Australian Man Denies Spy Charges by Claiming He’s a Plagiarist

Most people don’t want to be called a plagiarist. 

Even when the evidence is clear and overwhelming, most people will either fight the allegations, sometimes taking the issue to court, or try to shift the narrative with excuses or apologies.

However, an Australian man is hoping that not only the public, but prosecutors will see him as a plagiarist. In fact, he’s gone as far as to admit to committing plagiarism and even having his attorney attest to that in court.

That’s because, if he’s not a plagiarist, he may be facing up to 15 years in prison for violating Australia’s foreign interference laws.

It’s a bizarre and complicated case where many of the facts aren’t yet known to the public, and may never be known. 

However, it highlights that, sometimes, there are things that are worse than being a plagiarist, especially when one is facing criminal prosecution.

The Story So Far

The case involves Alexander Csergo, a 55-year-old Australian businessman who was arrested in April 2023 on allegations that he had violated the Australia’s foreign interference laws.

Csergo was only the second person to be arrested under those laws, where he was charged with one count of reckless foreign interference. 

According to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Csergo was recruited by two individuals, identified only as “Ken” and “Evelyn”, to provide information about Australian defense, economic activity and national security in reports for China.

The case has become mired in complexity as prosecutors are waiting for consent from the attorney-general’s department to continue with the prosecution. Without that permission, which routinely takes around eight weeks to obtain, the charges will be dropped.  

The case is also facing a looming deadline of October 14 for prosecutors to provide Csergo’s attorneys a brief of the evidence against him. In the meantime, Csergo has been waiting in jail, having been denied bail by a local court.

In a recent court hearing, Csergo’s attorneys outlined at least one of his potential defenses, namely that he didn’t turn over any confidential information, instead that all or nearly all of the information he sold was from publicly-available sources.

According to his lawyer, the only offense his client had committed was “plagiarism” as his reports included articles from the Australian Financial Review and Lowy Institute, among others public sources. 

Csergo was denied bail and will remain in prison under solitary confinement, where the government says he is being held for his own safety.

The charge of reckless foreign interference carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison.

Why This Case Is Weird

Plagiarists, even when facing overwhelming evidence, rarely admit to plagiarism. Such accusations are usually met with a mixture of denial and deflection, regardless of what evidence exists or how serious or minor the allegations are.

Here, we have a man who is not only admitting to plagiarism, but is admitting to it proactively and, through his lawyer, is testifying to it in court. 

The reason, however, is obvious. While being a plagiarist would certainly not be good for his reputation as a businessman and consultant, it isn’t, by itself, a criminal offense. While plagiarism can be a part of a fraud or a criminal copyright infringement claim, jail time isn’t a common outcome for a plagiarism case, at least not in Australia. 

As such, if marking himself as a plagiarist helps him avoid criminal prosecution, it’s an excellent trade for Csergo. It’s better to be thought of as a plagiarist than to sit in prison for a lengthy sentence.

However, this raises a simple question: Is Csergo a plagiarist? To that end, we don’t know.

Simply put, we don’t know what Csergo promised “Ken” and “Evelyn”. We also don’t know what he delivered. It’s entirely possible that he promised reports filled with inside and secret information but then plagiarized content, either information or words, from publicly available reports. 

However, it’s also possible that his reports did provide confidential information, but also included content from publicly available documents as part of the background of the study. It’s entirely possible for him to both be a plagiarist and have turned over confidential information at the same time.

The result is that the plagiarism question becomes largely irrelevant. We don’t know what information was in Csergo’s reports, and it’s likely that those details will never be publicly available. If his reports contained confidential information, it’s not relevant whether Csergo cited his sources or not when using publicly available information.

Though it’s entirely possible that Csergo did commit plagiarism and did present public information as confidential, that’s not relevant to his case. What’s relevant is what he promised his contacts and whether he transferred any information that’s a violation of the act. 

Those are things that we simply don’t know.

Bottom Line

As someone who has been covering and reporting on plagiarism issues for nearly 20 years, it’s almost unheard of for someone to not only admit to being a plagiarist, but to make the claim in hopes of avoiding a more serious charge.

Csergo’s hope is clear. He hopes that, by admitting to plagiarism, he can make the case that he didn’t transfer any prohibited information and instead only provided information that was already publicly available, despite possibly making promises to the contrary.

It’s a bizarre gambit and one that I haven’t seen before. 

Ultimately, the plagiarism angle isn’t likely to be particularly relevant. The question is simple: Did he provide information that was in violation of the law? The answer doesn’t hinge on whether he cited his sources.

Still, it does prove that there are things much worse than being a plagiarist. That list definitely includes being someone convicted of reckless foreign interference and facing a prison sentence of up to 15 years.