Mr Jalland instructed the inquiry on Wednesday he didn’t assessment the doc as a result of “I wasn’t asked to”. But he stated that even when he had learn it, it will not have put him on discover that the transaction might need given Stanley Ho an oblique curiosity in Crown in breach of its licence.
“I believed that Dr Stanley Ho had no interest in Lawrence’s company,” Mr Jalland stated. “There’s no mention of Stanley Ho there.”
Commissioner Patricia Bergin, SC put to Mr Jalland that on the very least studying the doc would have alerted him to the very fact different members of Mr Ho’s household have been potential shareholders.
“And knowing that Stanley was a family member, and indeed the father of Lawrence, you could have – and probably, as a Crown director if you looked, would have – twigged to the need to look to see if Stanley was there?” she stated.
Mr Jalland stated that he didn’t see “any real prospect” of Stanley Ho having change into concerned in Melco since Crown’s Asian three way partnership with the group dissolved two years earlier, given Lawrence had gone to pains to emphasize his independence from his controversial father and their casinos competed in Macau.
However, Commissioner Bergin pressed additional and stated that it was a matter of logic that when “family member” was referred to, “as night follows day, it could be a father couldn’t it?”
“It could be, yes,” Mr Jalland stated.
Mr Jalland had earlier instructed the inquiry he didn’t imagine he had a battle of curiosity in arranging the sale of Mr Packer’s Crown shares whereas serving as a Crown director as a result of he didn’t imagine the transaction introduced any threat to Crown.
The inquiry, which is contemplating whether or not Crown ought to preserve the licence to its Sydney on line casino, will proceed hearings on Thursday with Crown director John Poynton and former government chairman John Alexander attributable to give proof.