A "significant criminal target", who bragged about having corrupt law enforcement officers working for him, had accurate information about an operation targeting him.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The detail and timing indicated the criminal, referred to as Mr A, may have had an inside source at the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.
However, a corruption probe cleared staff at ACIC of corrupt conduct, and found some of the crime figure's claims had been "self-promotion" to bolster his criminal status.
The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity was called in to the investigate concerns Mr A had been tipped off about a "specific law enforcement activity concerning him".
While it was possible that the tip may have come from another law enforcement agency, the level of detail and timing pointed to Mr A potentially having a source inside the ACIC, a report released publicly by ACLEI last week said.
In 2014, when the investigation - labelled Operation Shinobi - was launched, the corruption watchdog was also probing a similar issue, involving Mr A, at another government agency.
The report did not detail the city or state or territory where Mr A lived, or the area of crime in which he operated.
ACLEI's investigation, which also used the resources of the ACIC and the Australian Federal Police, examined information from a number of sources, including ACIC's corporate and operations records, analysis of telecommunications metadata, and forensic accounting.
The ACLEI investigation found "a wide group of people" had access to general information about law enforcement activities targeting Mr A.
Investigators then narrowed the probe by checking the timing and details of the information thought to have been leaked, which identified a possible avenue whereby details could have been passed from an ACIC staff member to an intermediary, Person C, and then onto Mr A.
However, there was no strong evidence of direct contact between ACIC staff and Person C.
The Integrity Commissioner, Michael Griffin, then held private hearings to determine if any ACIC staff had been the source for the alleged leak.
"Collectively, the evidence of witnesses provided a comprehensive overview of the ACIC's handling of critical information about the investigation into Mr A and any possible contact between ACIC staff members and Person C, of which there appears to have been none," Mr Griffin wrote.
"Having regard to the evidence gathered in Operation Shinobi and cognate investigations, it is highly unlikely that the ACIC was the source of the information purportedly obtained by Mr A.
"I am satisfied that no staff member of the ACIC engaged in corrupt conduct."
The report concluded that, despite the accuracy of the information held by Mr A, the senior crime figure may not have needed inside information to predict "what law enforcement actions might be underway or in contemplation".
"For instance, it is possible that information then circulating in the criminal milieu could have been a sufficient catalyst for Mr A to make certain deductions, and then publicise them.
"While Mr A routinely claims to have corrupt officers working for him, it appears likely that at least some of these claims are self-promotion, designed to gain 'market advantage' as a potential conspirator with other criminal actors.
"On this occasion, when investigated thoroughly, those claims were found to lack substance".
