Director breach not intended - lawyer

Last updated 14:26 07/11/2012

Related Links

Capital + Merchant verdict mixed

Relevant offers


British American Tobacco offers to buy Reynolds in US$47 billion deal How to accumulate and save with AA Smartfuel Single people facing struggle to service mortgages Take action to avoid KiwiSaver disappointment at 65 Trade Me Property data shows no rise in rents for third consecutive month Papakura Configure Express members claim refund demands going unanswered The psychology behind why that smashed avocado costs $22 When price doesn't matter: How we're tricked into needlessly spending hundreds of dollars Boom time for property owners on outskirts of Auckland Peter Townsend: International visitors - Can we cope?

Directors in Capital & Merchant put their interests ahead of depositors, however there was no proof they intended to breach the company’s trust deed, according to a lawyer for two jailed directors.

Speaking in the Court of Appeal in Wellington today, Bruce Gray said Justice Edwin Wylie had asked the wrong question when he convicted Capital & Merchant directors Neal Nicholls and Wayne Douglas on fraud charged.

The pair were both given seven and a half years in prison following a trial in the High Court in Auckland earlier this year. Former chief executive, Owen Tallentire, who was jailed for five years, has separate legal representation at the appeal.

Capital + Merchant went into receivership in November 2007 owing 7000 investors $167m. The three directors were sentenced on charges relating to several of the company’s transaction following an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

The appeal being heard today and tomorrow is against both the conviction and the sentence. Gray told the Court of Appeal said the transactions for which his clients where convicted contained facts ‘‘which were not attractive’’ the judge in the trial appeared to have wrongly assumed intent, when none was proven.

He conceded that Nicholls and Douglas had put their interest ahead of the company’s depositors, but the charges required that they knowingly breached the company’s trust deed.

‘‘The evidential question that section 220 [of the Crimes Act] requires to be answered...[is] was there an intentional breach of the trust deed? [That] cannot be answered simply from inferences drawn from unattractive transactions.’’

The appeal continues.

Ad Feedback


Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content