Doubt over Craig Thomson charges Craig Thomson (right) leaves the Magistrates' Court with defence barrister Greg James QC. Picture: Hamish Blair Source: News Limited POLICE may have bungled the fraud case against Craig Thomson by charging him with the wrong offences, a court has heard. Following closing submissions by both parties on Wednesday, magistrate Charlie Rozencwajg quizzed prosecutors about the wording of the 145 charges being faced by Mr Thomson. He said many of the theft and deception charges were unnecessarily confusing and complex and may have been charged incorrectly. Mr Thomson, 49, is accused of misusing $28,449 of members funds while national secretary of the Health Services union between 2002 and 2008. Prosecutors alleged he used two union credit cards to pay for prostitutes, pornography, cigarettes and travel and accommodation for his then wife. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. Mr Rozencwajg said instead of alleging a deception of the Health Services Union, the charges alleged a deception of the Commonwealth Bank and Diners Club, the lending institutions that issued the cards at the centre of the alleged offending. But he said he couldn't see how either institution had been defrauded. Any alleged fraud, Mr Rozencwajg said, would have been committed on the Health Services Union. "Isn't his fraud on the HSU ... but you haven't charged it that way," he told prosecutors. While prosecutor's argued Mr Thomson had no authority to use the bank cards for non-union business, Mr Rozencwajg said that didn't prove he had deceived either the Commonwealth Bank or Diners Club. He said the cards were issued to Mr Thomson, were valid cards, bore his name and could be used to purchase goods and services. The comments echoed arguments put forward by Mr Thomson's defence barrister, Greg James QC, who picked apart the prosecutions case during his closing submissions. He said the case against his client was largely circumstantial and said while the HSU may have a civil case against him, Mr Thomson had not broken the law. He has not denied Mr Thomson made any of the transactions, including hiring escorts, but has persistently argued about his authority to do so. He said he had not deceived lending institutions. "The service providers couldn't care less about his internal relationships with the HSU," he said. All they care about is whether the bank or Diners Club would hounour the transaction. "And if they got paid, and they were," he said. Mr James, one of the country's top barristers, and a former New South Wales Supreme Court judge, said there was no evidence any service suppliers had ever been deceived . "He (didn't) evade the debt, he procures the HSU to pay it," he said. Mr Rozencwajg will deliver his verdict at a later date.