The Court of Appeal forced full disclosure of SkyCity’s recoveries from fraudster Tessa Fiona Grant before reducing her jail term to six years from seven years eight months. SkyCity recovered $1.4 million of its stolen $1.9 million.
Grant pleaded guilty to two frauds totalling $2.75 million: $1.9 million taken from SkyCity Entertainment’s Hamilton operations whilst finance manager between 2008 and 2014 and $795,000 misappropriated from Waikato Diocesan School for Girls whilst the School’s commercial manager between 2014 and 2015.
The Sky City fraud followed false invoicing, using company cheques to pay personal expenses and misuse of petty cash. She used the money to pay credit card expenses, construct a $425,400 horse arena at her property and fund her sport as an equestrian. This fraud came to light following subsequent publicity for similar frauds at Waikato Diocesan: false invoicing, using School cheques to cover personal expenses and improper use of her corporate credit card. A contractor asked to verify work supposedly done for Waikato Diocesan, which proved to be subject of a forged invoice, had previously carried out work for SkyCity when Grant was an employee. He contacted SkyCity, telling it to check its records.
Prior to sentencing, Grant repaid Waikato Diocesan the money stolen plus interest and its costs. SkyCity, meanwhile, was taking legal action against Grant to recover its losses. An out-of-court deal was struck. This was kept confidential. At sentencing, the trial judge was told there had been reparations paid, but not the detail. The Sentencing Act allows reductions in punishment where there is ‘any offer of amends’ and ‘compensation to any victim’.
Grant appealed her sentence, saying full credit was not given for the level of reparations paid. The Court of Appeal required full disclosure. It did not matter that SkyCity made recoveries in a confidential settlement as part of threatened civil action. The Court was told Grant paid SkyCity $1.4 million from the sale of her horse trucks and three properties she owned. Some of these assets had been previously transferred by her to a company owned by her father.
Grant v. R – Court of Appeal (25.10.18)
18.210