07 May 2015

False invoicing scam: R. v. Middledorp & Banton

First exposed on TV3’s Campbell Live, four fraudsters have been convicted of intention to deceive following a false invoicing scam gulling customers into paying for advertisements in fake publications.
Anthony Hendon and James Burns from Picton pleaded guilty before trial.  Johannes Hendrik Middledorp and Noelene Kay Banton from Port Waikato were convicted after a lengthy criminal trial in the High Court.  All four of them previously worked together in advertising in Auckland.
Details of the false invoicing scam perpetrated by Middledorp and Banton were spelt out in evidence from the Serious Fraud Office: businesses were cold called with either a plausible story about finalising advertisements in a named (but fictitious) publication when no such advertisement had been agreed previously or the customer was talked into placing an advertisement with a publication previously unknown to them; when the business indicated it would go ahead a copy of the proposed advertisement was emailed for checking and final approval; then an invoice would be sent but the named publication did not appear as promised.  When cold-calling, an alias was used to hide the fraudsters tracks.  Contact details were changed for each publication to avoid suspicion from “bunnies”, the term used to describe those businesses targetted more than once.  Their most profitable bunny was an elderly man later diagnosed with dementia who spent $19,982 over three years to advertise in 22 of their publications. Publication titles chosen were designed to create the impression of links with altruistic or community-based causes with titles such as Children in the Community, The Local Business Guide and Roadcare NZ.  Appeals to altruism were used to help sell advertising.  Privately, Middledorp called them “bleat” magazines.  When the potential advertising market for one title looked to be exhausted, a new title was dreamed up.
For the period covered by the prosecution, there was evidence that Middledorp and Banton billed out invoices for approximately $480,000.  They got back payment of about $116,000.  It may not have been a particularly lucrative scam.  Intercepted phone conversations between Middledorp and Hendon had Middledorp complaining that he had only $20 worth of gas in the car, $3.96 in the bank and was struggling to get food for the cat.
There was a degree of conflict between the Picton and Port Waikato operations, with evidence given of Banton’s suspicions that Hendon was getting access to and using their lists of target businesses for cold calling.
Justice Mallon ruled there was no intention to publish the promised magazines at the time businesses were billed for advertisements.  The Serious Fraud Office investigation found financial records indicating that a maximum of $8557 had been spent on what was described as printing, but only little over $1000 could be traced to print shops.  They had done small print runs for a handful of copies of a particular title.  At best, a couple of hundred magazines of all titles were printed.  This despite promises to advertisers that print runs would be in the thousands.  Justice Mallon said where printing was done this was usually to secure payment of an invoice where the advertiser required proof the advertising was legitimate.
R. v. Middledorp & Banton – High Court (7.05.15)
15.042