Former NGV employee charged over alleged A$8m phone scheme

A former senior employee of the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne allegedly redirected A$8 million to buy mobile phones and then sold them for personal benefit.

The claim centres on one of Australia's largest public art museums. The case does not involve paintings or sculptures from the collection. It involves phones, procurement and public money.

The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission in Victoria, the state's anti-corruption agency known as IBAC, said it had charged the former employee with seven counts of theft and one count of misconduct in public office IBAC. Misconduct in public office, an offence covering serious misuse of a public role, is the eighth charge in the case. The charges were announced on 23 September.

IBAC said the charges were laid as part of Operation Sonder. Sonder is the codename the agency gave to its investigation. The agency has not published further detail about the operation itself.

Investigators allege that gallery funds were used to pay for large volumes of mobile phones. Those phones were then sold on, with the proceeds kept for private benefit, according to reporting by The Guardian. The allegation is therefore about diversion of money through stock that could be quickly resold. No phone brands, suppliers or sale prices have been made public.

The alleged conduct ran from September 2019 to September 2025 AusLeisure. That is a six-year period. It spans multiple financial years and annual audits.

The charges are allegations only. They have not been tested in court. The former employee has not entered a plea in any public statement reported to date, and no finding has been made against him.

For readers, this means the facts will be decided through the court process. Theft requires proof that property was taken dishonestly. Misconduct in public office requires proof of a serious breach of public duty. Prosecutors must prove each count.

The National Gallery of Victoria has not published the employee's name, exact job title or length of service in the material released so far. IBAC has also released no detail on how the alleged purchases were approved inside the organisation, or when concerns were first raised.

What makes this stand out is the setting. Art museums guard objects with strict loan forms, crate lists and insurance. Cash controls sit elsewhere, in finance teams and procurement systems. This case will turn on that paperwork.