Payments to Macquarie Consulting, which is associated with Charles, were intended to benefit Charles through his advisory role.

It seems simple: Money was paid that would not have been paid if Charles had not been involved. That is paying FOR Charles, even if it's not paying TO Charles. And in this situation it is a bloody fine line between paying Macquarie Consulting - Charles' wife - and paying Charles, given that the project being paid for involved both people in providing the advice that was paid for. #ICACRadio

He's splitting hairs. Payment to Macquarie Consulting was in part due to advice from Charles. It wasn't paid *to Charles* is what Greenwood is saying. I think that a reasonable person might think that paying it to Macquarie Consulting, i.e. Charles' wife, was in a very definite sense a benefit to Charles. "In effect to compensate Charles", as Dwyer puts it. It seems to me that she should turn it around: If Charles had not provided advice, would you have still paid Macquarie, or paid them the same amount? She's sort of getting to that now... #ICACRadio