07 June 2013

Belgrave Finance: R. v. Smith



Stephen Charles William Smith was sentenced to four years imprisonment after pleading guilty to charges under the Crimes Act and Securities Act for his actions as director of failed finance company: Belgrave Finance.
Belgrave went into receivership in May 2008 with debenture holders likely to lose 90% of their investment.  Mr Smith, formerly a senior bank manager, was a director of Belgrave for the three years prior to its collapse.
The court was told Mr Smith colluded with two others to buy into Belgrave in 2005 and they then dishonestly misrepresented the company’s proposed lending policies to attract investment from the public, used the funds procured for a series of related party dealings in breach of the limits set out its prospectus and then lied to the trustee for these debenture holders about the level of related party dealings.
Of the company’s losses totalling some $18.4 million, $13.2 million arose from dishonest related party lending.
Justice Toogood said the pattern of dishonesty was set from Mr Smith’s first introduction to the company.  With two others, Mr Smith was party to an arrangement which saw $3.175 million borrowed from Australian finance companies to complete the purchase of Belgrave shares.  Belgrave guaranteed repayment of the loan with directors keeping the fact of the guarantee hidden.  This had the economic effect of passing the risk of the acquisition across to Belgrave’s debenture holders.
In mitigation, Mr Smith said he poured about $400,000 of his own money into the company over the six months prior to receivership in an attempt to keep it afloat.  Justice Toogood said these steps were hardly altruistic.  They were motivated less by a concern for debenture holders than a desperate attempt to prevent a financial collapse which would expose his prior criminal behaviour.
Following an August 2012 guilty plea in a separate prosecution, fellow director Shane Buckley was sentenced to three years imprisonment.  Justice Toogood said Mr Buckley was entitled to a lesser penalty because he acknowledged his responsibility when first interviewed by the Serious Fraud Office and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.
Also involved in Belgrave Finance was a Mr Raymond Schofield.  He was described by Justice Toogood as a man with a significant degree of control over the company’s operations: a shadow director though not actually appointed as director.  A family trust associated with Mr Schofield has an 80% interest in Belgrave.  The court was told criminal proceedings against Mr Schofield were on hold because of his terminal illness.
R. v. Smith – High Court (07.06.13)
13.016