Labor councillor denies damaging Elliott message linked to developer payments

A former Labor councillor took the stand at an anti-corruption inquiry on Friday to deny that a message about destroying a Liberal minister's reputation was connected to political work he was doing for a fugitive property developer. Sharangan Maheswaran told the Independent Commission Against Corruption that when lobbyist Jeremy Greenwood wrote to him saying "We have something that will kill Elliott," the message had nothing to do with Greenwood's company Beckington working on behalf of developer Jean Nassif. Instead, Maheswaran said he and Greenwood shared a common interest in attacking the Hawke faction within the Liberal party.

The inquiry is examining whether Greenwood, Charles Perrottet, and Christian Ellis anticipated receiving $2 million in prohibited donations from Nassif in exchange for political outcomes—specifically, damage to the career of former NSW Liberal minister David Elliott, who had opposed Toplace developments that Nassif was pushing. All three men have denied that Nassif paid for political outcomes. The stakes are substantial: the commission is investigating whether Maheswaran and fellow Labor councillor Karen Pensabene engaged in conduct toward former mayor Matthew Blackmore that could constitute dishonest exercise of their official functions, breaches of public trust, and possibly blackmail.

When the inquiry's counsel, Dwyer, pressed Maheswaran on the February 2020 exchange with Greenwood, the councillor's position began to fracture. Maheswaran had replied to Greenwood's message by saying his own ears were "ringing" because he had just picked up the phone with something "decent"—a story the Sydney Morning Herald was about to run against Liberal MP Alex Hawke, tied to an ALP bill banning developers. Dwyer suggested the messages showed Maheswaran and Beckington shared a common interest in damaging Elliott's reputation. Maheswaran conceded he had a common interest with Greenwood regarding the Hawke faction, but insisted the messages had nothing to do with Beckington's work for Nassif.

The questioning then turned to what Nassif had told Maheswaran about Elliott. When asked if Nassif had mentioned that Elliott was objecting to Toplace proposals, Maheswaran called this "a new invention by Mr Nassif." Dwyer pressed harder, asking if Maheswaran was seriously contending that Nassif had never told him Elliott was objecting to his proposals—and if so, was Maheswaran suggesting Nassif had lied to the commission? Maheswaran said yes, Nassif had lied. But then Dwyer showed him a draft statutory declaration Maheswaran himself had written in 2022 in which he stated that Nassif had spoken to Elliott about his opposition to Toplace developments. The contradiction hung in the air.

Maheswaran came to know Nassif through Nassif's daughter Ashlyn, who was sentenced earlier this month to a six-month community corrections order after pleading guilty to providing false or misleading information to obtain a $150 million construction loan from Westpac. In late 2019, Maheswaran was subcontracted to do work for Toplace through Ashlyn Nassif and her sister Evelyn Helou's law firm, EA Legal, using a company called Anwalt Pty Ltd. When Dwyer suggested that Maheswaran and Anwalt were essentially the same entity, Maheswaran objected, calling the suggestion "nonsensical from a corporation's perspective." But under questioning, he conceded he was the only shareholder and employee of Anwalt at the time, and that he was the only person doing any actual work.

Between 2020 and 2023, Toplace paid Maheswaran $1.4 million. Yet when he nominated for council in 2021, he did not disclose that he was a close associate of a property developer—a disclosure required by law, Dwyer noted. Maheswaran had previously told Guardian Australia that he had "every confidence that my actions will be regarded by the public and by any fair tribunal to be lawful and entirely in the public interest." The inquiry continues, with fellow councillor Karen Pensabene excused from her summons for medical reasons. What emerges from Maheswaran's testimony is a pattern of shifting explanations and contradictions between what he said under oath and what he had written years earlier—the kind of inconsistency that typically invites closer scrutiny from a commission tasked with investigating whether public officials have abused their trust.