25 May 2016

Fraud: R. v. Rose

Senior Mighty River Power manager Paul Kenneth Rose was sentenced to three years two months jail for defrauding his employer and former wife Jane Clare Rose was sentenced to nine months home detention for her complicity in the fraud.
Mighty River suffered minimal financial losses when Rose together with his spouse diverted company purchase orders through a dummy company they set up, but his actions were in direct breach of his employment contract which required disclosure of any conflicts of interest.
The High Court was told Mr Rose had been a long-standing and trusted senior employee at Mighty River with primary responsibilities for the company’s Southdown power plant in South Auckland.  Back in 2006, there were instances of Rose putting Mighty River purchase orders through a company run by his then partner, without disclosing the family link.  To further hide direct involvement, he later invited his mother to become a director.  Then from 2010, a series of Mighty River purchases were routed through Aero Automation Ltd a dummy company set up as an intermediary for sourcing electrical parts and services required for Mighty River Power.  His new wife Jane Rose was sole shareholder and director.  She provided day-to-day administration, drawing salaries totalling $339,000 over a three year period.  An alias was used to disguise her involvement in company activities and to distance Mr Rose from the connection.  Payments totalling some $1.8 million were processed through the company.  There was evidence of services ordered for Mighty River by Mr Rose through Aero Automation being performed personally by him signing in for the work under an assumed name.
Mighty River said it spent $203,000 investigating the fraud.  In total, Mighty River probably suffered minimal losses of some $60,000, Justice Edwards said.  There was no clear evidence, reaching the criminal standard of proof, of mark-ups imposed by Aero Automation on all its invoices being in excess of what independent third-party intermediaries might have charged.  In addition, Aero Automation was left out of pocket for parts valued at $143,000 supplied but unpaid when the fraud was exposed.
A pre-sentence report described Mr Rose as having a deep sense of entitlement and limited insight into his offending.  The fraud involved an abuse of trust and was premeditated and repetitive, Justice Edwards said.  Mrs Rose was described as being genuinely remorseful once the fraud was uncovered.          
R. v. Rose – High Court (25.05.16)

16.088