Director of Public Prosecutions v Cornelius

[2017] VCC 1518

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR-17-00034

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JOHN CORNELIUS

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MASON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 and 10 October 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 October 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Cornelius
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VCC 1518

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:Plea - sentencing

Catchwords:             Fraudulently induce persons to invest money - obtain financial advantage by deception - use false documents

Legislation Cited:     Sentencing Act 1991

Cases Cited:            

Sentence:11 months’ imprisonment

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions at hearing For the Director of Public Prosecutions at sentence	Ms E. Ruddle Mr S. Kenna	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused at hearing For the Accused at sentence	Mr M. Cahill S.C. Mr A. Brand	Slades & Parsons Solicitors

HIS HONOUR: 

1John Cornelius, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of fraudulently inducing persons to invest money, one charge of obtaining a financial advantage by deception and one charge of using false documents. 

-    Fraudulently inducing persons to invest money carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.

-    Obtaining a financial advantage by deception carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.

-    Using false documents carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.

2You were born on 12 April 1949 and are now 68 years old.  You were 59 at the time of the offending in 2008. 

3You do not have any prior criminal history.

4By way of background to this matter, you have held various board, management consulting and management positions in the past and were, at the time of offending, a non-executive director of Essential Petroleum Resources Ltd. 

5In October 2004 you applied to incorporate Wantirna Ltd in Labuan, Malaysia, and this was subsequently approved and certified on 25 April 2005. 

6On or around 25 April 2005 you authorised EC Trust (Labuan) Bhd to act on behalf of Wantirna Ltd in a management capacity.  At this time the beneficial owners were, in equal shares, Gerald Matthew Egan and you.  Mr Egan was not involved in the management of Wantirna Ltd and was not involved in the events discussed in this sentence.

7In June 2006, Wantirna Ltd opened a U.S. dollar bank account with HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad ("HSBC"). 

8On 28 January 2008 you accepted a position as Chairman of MBD Biodiesel Ltd ("MBD").  It was a condition of your appointment that you disclose interests which may give rise to any conflict of interest.  You were formally appointed Chairman and Director on 11 February 2008. 

9You disclosed your directorship of Essential Petroleum Resources Ltd to the Board of Directors, as per your conflict of interest disclosure requirements, but failed to disclose your interest in Wantirna Ltd. 

10MBD commenced operations in 2006 and had, during 2007, raised $2m for the purpose of design and development of the company. 

11In the early part of 2008 you performed the role of Chairman of the Board of MBD without incident and the Board of MBD came to trust you as a person of integrity.

12The details of your offending are as follows.

13First, as to Charge 1, fraudulently induce persons to invest money.

14During May/June 2008 you raised a query regarding the placement of MBD's funds in low interest-bearing accounts with the National Australia Bank. 

15On 10 June 2008, while chairing a meeting of the MBD Board of Directors, you proposed investing funds in a secure term deposit controlled by HSBC and a company representative (being Wantirna Ltd) at 2% per month interest without risk and at call after 30 days. 

16During that meeting you falsely advised the Board that the publicly listed companies Beach Petroleum and Essential Petroleum, the latter of which you were a director, had completed the due diligence on the investment and that they had invested in accordance with that due diligence.  You advised the Board that Essential Petroleum was placing $30m into the account and that you and members of your family were also investing.  You told the Board that the funds would be tied up for a period of 30 days and then available to be drawn on after that.  At no point during the meeting did you disclose your interest in Wantirna Ltd. 

17The MBD Board of Directors resolved to invest upon receiving copies of the reports compiled by Essential Petroleum Resources Ltd with respect to the investment.  It was the understanding of the other members of the Board that any transfer would be contingent on provision of the due diligence documents. 

18The Minutes for that meeting were amended by you to remove the reference to "Beach Petroleum" and replace it with "Other publicly listed companies had conducted full due diligence and it was noted these companies have invested $200 million." 

19Each of the following statements made by you in the course of the meeting was false:

a.    That a secure term deposit was available under the control of HSBC and     a company representative in Malaysia at an interest rate higher than         mainstream banking;

b.    The funds invested were 100% secure and available at call after 30 days
      and offered 2% interest per month;

c.    Listed public companies had conducted due diligence of the HSBC                   offering, with one such company depositing $200m; and 

d.    Essential Petroleum, a company with which you were associated, had
      conducted due diligence and was depositing $30m into the offering of
      HSBC.

20The Board relied on the fact of these statements and particularly that Essential Petroleum had undertaken a due diligence and had decided to invest.  In fact, Essential Petroleum had no such investment.  HSBC did not offer such a product, there is no record of a 2% monthly interest account at HSBC existing and the HSBC Private Bank, with which the account was purportedly held, ceased operation in 2006 . 

21As to Charge 2, the charge of obtaining a financial advantage by deception.

22After the meeting on 10 June 2008, it was understood by the Board that steps would be taken to progress the “investment” but that such investment would be conditional on the provision of due diligence documents.  No member of the Board was made aware of your interest in Wantirna Ltd. 

23You requested that MBD's Managing Director, Andrew Lawson, supply you with his electronic signature to authorise the opening of an account in Wantirna Ltd's name (which you had indicated was a wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC).  You again represented that the deposit was a genuine investment and falsely stated that the Corporate Treasury Account Opening Form had been reviewed by lawyers at TressCox on behalf of MBD and that other firms had checked the documents with lawyers at Freehills.  In his return communication, Mr Lawson specified that no funds were to be transferred until the due diligence documents had been received and reviewed by Andrew Metcalfe, being MBD's Company Secretary. 

24You were, unbeknownst to the Board or staff of MBD, working with an associate by the name of Nicholas Robinson.  On 11 June 2008 you requested a transfer document from Mr Robinson, which was received then provided to the Company Secretary, Mr Metcalfe, and company CEO, Mr Lawson, on 12 June. 

25Between 11 June and 16 June 2008 you communicated with Mr Metcalfe regarding the urgency of placing the $1m into the "investment" and not missing the "cycle."  On 13 June 2008 you emailed Mr Metcalfe and Mr Lawson to confirm the account opening with HSBC and request the funds transfer.  As you were the Chairman of the Board, in a position of trust, and had falsely represented that the money was to be placed into a genuine investment, Mr Metcalfe agreed to transfer the money before receiving the due diligence documents on the basis of his trust in you.

26Subsequently, Mr Metcalfe effected a wire transfer of $1m to Wantirna Ltd's HSBC account, which is recorded by the HSBC as occurring on 16 June 2008, bringing the account balance to US$930,034.47 after exchange and bank fees by 26 June 2008. 

27The transfer was noted in the books of MBD as an "Investment Account."  When audited, it was noted to be held with "HSBC Hong Kong through Wantirna Ltd, a corporate treasury and specialised product provider."  No mention of your interest was made in the books.

28I now turn to the disbursements of the funds obtained. 

29In July 2008 Mr Robinson was made a director of Wantirna Ltd. 

30By document dated 12 July 2008, Mr Robinson entered into a "promissory note" on behalf of Wantirna Ltd wherein Wantirna promised to lend US$750,000 to Robert Fossberg.  In return, Mr Fossberg was to pay Wantirna US$10m within 30 days of the loan.  Until payment of the $1m by MBD, Wantirna had in fact only $2039.09 in its account. 

31A series of transactions, including payments to Mr Robinson for related companies and for a purported loan for $750,000 into the account of one Anne Maarit Aallonen, were made between July, August and September 2008.  The transactions are set out in Annexure A to the prosecution opening.  The transactions were authorised by you and/or Mr Robinson from the Wantirna Ltd HSBC account without the knowledge of the MBD Board of Directors. 

32By 4 August 2008 all but US$8307.47 had been disbursed from the Wantirna account.

33The total amount transferred from the US$930,039.09 initial deposit under your instruction was US$927,986.53 including fees.  The above amounts are all exclusive of fees and charges, which totalled US$96. 

34At all material times the Board of MBD believed that the funds were in a term deposit.  At no stage did you disclose to the Board the disbursement of funds out of the Wantirna Ltd account.

35In or around August 2008, having discovered that the money had been transferred, the Board requested that you arrange for the return of $500,000 to meet operational costs.  On 4 August 2008 the Robinson Investment Capital Pty Ltd account transferred AU$55,000 of the US$60,000 transfer from the same day to your NAB bank account.  You did not return same to MBD. 

36On 4 September 2008 you received a cheque for AU$320,000 from your
sister-in-law, allegedly to invest the money in Malaysia.  You transferred AU$200,000 of the AU$320,000 received from your sister-in-law to MBD and claimed to Mr Lawson in an email that a mistake had meant that the full AU$500,000 of the original deposit was unavailable until 30 September 2008, whereupon Mr Lawson requested confirmation of the remainder becoming available.

37As to Charge 3, the charge relating to the false document.

38Between July 2008 and your resignation in December 2008 you persistently represented that the $1m funds were in a HSBC term deposit earning interest and did not disclose your disbursement of those monies. 

39In June 2008 Price Waterhouse Coopers (“PWC”) were engaged to undertake a routine annual audit of MBD.  The audit was undertaken by Christopher Dodd under the supervision of his manager, Marcel Sterk, and with the assistance of a junior accountant. 

40Between 30 September 2008 and 28 November 2008 you provided false documents to MBD and PWC with the intention of having them accepted as genuine.  Your fingerprint was identified on one of the documents.  These documents were:

(a)       Statement dated 30 September 2008 of EC Trust Services Ltd    Transaction History for MBD BioDiesal Account No.393-002746-725;

(b)       Letter to Marcel Sterk of PWC dated 24 November 2008 with enclosures:           (i)     enclosure headed "Bank Confirmation Audit Request" bearing false   signature of Mario Laban, dated 22 October 2008; and

(ii)   enclosure headed "HSBC Private Bank Confirmation of Funds"    dated 31 October 2008 bearing false signature of Diana Cesar. 

41On 25 September 2008 you were requested to provide a statement confirming the deposit of A$1m with Wantirna Ltd and its position as at 30 June 2008 for auditing purposes.  You then wrote to Mr Robinson (on 29 September 2008) asking for "the draft statement we started."  Mr Robinson sent a statement to you purporting to be from EC Trustee Services indicating a balance at 25 June 2008 of AU$999,996 which was then forwarded to Maria Djordjevic, your assistant.  This is the first document constituting Charge 3.

42It was indicated to MBD that the EC Trustee Services statement was not sufficient for the audit and that the original bank documents would need to be provided.  Mr Dodd continued to chase these documents throughout October and November.  At some point during that period you asked whether a personal guarantee from you would be sufficient evidence for the audit.  Mr Dodd said that it was not preferable as he would need to investigate your personal circumstances. 

43On 28 November 2008 a letter and two documents dated 22 October 2008 which purported to be from HSBC Private Bank and contained information purportedly confirming the investment by MBD were delivered to Marcel Sterk at PWC's Collins Street offices.  These three documents constitute the remainder of Charge 3. 

44A number of matters concerned the audit team, and investigations were undertaken.

45On 2 December 2008 HSBC advised that the letter and enclosures to Marcel Sterk were fraudulent. 

46On 15 December 2008 you confirmed with Mr Lawson and Mr Dodd that the HSBC deposit was "delayed" and again confirmed the safety of the monies paid. 

47You then resigned from MBD prior to the AGM in December.  A meeting was arranged with the directors to discuss this missing money but you failed to attend. 

48As to the investigation, after your resignation the issue was reported to ASIC by PWC on 19 December 2008 and to the police by MBD on 24 December 2008.  You initially denied any wrongdoing, indicating that the "investment" was authorised by the Board of MBD.  However, in an email to Anne Aallonen on
14 November 2008 you stated, "I did not get authority to on-lend the money [to Robert Fossberg] and did not inform MBD of that choosing to plough the profits back into MBD within the short period agreed, and you know the situation from there." 

49On 3 February 2010 police executed a search warrant and interviewed you.  In that interview you indicated that you had suggested the investment to the Board but denied that Essential Petroleum had conducted due diligence.  You also broadly denied the allegations that you had misrepresented the investment and persisted with your version of events that the MBD's funds were tied up in a deposit with HSBC.  You stated that the $200,000 deposited by you had been a loan to tide the company over before confirming that you had represented that the money was from the investment. 

50Also during the record of interview on 3 February 2010, you indicated that you could not explain the errors in the false documents and denied committing any fraud.  You further indicated that the monies had been transferred to Fossberg International and that you had only been made aware of this from your investigations since your resignation.

51You were interviewed on 16 June 2016 and made partial admissions and refused to comment on other matters.  In the record of interview you:

(a)asserted that you had advised the Board of your role at Wantirna Ltd;

(b)said that the forms used to open the corporate treasury account were prepared by Mr Robinson in the lead-up to the 10 June 2008 Board meeting;

(c)stated that you could not recall why you had amended the Minutes of the 10 June Board meeting;

(d)indicated that you recalled that TressCox checked out the account opening form but could not provide details and that you "relied … largely on verbal due diligence";

(e)made no comment when challenged about the initial opening of the HSBC account, the provision of $125,000 to your personal accounts and the provision of false documents;

(f)indicated that you authorised a range of payments from the Wantirna Ltd account;

(g)could not explain how Mr Robinson had become authorised to transfer money from Wantirna Ltd;

(h)said you could not recall if you had authorised Mr Robinson to transfer the $750,000 to Anne Aallonen or told MBD about the transaction but you believed that you had;

(i)confirmed that you had no authority "other than the general authority" to transfer various amounts, including the transfer of $750,000 to Anne Aallonen, and were unable to explain or recall other transactions from the Wantirna account;

(j)admitted that you had received $70,000 from the MBD monies (via Mr Robinson) and that it was not authorised by or disclosed to MBD;

(k)admitted that you had also received $55,000 of the MBD monies (via Mr Robinson) and that it was not authorised by or disclosed to MBD;

(l)indicated that you did not know how the false documents were created or delivered to PWC;

(m)stated that you believed Ms Aallonen and Mr Fossberg were responsible for the repayment of MBD's funds;

(n)admitted receiving $125,000 via Mr Robinson, but generally denied or made no comment to allegations of obtaining financial advantage by deception, misleading MBD or using false documents.

52The key procedural dates for the development of this prosecution are as follows:

1)Charge and summons on 19 October 2016;

2)Filing hearing 15 November 2016;

3)Committal mention, where the matter resolved, 16 January 2017; and

4)the plea before the County Court just recently.

53I now turn to your personal circumstances. 

54As I noted earlier, you are now 68 years old, you were 59 at the time of the offending in 2008 and you have no criminal record. 

55You overcame some difficult circumstances in your youth and ultimately developed a distinguished career in business following professional studies in accounting and finance.  You have led an exemplary life, characterised by commitment to your employment and much hard work.  As a result, you have occupied positions of commercial management with high responsibilities.  You have worked extensively with major resource companies within Australia and internationally and have served on the boards of several publicly listed companies.        

56You have married twice and have two children, now aged in their forties, from your first marriage.  You have been married to your second wife since 1989 and the two of you have a close and mutually supportive bond.  You both continue to work long hours.

57You have a number of managed physical issues including a benign enlarged prostate, occasional melanomas which are being dealt with and an inner ear complication suggestive of Meniere's disease or possible benign positional vertigo.

58Evidence from psychologist Mr Patrick Newton was heard on your plea.  You have experienced quite marked reactive anxiety and depression in response to these charges and have maintained a regular course of counselling with
Mr Newton.  Your depression has been intense at times, resulting in suicidal ruminations and otherwise fluctuating according to stages in the progress of this prosecution.  It appears that there are likely underlying vulnerabilities from earlier life experiences, but it must also be recognised that you have exhibited strong resilience in the past, reflected in your significant corporate success. 

Mr Newton has diagnosed current continuing anxiety and depression consistent with meeting criteria for Major Depressive Disorder of moderate severity.  In Mr Newton's opinion, any term of imprisonment is likely to be “somewhat more onerous” on you than on a prisoner not afflicted by such challenges.

59Each of the crimes you have committed constitutes serious commercial offending.  This type of offending is well recognised as difficult to detect and requires the expenditure of significant amounts of time and resources to investigate and ultimately prosecute. 

60Whilst your offending against the company was relatively unsophisticated, it remains serious.  It was planned and maintained by the exploitation of the trust in which you were held by the company executives.  In that sense it did not need to be complicated because of your position as chairman and the great estimation in which you were held because of your previous history in the commercial world.  Whilst the offending involved singular episodes and is not characterised, as in other cases, as repetitive offending over a significant time, it involved continuous procedural attention by you to effect the desired outcome and your culpability was compounded by the further offending of producing false documents in order to disguise the earlier offending against the company.  Again, the offending was deliberate, considered and quite creative in order to give it added effect. 

61I accept that your culpability has to be seen in the context that your deception was designed to speculate and ultimately return the principal amount taken from the company, albeit with profit to yourself.  You are not charged with theft.  I also accept that having lost the money, you did make desperate attempts to try and recover it to no avail. 

62Whilst the loss to the company has been ameliorated to some extent already by you through the repayment of $200,000, and when the compensation order is realised it will be restituted to almost half the original amount defrauded, the eventual loss remains significant, at a little over $500,000.

63The personal immediate and continuing harm that can attend to individuals involved in seeking to develop small companies can be readily appreciated through the victim impact statement tendered from Mr Lawson, the Managing Director of MBD. 

64MBD was a small start-up company with no income and relied on investments from a small group of people.  As a result of your deception, Mr Lawson was forced to borrow $650,000 to keep the company going.  Another director also put in further money to assist.  The 20 staff involved all depended on the monies to keep the business going.  Some staff were made redundant and the reputations of the company and its directors were affected.  Mr Lawson has suffered long-term anguish and depression over the issue, has a debt of $650,000 and continues to fund the $40-$50,000 interest each year to maintain the loan.

65I note that apart from your reactive anxiety and depression consequent upon the discovery and prosecution of these charges, there is no indication that you were suffering any significant clinical depression or anxiety at the time of your offending conduct.  There is no indication to suggest that your ability to understand the wrongfulness of your conduct or its potential consequences was impaired. 

66In mitigation, I have considered all the matters urged by your counsel and, in particular, take into account:

·    your pleas of guilty and the time at which they were entered.  Whilst it cannot be said that your interview particularly assisted the police investigation, the prosecution agrees that your plea was made at an early stage.  Your plea has a utilitarian value to the community: it has saved the community the expense of what may have been otherwise protracted proceedings involving inconvenience to witnesses, it has given certainty of outcome to the community and is also evidence of your remorse, as is also indicated by repayments being made by as much as you could, and your consent to the compensation order to which I will shortly refer. 

·    the references to your good character from the testimonials tendered and evidence given during the course of the plea,

·    the close support you have from your wife, friends and work colleagues, which have assisted and will assist your rehabilitation,

·    your age, physical condition and vulnerability to reactive anxiety and depression which will have some added impact on any period of imprisonment,

·    your employment history of consistent hard work and otherwise high reputation, and your insight and capacity for rehabilitation, which I assess as high.  I accept the characterisation in that regard articulated by Mr Newton in his psychological report,

·    and, in particular, the very significant time that has elapsed between your offending and being charged.  I accept that the time that has elapsed was extreme and likely to have caused continual anxiety and uncertainty in your mind concerning your future.  I accept that this uncertainty has impacted upon your life both emotionally and practically with regard to your employment.  Over that period you have not reoffended, have maintained steady employment and have refused more responsible positions to prevent any possible embarrassment to the employer companies.  You have felt considerable shame and embarrassment. 

67Your counsel has submitted that a fully suspended sentence would reflect the appropriate balance in sentencing considerations, relying in particular on your previous good character, the significant delay and your evident remorse and rehabilitation.

68The prosecution has submitted that a fully suspended sentence is inappropriate in light of the significant amount defrauded, your high position of trust and the aggravation by further offending. 

69In the course of its submission, a range of other similar sentences were produced by the prosecution.  I have considered these authorities of similar, but not the same, offending as examples of principle along with the other statistics so much as are available from the Judicial College and the Sentencing Advisory Council.  These are considered as a very general guide to current sentencing practice.  There is a very wide range and the particular circumstances of each case are inadequate for fine analysis.

70Your counsel has also submitted a range of other sentences from the Court of Appeal relevant to principles attending white collar crime and, in particular, the issue of delay.  I have considered those authorities carefully and am familiar with the principles expressed.

71The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are punishment, deterrence, that is, both specific to you and general, which means to make an example of you to deter other like-minded offenders, rehabilitation, denunciation by the court and protection of the community.

72In sentencing, I have to have regard to a range of matters, such as the maximum penalty for the offences, the nature and gravity of the offence, your culpability and degree of responsibility for it, your personal circumstances and those of the victims, and the context of current sentencing practices.  Each factor must be balanced in order to impose a sentence that is just in all the circumstances.  I am required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing and punishing criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure that, as far as possible, offenders are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.

73I have carefully considered the submissions of your counsel and those of the prosecutor.  I accept that the gross delay in bringing these matters to prosecution is in the extreme range and is, for the most part, totally inexplicable.  Your background, good character and the many years that have passed without further incident, good reputation and work record significantly reduces the emphasis that would otherwise be necessary to place on specific deterrence.  The extended delay also very much reduces what can sensibly be said to be achieved by application of considerations of general deterrence.  It is readily apparent that extreme delay such as evidenced in this case acts very much to undermine fairness to both offenders as well as victims and significantly undermines the proper administration of justice.

74I accept that the sentences imposed should be significantly moderated to reflect the consequences of that delay.

75I have considered the available options of a fully suspended sentence, partially suspended sentence, and although not part of submissions, a community correction order, either alone or in combination with a part custodial order. 

76Balancing all the circumstances in order to achieve a just outcome, whilst significant moderation should be applied, I consider that the principles of general and specific deterrence are not reduced to the point where a suspended sentence is appropriate.  In my view, the quantum of the deception, the breach of trust, the loss and impact to the victim, which is continuing, general deterrence and the denunciation of this conduct by the court are such that, balancing all the mitigating factors, the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed cannot be achieved by a sentence that does not involve the confinement of the offender.

77In considering matters of cumulation and concurrency, I consider that, whilst separate offending, there is considerable overlap between the offences.  The fraudulent inducement was the vehicle in order to achieve the financial advantage, and the false documentation was reactive to hopefully buy time in the hope that monies lost could be recovered.

78Mr Cornelius, could you please now stand. 

79On Charge 1 of fraudulently inducing persons to invest money, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. 

80On Charge 2 of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

81On Charge 3 of using false documents, you are convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

82Charge 1 is the base sentence. 

83I direct that one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 and one month of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and upon each other.  The sentences are otherwise concurrent. 

84The total effective sentence is 11 months' imprisonment.

85For the purposes of s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, but for your plea of guilty, the sentence that would have been imposed otherwise is a term of imprisonment of two years with a non-parole period of 18 months.

86You may be seated for the moment, Mr Cornelius.

87At the plea hearing, the Crown sought an order for a forensic sample, and I make that order today for the reasons noted on the order, that is, the seriousness of the offending warrants the making of the order, the order is not opposed and the making of the order is in the public interest.

88I also need to inform you, Mr Cornelius, that if at the time of the request for the sample you do not consent to the taking of a mouth scraping under the supervision of an authorised member of the police force, then the sample to be taken will be a blood sample, and police may use reasonable force to enable that forensic procedure to be conducted.  Do you understand that,
Mr Cornelius?

89OFFENDER:  Yes, Your Honour.

90HIS HONOUR:  Thank you.  At the plea hearing there was also an application for a compensation order in the sum of $800,000 payable to MBD Energy Ltd to which you consented, and I have also made that order today.

91Are there any other matters?

92COUNSEL:  No, Your Honour.

‑ ‑ ‑