But Tim Game, SC, appearing for ANZ, said the indictment failed to establish the details of those allegations.
“They talked about an arrangement or a deal, and they refused to say what it was,” he said Thursday.
“They always have details of a cartel provision, but… it’s just in general terms, ‘limit the number of shares’, ‘probably compete’.
He said the different incarnations of the indictment did not specify what “the arrangement or understanding we thought we had helped and encouraged” was.
In this, he said, they focused on the type of activity being undertaken rather than whether it actually constituted an offense.
“The critical question is: was there a violation? Before typing, was there an offense that we aided and abetted? And there isn’t because they can’t spell it out, ”Game said.
“They want the tail wagging the dog, they want the word ‘type’ to wag the whole thing, which means they can avoid detailing a case against us just by using the word type, but they avoid saying anything about what offenses [are] other than that it is of the type as far as we are concerned.
Mr Game said that the fact that people were involved in the case – John McLean and Itay Tuchman of Citi, Rick Moscati of ANZ and Michael Ormaechea and Michael Richardson of Deutsche – still face charges. even more worrying insufficiency of the indictment.
The resources involved are “massive”
“Mr. Moscati’s position is even more extreme than ours [ANZ’s] because it is a person. And it’s not just any person, it’s a person who has been brought to justice for fear of punishment, ”he said.
“[Also] we may be a public company, but we are a listed company with bonds and day after day a team of lawyers must join us to defend this case.
“The resources involved are enormous, and that is the point at which he has to stop.”
He said defense lawyers and the court had given the prosecutor the opportunity to address issues related to the indictment, but “they did not” and should lose their right to do so. .
But Jennifer Single, SC, for the prosecutor, said “sufficient details” had been provided with more evidence coming to trial, while Christopher Tran, also for the prosecutor, said barring his client from submitting again an indictment would amount “to a permanent stay … and a last resort”.
Judge Wigney disagreed, saying that such an order would have the effect of dismissing the allegations against Mr. Moscati but that the “bullet was in the [prosecutor’s] court ‘on how to respond.
“Why is it not appropriate when it has been over three years since the accused were charged and there have been many iterations of this offense? ” He asked.
“… These defendants have been charged for three years or more. Why should I allow the Crown to continue amending the indictment in these circumstances? “