The family trust of bankrupt Bridgecorp director, Rodney Michael Petricevic, had a net worth of $5.2 million dollars as at March 2009 according to information supplied when seeking legal aid.
Mr Petricevic faces multiple criminal charges under the Securities, Companies and Crimes acts following the collapse of Bridgecorp. He claims to have no assets and needs legal aid to pay for a lawyer.
Legal aid rules look at what “resources” are available to an accused. This includes resources available to any spouse. As part of his legal aid application, Mr Petricevic was required to disclose details of his family trust. He is a trustee, but not a beneficiary of the trust. His wife is also a trustee, and is a beneficiary along with their children.
The legal aid committee requested copies of trust financial statements and tax returns for the previous three years. The court was told that (as at
- had a net worth of $5.23 million
- owned six rental properties in the
- owned a residential property in Remuera, valued at $4.4 million
- had made loans to Mr Petricevic (of $3.8 million); his wife ($0.25 million); and a company associated with their son ($0.5 million)
- and held $447,200 in its bank account.
The trust was asset rich, but cash poor, with a declared taxable income for 2009 at $44,300.
A letter from accountants Carlton-DFK acting for the Trust suggested that this net worth of $5.23 million had deteriorated to a net worth of “very little, if any[thing]” by January 2011. It was claimed the properties were unlikely to satisfy mortgages registered against them if sold in the present climate. In addition, the Official Assignee acting on Mr Petricevic’s bankruptcy was claiming $904,000 from the Trust and the Trust owed legal and accountancy fees totalling $150,000.
The legal aid committee also looked at benefits received by Mrs Petricevic. The court was told she had been receiving regular weekly payments of $1000 from the trust through much of 2010. And their son deposited $30,000 into her bank account during the period.
In light of the resources available to his spouse, the legal aid committee said Mr Petricevic was not entitled to legal aid.
Petricevic v. Legal Services Agency – High Court (03.06.11)
07.11.002