in the official's capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or

(ii) engages in any conduct in the exercise of the official's duties as a Commonwealth public official; or

(iii) uses any information that the official has obtained in the official's capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and

(b) the official does so with the intention of:

(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or

(ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

Of particular interest are guidelines that cover subsection 142.2(b) (ii) where the Commonwealth Public Official may not "dishonestly obtain a benefit for himself" but who "dishonestly causes a detetrimet to another person".

For example, widows of members of a particular Regulated Superannuation Fund are entitled to death benefits and compensation as promised by the Commonwealth Parliament if white-collar criminals steal these death benefits.

A fomer Minister for Superannuation in a Media Release dated 123 April 2011 stated:

"Members of Regulated Superannuation Funds deserve to be compensated by the Government when they lose their investments through fraud or other malfeasance by super fund trustees. I’m very pleased to be able to offer Trio investors this compensation," Mr Shorten said.

These widows would suffer a "detriment" if a Commonwealth Public Official contravened the APS Code or Conduct (s13.9 of the Public Service Act 1999) and lied to a Senator or Member of Parliament by claiming that the widows had no death benefit entiltlement and so were not entitled to any compensation.

These widows would suffer a "detriment" if a Commonwealth Public Official commited a Contempt of the Senate and provided false and misleading testimony in response to Questions on Notice by claiming that the widows had no death benefit entiltlement and so were not entitled to any compensation.

The severity of the offence would increase if the dishonesty of the Commonwealth Public Official(s) included both a Contempt of the Senate as well as multiple contraventions of the APS Code of Conduct and was not an isolated example of ignorance of the law.

Yours faithfully,

P.C. Sweeney