One Obvious Wrongdoing Is the Misprision

In “Rushed cheques and a quiet exit: how the AWU ‘covered up’ fraud”, Hedley Thomas of The Australian provides an account of the willfull and successful attempt by leaders of the Australian Workers Union to conceal from appropriate austorities a fraud—engineered by Bruce Wilson, then Julia Gillard’s leman and legal client, with or without her willing assistance:

Senior union figures effectively covered up a fraud scandal revolving around the AWU and Bruce Wilson, then Julia Gillard’s boyfriend and legal client, according to the diaries of the union’s then national leader.
In a September 15, 1995, diary entry, Australian Workers Union head Ian Cambridge described the concealment to a union official as “a bit like the Watergate scandal whereby the attempt to cover up the original crime was now far worse perhaps than the original crime, although given some recent revelations the original crimes were taking on an entirely new dimension as well”.
His diary described how the cover-up was helped by a majority vote by the union’s national executive to pay large redundancy cheques of AWU members’ money to three men—Mr Wilson, his bagman Ralph Blewitt and their friend, Bill “the Greek” Telikostoglou—despite fresh and compelling evidence of their involvement in serious fraud.
Law firm Slater & Gordon was involved in negotiating more than $100,000 in redundancy for the men.  Ms Gillard worked at Slater & Gordon and acted for the AWU prior to her departure in September 1995 after she admitted helping to set up a “slush fund” for Mr Wilson.  There is no evidence Ms Gillard had any knowledge of the redundancy payments. The Prime Minister has repeatedly and vehemently denied any wrongdoing, saying she knew nothing of the operations of the fund, which were used by Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt to misappropriate union funds.  […]

Hundreds of thousands of dollars that went through a different slush fund, the AWU Workplace Reform Association, set up in Western Australia after legal advice from Ms Gillard, went undetected by Victoria police, and it was unknown to WA police until late 1996 because neither Ms Gillard nor the law firm disclosed it.
The Australian has asked Ms Gillard why neither she nor the firm alerted anyone in the AWU to the existence of the association there, which bore the name of the union.
A spokesman for Ms Gillard said:  “As The Australian is well aware, the Prime Minister has made clear on numerous occasions that she was not involved in any wrongdoing.  I also note that, despite being repeatedly asked to do so, The Australian has been unable to substantiate any allegations of wrongdoing."

Not involved in any wrongdoing?  One conspicuous, major wrongdoing, Prime Minister, is your misprision of a felony: you were aware of a fraud—whether or not you were active in the planning thereof—and you failed to inform the police.  You’re a crook.

UPDATE:  see, in “Keep blurred lines in focus”, Grace Collier’s assessment of the sort of women who are attracted to power and misconduct:

Sometimes people who associate with union officials can become star struck with the perceived power and status or titillated by the association.  They can be enticed into schemes; through association with a union person, the feeling of being above the law can be an exciting mantle drawn across the shoulders.
In the 1990s, the aura around Bruce Wilson of the Australian Workers Union was such that he was touted as a future prime minister.  Our Prime Minister made a decision to begin a relationship with him.  Partners of law firms don’t recommend having relationships with people who work in their clients’ businesses.  It is not considered appropriate to put yourself in a potentially compromising position.  The worst can happen, and for our Prime Minister it did.  Now we find ourselves in the position we are in today.
Over the past 11 years, I have been called upon to investigate many people for workplace misconduct.  The hardest people to investigate are high-achieving, high-profile women executives.  Their starting position is always a haughty refusal to answer questions or participate in investigations they consider beneath them.  Next they attempt to retain control by trying to impose their conditions and time frames on the investigation.  They attempt to distract from their own conduct by focusing on the poor conduct of others.  Some flail about, claiming the status of bullying or sexism victim.
Towards the end, in the face of overwhelming evidence, where others would walk away in shame, they deny everything and come out fighting.