Closing arguments are underway in the trial of former Wagga Wagga MP Daryl Maguire, who stands accused of participating in a fraudulent visa scheme between 2013 and 2015. The NSW District Court has heard evidence suggesting Mr. Maguire was aware that deception was an integral part of the operation designed to help non-citizens obtain residency in Australia.
Allegations Against Former MP
Daryl Maguire, 67, has pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to commit an offence. Prosecutors allege that during his tenure as a Member of Parliament, he knowingly facilitated the provision of false or misleading information to the Commonwealth on visa applications. The scheme reportedly involved recruiting businesses, primarily within his former electorate, to sponsor Chinese nationals seeking permanent residency in Australia.
The trial, which has spanned 10 days of witness testimony, has focused on communications between Mr. Maguire and his alleged co-conspirator, Maggie Wang (also known as Maggie Logan), and her associate, migration agent Monica Hao. Crown Prosecutor Sean Flood SC presented thousands of text messages and emails as evidence during his closing address.
Mr. Flood argued that the digital correspondence clearly indicated Mr. Maguire’s awareness of Ms. Wang’s involvement in migration matters and Ms. Hao’s role in handling the necessary paperwork. “There is a pattern of them working together over time,” the prosecutor stated, emphasizing the collaborative nature of their alleged activities.
Evidence Presented in Court
Throughout the proceedings, multiple witnesses testified to receiving cash payments for their participation in or attendance at meetings related to the visa scheme. The court also heard that some of the businesses acting as sponsors reportedly never met the individuals they were sponsoring, nor did the applicants ever work for these sponsoring businesses. This practice raised questions about the legitimacy of the sponsorships.
The Crown prosecutor contended that Mr. Maguire, given his background as a rural parliamentarian during the period in question, would have understood that visas could not simply be “bought.” He specifically told the jury that Mr. Maguire had been informed that “lying to [the Department of] Immigration is part and parcel of the scheme.”
While Mr. Flood acknowledged that Mr. Maguire himself did not directly submit any visa application forms to the government, and that the Crown did not allege the use of cash payments was illegal, he highlighted the inherent difficulties in tracing funds that are exchanged in cash. “Cash payments are less easily identified,” he noted, suggesting this method was used to obscure the transactions.
Further evidence of the relationship between Mr. Maguire and Ms. Wang included regular communications detailing social engagements such as invitations to lunch, visits to NSW Parliament House, a stay at Mr. Maguire’s residence, and a joint visit to the Henty Field Days, a significant agricultural event in southern New South Wales. These interactions, prosecutors argued, demonstrated a close working relationship.
Defense Arguments
Ian McLachlan, Mr. Maguire’s barrister, provided the jury with an outline of his closing address, scheduled for delivery on Thursday. He suggested that Mr. Maguire’s actions, such as referring prospective employers to Maggie Wang, were not inherently wrong. “Thereafter the baton was passed to Maggie and others,” Mr. McLachlan indicated, implying that his client’s involvement ceased after making initial referrals.
Referencing arguments made during the opening of the defense, Mr. McLachlan also touched upon the complexities of the Australian visa system. He pointed to a text message attributed to Mr. Maguire, which stated that Ms. Wang would be responsible for immigration matters within the scheme, as evidence that his client was not involved in preparing or submitting any documentation. This, he argued, demonstrated a lack of direct participation in the alleged fraudulent activities concerning the visa applications themselves.
The trial is set to continue with Mr. McLachlan’s full closing address, after which the jury will deliberate on the evidence presented to reach a verdict.
