Mr Alan Crowe and His Investigation

Mr Alan Crowe, an Australian Taxation Office investigator based in Newcastle, began his criminal investigation in November 2008. At the time, Resort Hunter Valley Pty Ltd (RHV) was already contesting the ATO’s June 2008 tax assessment. Within months, the Commissioner agreed to accept mortgage security over the resort while the parties worked through the disputed accounts. The April 2009 searches took place between that agreement and the next scheduled meeting.

Mr Li Zhang, the owner of Hightrade, states that he is innocent of both charges. His submission to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) sets out why he believes the investigation shifted attention away from the Newcastle ATO’s handling of the disputed assessments. It also identifies specific records he says should be examined against their originals. The CCA dismissed his conviction appeal on 18 February 2026. This page presents Mr Zhang’s account and identifies the records he relied on.

1. Why Mr Zhang Says Crowe Set Out to Build a Case

Mr Crowe’s 27 February 2009 Operation 4 progress report, obtained through freedom of information, records that the matter was referred to his area after an internal referral was accepted on 17 November 2008. The Crown’s case statement gave 19 November 2008 as the start of the investigation. The report recorded suspected tax wrongdoing but “no firm suspects” and said there was little evidence at that stage to implicate most of the people identified by the GST audit. It identified the seizure and examination of emails as a likely way to obtain that evidence.

On 31 March 2009, the Commissioner and Mr Zhang reached an agreement involving mortgage security over the resort. They arranged a follow-up meeting for 23 April. In between, Mr Crowe applied for 11 search warrants on 14 April, and six were executed on 15 April.

The sequence is central to Mr Zhang’s account. He sees the criminal investigation as a way for the Newcastle ATO to divert scrutiny from the disputed tax demands. Mr Crowe’s report gives the investigator’s stated reasons for pursuing the searches. Read alongside the civil records, it also shows how much evidence investigators were still looking for when they moved towards obtaining warrants.

Appeal book: AB66–71, AB631–638, AB651–666 and AB756–768.

2. The Removal of Seized Documents and the Duplicate Item Numbers

After the April searches, records show that two archive boxes were taken to Newcastle on 16 April 2009. The movement of those boxes mattered because the custody of seized material was an issue in the proceedings over access to records and legal professional privilege.

At trial, Mr Crowe acknowledged that some seized items had duplicate numbers and that some items had been taken back to Newcastle. He described the duplicated numbering as a mistake and said he could not identify the numbers of the items taken there. Mr Zhang identified a practical consequence: when two items share one number, the register alone may not reveal which item moved, which stayed and whether both were later accounted for. He says the inventory should be checked against the original receipts and transfer records, item by item.

Appeal book: AB639–650. Trial transcript: 7 August 2023, pp 7140–7144.

3. Mr Crowe’s Federal Court Affidavit on Driver Licences

Mr Zhang’s CCA submission traces the driver licence information to requests the Newcastle ATO made to the Roads and Traffic Authority in 2006 and 2007. The point he raises about Mr Crowe’s Federal Court affidavit is the source of the information. He asks how licence numbers obtained by the ATO came to appear in a spreadsheet presented as a business record.

The investigation records identify a spreadsheet, COCKINOS_001, as having been found at Mr Con Cockinos’s home during a search on 17 February 2010. Mr Cockinos could not recall the document. Mr Zhang compared it with other exhibits, including Email 116 and MISC_018, and pointed to the licence numbers associated with company directors. He says the business office did not hold that information. In his submission, the appearance of those numbers matters because the spreadsheet was used to link him to companies the Crown said he controlled.

CCA submission: paragraphs 211–222. Appeal book: AB1261–1262, AB1285–1306 and AB1318–1323.

4. Mr Crowe’s Role in Mr Zhang’s Extradition from New Zealand — The Court Attendance Notices and Arrest Warrants

Mr Crowe’s 30 January 2019 affidavit formed part of the material sent to New Zealand. The NSW arrest warrants were endorsed there on 27 March 2019. Mr Zhang was arrested in Auckland on 4 April 2019 and returned to Australia in AFP custody on 12 September 2019.

For JKC, the stated filing date was 29 January 2014. Mr Zhang says the corresponding court case number first existed on 4 February 2014. For RHV, the stated filing date was 6 May 2015, while he identifies 3 September 2015 as the date the case number was created. He also points to the change from 6 May to 3 September on the RHV warrant. His submission questions whether a court attendance notice had been filed for each charge when the relevant warrant was issued.

Mr Zhang’s submission focuses on Mr Crowe’s role in putting the material forward as an ATO officer and on whether the two charges had been validly brought before the NSW court. His position is that the extradition must be examined from the original filing of each charge through to the warrants sent to New Zealand. The CCA had already considered the extradition issue in 2021 and refused leave to raise it again in the conviction appeal.

Appeal book: AB532–564. CCA submission: paragraphs 73–100.

5. Mr Crowe’s Supreme Court Bail Affidavit and the Emails about the Arrest Warrant

Mr Crowe’s 17 April 2020 affidavit was used in the Supreme Court bail proceedings. The exhibits include a copy of Damian Bultitude’s 3 September 2015 email about the arrest warrant. Mr Zhang compared it with the version reproduced in the following day’s email chain. One gives the recipient as “Alan Crowe”, while the other gives it as “Crowe, Alan.” The ATO’s June 2018 staff notice records a change from surname-first to given-name-first display. Mr Zhang cites the difference as a reason to examine when and how the copy exhibited in the bail proceedings was produced. The original messages and their headers would help distinguish a change in display from a change to the email record itself. The circumstances of Mr Zhang’s departure on 24 April 2009 also mattered because the prosecution treated his departure soon after the searches, and his failure to return, as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Mr Zhang points to the events leading up to that departure. He returned from Hong Kong on 28 March 2009, attended the 31 March meeting that produced the security agreement, attended the scheduled 23 April meeting after the searches, and left the next day. He says his departure had been arranged before the searches. He also points to the mortgage later granted over the resort as evidence that he continued to deal with the Commissioner after leaving Australia.

Appeal book: AB622–630 and AB756–768. CCA submission: paragraphs 1061–1080.

6. Mr Crowe’s Affidavit on Search Warrant 118/09 and the WHK Emails

The records for the 17 September 2009 search of WHK Horwath’s Sydney office identify warrant 118/2009. The warrant copy bears an issue date of 11 April 2009 and states that it expired at midnight on the seventh day after issue. Yet an email dated 11 September 2009, attached to Mr Crowe’s 13 July 2020 affidavit, says he had applied for and obtained a warrant for the September search. The receipt dated 17 September also identifies warrant 118/2009.

The affidavit exhibits raise a separate question about an email attributed to accountant James Maston. The header of the 14 August 2009 email contains “syd” in the domain. The address in his signature does not. At trial, Mr Maston confirmed that his address at the time did not contain “syd”. He could not explain the difference, although he still believed the email looked like one he had written.

Mr Zhang cites both discrepancies in support of his allegation that the material presented with the affidavit was unreliable. The key records for checking that allegation are the court’s original warrant and the email in its original electronic format.

Appeal book: AB1053–1071 and AB1075–1083.

7. Mr Crowe’s email filed in SDC court about Feb 2021

pending re write this contents

8. Mr Crowe’s Search Warrants and the Local Court Records Produced Under Subpoena

A subpoena sought the Local Court’s records for several warrant numbers used in the investigation. Two numbers illustrate the discrepancy Mr Zhang identified:

61/2010. The Local Court produced records concerning an armed robbery investigation. The ATO investigation records show that number on a warrant for a search at QBE, 82 Pitt Street, Sydney.

152/2010. The Local Court produced records concerning prison calls in a case involving two murder charges. The ATO investigation records show that number on a warrant for a search at Westpac, 591 George Street, Sydney.

The robbery and murder matters were unrelated to Mr Zhang. They matter here because the numbers on their court records match numbers on documents for different searches in his case. Mr Zhang cites the mismatch as evidence for his position that investigators bypassed the Local Court. The comparison establishes that the records produced under those numbers relate to different matters. It leaves open how the ATO documents acquired those numbers and what court records, if any, authorised the searches.

Appeal book: AB567–618, especially AB570–576 and AB593–598.

9. Emails Mr Zhang Says Were Fabricated or Altered

Mr Zhang identified examples where the electronic records called for comparison with their original files. One was Email 207, dated 16 September 2004. Its subject referred to an August invoice, but the attachments included claims for other months. Mr Zhang identified differences between those attachments and the payment claims he says were actually issued. The question he raised was when those particular attachments became associated with the email.

He also identified six spreadsheets with the same recorded last-modified date and time, 19 October 2007 at 1:50 pm, even though some contained figures dated after that day. He asked how the dates could be reconciled and whether the files presented at trial could be traced to the files originally seized. These examples go to a practical point: a printed exhibit shows what a reader was given, while the original electronic file can help establish where it came from and what it contained.

Appeal book: AB261–266 and AB1331–1348. CCA submission: paragraphs 101–275 and 914–923.

10. Telegraphic Transfers Recorded as Cash and WHK’s Documents

He raised a similar issue with bank records that he says showed telegraphic transfers rather than cash paid out to a customer. In one record, a $100,030 transaction was itemised with $89,450 against “coins”. He also identified a void cheque and its replacement. He pointed to the transfer instructions and the bank’s transaction trail as the way to establish where the money actually went.

The WHK accounting records give a second example. WHK used JKC’s GST ledgers in preparing its business activity statements. Mr Zhang compared five entries recorded under Lobbyfit in the WHK material with five invoices under Y&L used in the later expert report. The dates and amounts matched, while the suppliers and invoice numbers differed. He asks which source documents the expert received and how those documents relate to the records WHK used at the time.

Appeal book: AB732–737 and AB1110–1140. CCA submission: paragraphs 171–188 and 242–245.

11. Mr Zhang’s Report to NSW Police, Mr Crowe’s Resignation 3 Months Later.

The ATO confirmed that it received a report dated 8 July 2021, made by Ms Lynn Meng on Mr Zhang’s behalf through NSW Police Detective Senior Constable Deniz Ibrahim. Mr Crowe resigned on 8 October 2021, three months later, according to Mr Zhang’s CCA submission. The records establish the sequence. They do not give a reason for his resignation.

On 12 August 2022, the ATO wrote that it had discontinued its internal investigation because the matters were before the court. On 3 November 2022, NSW Police Detective Senior Constable Mark Gibbs advised Mr Zhang to take the material to the Australian Federal Police and closed the NSW Police report. Neither response made a finding about Mr Crowe’s conduct. Mr Zhang’s point is that Mr Crowe’s evidence should be assessed against the original court, seizure and electronic records.

Appeal book: AB565–566 and AB699–701. CCA submission: paragraphs 162–165.

The investigation produced the records that the prosecution took into court. The next page, Trial Analysis, looks at how those records were presented, what witnesses said when asked about the discrepancies, and what material the jury had available to examine.