In its third and final report the commission made 24 corrupt conduct findings against 10 people - Wollongong developers, councillors and public servants.

It will ask the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to consider prosecuting 11 individuals for 139 criminal offences.

Mr Holmes warned that just because ICAC recommended charges be considered by the DPP, it did not mean convictions, or even charges, would result.

The University of Wollongong Faculty of Law senior fellow said it was important to remember that anyone against whom possible charges had been flagged was innocent until proven guilty.

ICAC had a different standard of proof to that of criminal courts and could compel people to appear and give evidence.

In a criminal court, a witness can object to giving evidence if he or she feels it might incriminate them.

"The ICAC makes findings of corruption," Mr Holmes said. "People are required to answer questions and this breaches a fundamental presumption of innocence."

As a result, not all statements made by witnesses in the ICAC hearings would be admissible in a criminal court.

"In a criminal jurisdiction you don't even have to get in the witness box," he said.

Mr Holmes pointed to ICAC's investigation into bribery at Rockdale City Council where it was recommended that charges be considered for six people.

Yet, he said only two people were charged and just one convicted.

"The DPP has a different filter by which it looks at the material and makes a decision," he said.

"We'll have to wait 12 to 18 months before we know what they're going to do. The DPP tends to succeed so it will take its time.

"If it goes after individuals it will go on the basis that they have evidence to back up a prosecution."