Two
further Bridgecorp directors convicted of making false statements have been
sentenced: Cornelis Robert Roest sentenced to six years six months imprisonment
and Peter David Steigrad sentenced to nine months home detention together with
200 hours community work and ordered to pay $350,000 reparation.
False statements were
made when Bridgecorp presented a misleading picture of its liquidity while
raising funds from the public in early 2007.
The 14,500 investors who had placed $459 million with Bridgecorp are
expected to recover less than ten cents in the dollar.
Mr Roest was an
executive director of Bridgecorp. Justice
Venning said Roest was heavily involved in the company’s daily operations and
was responsible for its financial management including preparation of expected
cash flows. Roest was found to have
acted dishonestly with intent to deceive investors.
The court was told
there was no prospect of reparations being paid. Mr Roest was described as having no assets
and being bankrupt.
Justice Venning said
Roest appeared to have no insight into his offending, regarding himself as
innocent despite the verdicts and unable to accept the harm caused investors.
Mr Steigrad was a
non-executive director. He has
commercial experience in marketing and advertising. As a non-executive director of Bridgecorp he had no day-to-day
responsibilities within the company, but attended monthly board meetings.
Justice Venning said while
Steigrad failed to properly carry out his duties as a director to an extent
that imprisonment would be an appropriate penalty, he was the least culpable of
the five Bridgecorp directors. It was
to his credit that he demonstrated genuine remorse and acceptance for his wrongdoing. He was assisting in making reparations to
investors.
Justice Venning
indicated that home detention should not be seen as a soft option. Steigrad is an Australian resident, but would
be detained in New Zealand. He was
permitted a five day window to travel to Australia prior to commencing his
sentence. The court did not disclose the
address in New Zealand where the home detention was to be served.
R.
v. Roest & Steigrad – High Court (18.5.12)
12.012