<p>Australian investigators who brought criminal cartel charges against Citigroup Inc and Deutsche Bank AG "pre-populated" a witness statement with incriminating claims before interviewing the person who ultimately signed off on them, a court heard on Friday.</p>.<p>Investigators wrote a statement which appeared to show a rival banker's concern about "inappropriate" co-ordination between the companies while they were working on a stock issue, then interviewed the witness and the passages re-appeared the witness's final signed statement, the court heard.</p>.<p>The disclosure shows another strand of the defence against Australia's biggest white collar criminal lawsuit: lawyers for the investment banks have been trying to show investigators departed from due process to build a case against them.</p>.<p>The banks and their former staffers are charged with colluding during a A$2.5 billion ($1.8 billion) 2015 stock issue to withhold unsold shares and keep the stock from falling. Their client, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, is also defending the case.</p>.<p>The matter is being closely watched by financial market participants around the world because it could influence how capital raisings are conducted.</p>.<p>Leah Won, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's general manager of financial services competition, was asked about a draft witness statement the regulator wrote for an employee of JPMorgan Chase & Co, which also worked on the share issue but cooperated with prosecutors for immunity.</p>.<p>"You hadn't spoken to (JPMorgan's then head of equities Mark) Leung at the time?" ANZ's lawyer, Simon Buchen, asked Won.</p>.<p>"No, I don't think that we had," Won replied.</p>.<p>"Before you had spoken to Mr Leung, you or one of your investigators was pre-populating the statement with his concerns," Buchen said. "It's a fundamental aspect of a criminal investigation that an investigator has to have an open mind, correct?"</p>.<p>"Yes," Won said.</p>.<p>All pre-written parts of Leung's statement "assist the prosecution in one way or another", said Buchen. "Can you accept that?"</p>.<p>"I think that's probably right," Won replied.</p>.<p>"That doesn't evidence an open state of mind (about) what he was thinking at the time, does it?"</p>.<p>"These were propositions ... that were put to him. I'm not sure that that is inconsistent with an open state of mind."</p>.<p>JPMorgan and the ACCC have declined to comment outside the court proceedings.</p>.<p>The hearing continues. </p>
<p>Australian investigators who brought criminal cartel charges against Citigroup Inc and Deutsche Bank AG "pre-populated" a witness statement with incriminating claims before interviewing the person who ultimately signed off on them, a court heard on Friday.</p>.<p>Investigators wrote a statement which appeared to show a rival banker's concern about "inappropriate" co-ordination between the companies while they were working on a stock issue, then interviewed the witness and the passages re-appeared the witness's final signed statement, the court heard.</p>.<p>The disclosure shows another strand of the defence against Australia's biggest white collar criminal lawsuit: lawyers for the investment banks have been trying to show investigators departed from due process to build a case against them.</p>.<p>The banks and their former staffers are charged with colluding during a A$2.5 billion ($1.8 billion) 2015 stock issue to withhold unsold shares and keep the stock from falling. Their client, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, is also defending the case.</p>.<p>The matter is being closely watched by financial market participants around the world because it could influence how capital raisings are conducted.</p>.<p>Leah Won, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's general manager of financial services competition, was asked about a draft witness statement the regulator wrote for an employee of JPMorgan Chase & Co, which also worked on the share issue but cooperated with prosecutors for immunity.</p>.<p>"You hadn't spoken to (JPMorgan's then head of equities Mark) Leung at the time?" ANZ's lawyer, Simon Buchen, asked Won.</p>.<p>"No, I don't think that we had," Won replied.</p>.<p>"Before you had spoken to Mr Leung, you or one of your investigators was pre-populating the statement with his concerns," Buchen said. "It's a fundamental aspect of a criminal investigation that an investigator has to have an open mind, correct?"</p>.<p>"Yes," Won said.</p>.<p>All pre-written parts of Leung's statement "assist the prosecution in one way or another", said Buchen. "Can you accept that?"</p>.<p>"I think that's probably right," Won replied.</p>.<p>"That doesn't evidence an open state of mind (about) what he was thinking at the time, does it?"</p>.<p>"These were propositions ... that were put to him. I'm not sure that that is inconsistent with an open state of mind."</p>.<p>JPMorgan and the ACCC have declined to comment outside the court proceedings.</p>.<p>The hearing continues. </p>