Bold claim: a LinkedIn introduction led an Australian businessman to assemble reports for two individuals he believed were tied to Chinese intelligence, in exchange for cash. And this is the part most people miss: the case hinges on what he thought, not just what he did.
A NSW District Court jury is hearing the matter of Alexander Csergo, who has pleaded not guilty. His defense contends that none of the material he produced was secret or related to national security. Csergo, who had lived in Shanghai since early 2018, planned to return to Australia in March 2023.
Prosecutors allege that from November 2021 to March 2023, he regularly communicated with two people who used the names “Ken” and “Evelyn.” They presented themselves as part of a think tank, but the Crown claims he believed they worked for China’s Ministry of State Security and were grooming him as a potential source.
The charges say he received instructions to compile reports on topics the pair were interested in, including lithium mining, shifts in the German government, defense, the Quad alliance, and AUKUS. During opening remarks, Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Single SC asserted that Csergo used his expertise to locate, read, collate, and assemble information to answer the exact questions posed by Ken and Evelyn.
Court heard Csergo was a heavy user of WeChat, exchanging around 2,800 messages with Ken, many illustrating a cordial, almost collegial relationship. The reports were delivered as hard copies or on a USB drive during meetings at cafes and restaurants that were often quiet. After handing over the work, he was typically paid in cash.
The Crown contends the chats show Csergo was cautious in his research and structured conversations to avoid detection. A procurement-style “shopping list” of topics accompanied his return to Australia, and in a February 2023 exchange with Ken, he said, “I have read your shopping list, I know what you are looking for.” Prosecutors argue this demonstrates the scope and intent of the information sought while he was in Australia.
Defence lawyer Iain Todd acknowledged some elements wouldn’t be disputed, including that the LinkedIn outreach originated from a commercial arrangement. He contends the material provided by Csergo was largely open-source information freely available on the internet, not secret, and non-sensitive. The defense asserts that Csergo supplied what could be considered commercially available information and did so for money.
Todd further argues that the documents were easily found online and simply repackaged as Csergo’s own work. A witness is expected to testify about the value of the reports, with the defense suggesting some of the material may have been “gibberish.” In their view, the real deception, if any, lay with the alleged Chinese intelligence operatives rather than Csergo.
The trial, presided over by Judge Craig Smith SC, is anticipated to last about three weeks.
Would you weigh in on whether the information in this case should be treated as mere commercially available data, or as something that could legitimately impact national security? And what are your thoughts on how intent versus outcome should be weighed in cases like this?
