Apartment owners caught up in the collapse of Sydney developer Toplace are questioning what the current NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry can ultimately deliver for people still paying for serious building defects.

The concern comes as Operation Rosny examines allegations involving property developer Jean Nassif, people associated with the NSW Liberal Party and others. The commission is investigating possible breaches of electoral funding laws and whether political influence was sought in connection with outcomes affecting Mr Nassif’s interests.

Those matters are allegations under investigation. A public inquiry is an evidence-gathering process, not a criminal trial, and the commission has not made final findings simply because allegations are being examined in public.

For owners, however, the political and corruption questions sit beside a much more immediate problem: homes affected by structural defects, large strata levies, reduced resale options and years of uncertainty.

At the Vicinity complex in Sydney, ABC reporting says temporary steel props have supported parts of the building since engineers raised concerns about structural beams. One major issue has been estimated at about $11 million to repair, while some owners say their personal strata and remediation costs have already reached six figures.

One owner, Michael Jones, estimated he had spent roughly $150,000 in additional strata costs and repairs since buying into the complex. He also said apartments that once changed hands for as much as about $800,000 may now be worth far less, making it difficult for some families to sell or refinance without taking a major loss.

Those figures are individual estimates and should not be treated as a valuation of every Toplace property. Different buildings have different defects, repair plans, owners corporations and financial positions.

The wider issue is how accountability works when a developer collapses but building problems remain. Owners corporations can pursue rectification, insurance, legal claims and statutory remedies, but those processes can take years and do not guarantee that owners recover every dollar they spend.

The ICAC inquiry has a different purpose. Its role is to investigate possible corrupt conduct and related matters involving public administration. It is not a compensation tribunal for apartment owners and it does not directly repair defective buildings.

That distinction helps explain the frustration expressed by some residents. An inquiry can expose conduct, recommend changes, make corruption findings where legally supported and refer evidence to other authorities, but the financial consequences of defective property often continue through separate legal and regulatory channels.

ICAC’s own description of Operation Rosny says it is examining allegations about political donations, schemes that may have sought to circumvent electoral funding rules, and whether outcomes were pursued for Mr Nassif, including efforts concerning former minister David Elliott and former building commissioner David Chandler. The allegations remain to be determined.

Mr Nassif has denied corruption and has disputed claims about his developments. He has appeared before the inquiry by video from Lebanon. NSW Police separately have an arrest warrant relating to alleged fraud offences; those allegations are also not findings of guilt.

Former building commissioner David Chandler, who is not accused of wrongdoing in the ICAC matter, previously identified defects in multiple Toplace developments. Owners and strata representatives say the consequences have included costly engineering work, restricted use of buildings and prolonged financial stress.

That is why some owners are looking beyond the personalities at the inquiry and asking whether the regulatory system will change. Their questions include whether defective buildings are identified earlier, whether developers and financiers can be held accountable before companies collapse, and whether owners have practical pathways to fund urgent rectification.

There is also a limit to what any single anti-corruption investigation can resolve. Even if ICAC eventually makes adverse findings against particular people, separate steps may be needed before there are criminal prosecutions, civil recoveries, disciplinary action or legislative reform.

Conversely, the absence of a corruption finding would not mean building defects disappear or that every regulatory question has been answered. Construction quality, corporate insolvency and political integrity are related in this story but remain legally distinct issues.

For affected households, that distinction can feel unsatisfying because the financial impact is already real. Owners can be left servicing mortgages on properties they cannot easily sell while also contributing to large repair levies and dealing with uncertainty over future work.

The public inquiry can still matter by creating a detailed record of who spoke to whom, how political donations and lobbying operated, what officials knew and whether public decisions were improperly influenced. That evidence can inform later findings and policy changes even if it does not produce immediate compensation.

The next stage is therefore twofold. ICAC must complete its inquiry and determine what findings, if any, are supported by the evidence. Separately, owners and regulators must continue dealing with the physical and financial consequences of defective buildings.

The human impact at Vicinity illustrates why owners are separating the question of corruption from the question of remedy. Temporary steel props have been supporting parts of the complex since 2022 after engineers raised concerns about structural beams. One structural issue alone has been estimated at about $11 million to rectify, before other defects and ongoing strata costs are considered.

Mr Jones told the ABC that apartments which once sold for as much as about $800,000 may now be worth roughly $250,000 to $380,000. Those figures are his estimate rather than an official valuation, but they show why some owners describe themselves as financially trapped: selling can crystallise a large loss while staying can mean more levies, repair costs and uncertainty.

The experience is not limited to one household. Toplace built numerous apartment developments across Sydney, and former NSW Building Commissioner David Chandler identified defects in several of them before the company collapsed. The Owners Corporation Network says the consequences have included disruption, noise, poor living conditions and prolonged stress for both owners and tenants.

Mr Chandler used his own appearance before the ICAC inquiry to draw attention back to the residents affected by the building problems. He and former NSW minister David Elliott are not accused of wrongdoing in Operation Rosny, even though the commission is examining allegations that outcomes were sought in relation to their positions.

ICAC’s official description of Operation Rosny is broader than the building-defect dispute. It is investigating alleged schemes involving political donations, including whether prohibited donations were solicited or accepted and whether people sought to circumvent requirements in the NSW Electoral Funding Act.

One allegation specifically asks whether donations made by or on behalf of Jean Nassif and Toplace were connected to efforts to pursue outcomes sought by Mr Nassif, including damaging Mr Elliott’s political career or removing Mr Chandler from office, or preventing him from carrying out official functions involving Mr Nassif’s developments.

Those are allegations the commission is testing. They should not be reported as established facts. ICAC can make findings of corrupt conduct where the legal test is satisfied, but it does not itself convict people of criminal offences. Evidence can be referred to other authorities and any later prosecution follows its own process and burden of proof.

That separation is important for apartment owners because even a strong ICAC finding would not automatically order a builder to fix defects or reimburse strata levies. Building rectification can involve owners corporations, insurers, developers, financiers, regulators and courts, often under different statutes and contractual arrangements.

Where a developer is insolvent or has limited recoverable assets, the practical question becomes who funds urgent work in the meantime. Delaying structural remediation can create its own costs through engineering monitoring, temporary supports, insurance difficulties and reduced marketability.

Owners can also face a refinancing problem. Lenders and valuers may take a cautious view of apartments in buildings with unresolved structural issues. That can make it harder to refinance even when a household has continued making mortgage payments, because the property’s assessed security value may be lower.

The Toplace case therefore sits at the intersection of three systems that do not move at the same speed: anti-corruption law, building regulation and private property finance. ICAC can investigate alleged public-sector corruption; building regulators can issue orders and pursue compliance; owners can seek civil remedies. None of those processes guarantees quick financial relief.

That is why the outcome residents are waiting for is broader than whether one individual is criticised. They want to know whether the evidence leads to enforceable consequences, whether regulatory gaps are closed and whether governments create more practical ways to deal with serious defects after a developer collapses.

Until ICAC completes Operation Rosny, the inquiry should be described as ongoing and the allegations as unproven. At the same time, the physical defects and the financial pressure on owners are not allegations: those are existing problems that continue regardless of what the commission eventually finds.

For residents who have been living with those consequences for years, the measure of accountability is likely to be broader than a commission report. They will also be watching for safer buildings, enforceable repair outcomes and reforms that reduce the chance future apartment buyers inherit the same problems.