Ross case costly

HAMISH MCNICOL
Last updated 05:00 18/07/2014

Related Links

David Ross's legal costs

Relevant offers

Industries

Dunedin rope firm cuts staff Dairy price dip fallout expected Mining directors made redundant Late appeals on water annoying Sharp lift expected in NZ oil production Economy fuelling fast-growth businesses NZX launches dairy forecasting tools Wananga's wonky course costs repaid Lyttelton Port boss pay rise 'unjustified' Troubled van Eyk tipped to sell NZ arm

The investigation and prosecution of fraudster David Ross has cost taxpayers about $100,000 in legal fees, not including "significant" staff time at two government agencies.

Last week investors who lost more than $115 million to New Zealand's single biggest fraudster learned he faced what could be $330,000 bill for his legal representation.

Yesterday the Serious Fraud Office and Financial Markets Authority, which both investigated and prosecuted Ross, revealed the combined external legal fees for the agencies was about $100,000.

The SFO had spent about $15,000 on external legal fees from August last year, while FMA's bill had reached $84,000 since October, 2012.

But both agencies said these fees did not include "significant time" incurred by staff from each organisation.

Lawyer Gary Turkington and firm Chapman Tripp have represented Ross in relation to the charges he faced and in dealings with receiver PwC during the liquidation and receivership of his companies.

PwC has disputed the legal costs, and $220,000 has been set aside for an independent barrister to assess what an "appropriate fee" would be.

A report from PwC last week showed payments of about $108,000 had been made from Ross's own legal fees.

Together it effectively means $330,000 could be paid for Ross's own legal representation, for work done over 18 months.

Turkington has clarified that none of their fees have been or will be paid from funds paid by investors.

In November, Ross was jailed for 10 years and 10 months for running a fraudulent scheme, through his asset management company, in which more than 700 private investors lost about $115m. His appeal against the "manifestly excessive" five-year, five-month non-parole period failed.

Ad Feedback

- Stuff

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content