Companies Register: Singh v. Patel

Shareholdings listed on the companies office public register do not promise legal ownership; each company’s own register is primary evidence of ownership.  Roopa Patel was not liable for damages after unilaterally removing fellow shareholder Jasvinder Singh from the public register, facilitating their company’s bank borrowing during summer holidays.   

The High Court was told Mr Singh bought into Ms Patel’s Auckland accounting business in early 2015.  The deal saw him paying $300,000 for an expected one third stake in Steve Taylor & Associates North Shore Ltd.  While the investment was in his name, it was for the benefit of his spouse Pam Sandhu, a qualified accountant.  The balance of the shares in Taylor & Associates was held by Ms Patel, through her company Elite Business Service NZ Ltd.

With Taylor & Associates short of working capital in early 2016, Ms Patel looked to get overdraft accommodation from BNZ.  The Bank was looking to take security over company assets and have personal guarantees from all shareholders.  Ms Patel then removed Mr Singh as a shareholder from Taylor & Associates companies office records, representing herself to the Bank as now sole shareholder.  She was later to tell the High Court she knew Mr Singh would not sign a bank guarantee.

Taylor & Associates subsequently went into liquidation, insolvent.  Mr Singh sued, alleging Ms Patel was liable in conversion after taking control of his shares in early 2016; shares then worth $300,000, he said.

Justice Lang ruled an unauthorised change of shareholding on the public register does not amount to conversion.  Ownership is proved by looking first at company records, and second at any evidence of sales.  There was no evidence that Ms Patel kept a share register for Taylor & Associates.  The evidence was that Mr Singh had purchased the shares in 2015 and remained a shareholder at the time of the BNZ transaction.  The court was told Mr Singh subsequently negotiated with Ms Patel to have Elite Business Services buy his shares.  He has not been paid.  His shares in Taylor & Associates are worthless.  Mr Singh’s claim that Ms Patel had promised personally to repay him was dismissed by Justice Lang.

Singh v. Patel – High Court (31.08.20)

20.148 

Director: Alala International Ltd v. Chen

Leaving taxes unpaid after clearing all assets out of his cashed-up company cost Peng Chih Chen $590,200.  It was a breach of director’s duties to ignore tax liabilities, leaving his company as an empty shell.

Mr Chen was sole director and shareholder of Alala International Ltd.  The company initially operated a golf course at Bucklands Beach in Auckland, operating then under the name BlueSky Golf Management Ltd.  After a brief foray into selling souvenirs, Alala International got into the property business.  In 2016, it purchased real estate in Queenstown.  This was sold just on a year later.  Net proceeds of $1.8 million were banked, after repayment of a Southern Cross Finance mortgage.

The High Court was told this $1.8 million was quickly disbursed over the next four months.  When questioned by Alala International liquidators, Mr Chen was unable to clearly identify all the recipients of various payments made or provide reasons why they might have received payment.  Alala was put into liquidation in 2019 by Inland Revenue for unpaid tax debts. Inland Revenue claimed $503,400, including $330,000 GST arising on the Queenstown sale.

Associate judge Fitzgerald ruled Mr Chen breached Companies Act duties owed as director to Alala International: failing to act in good faith; failing to act with due care; and trading recklessly.  He was ordered to pay damages totalling $580,200 to Alala International.  He did not appear in court to defend the claim.

Mr Chen was also ordered to pay ten thousand dollars to Alala’s liquidators; compensation for time spent reconstructing Alala’s poor accounting records.

Alala International Ltd v. Chen – High Court (28.08.20)

20.147

Autoterminal: Hemi v. Tyler

With tens of millions at stake in the world-wide fight over control of used car importer Autoterminal, Hohua Hemi has narrowed the focus in his dispute with business partner Robert Stone seeking details of alleged backdoor deals between Hamilton-based Mike Tyler and Mr Stone intended to shut him out.

Hemi and Stone built a lucrative business importing used cars from Japan for over fifteen years.  Their business empire resides in companies spread across Japan, the Philippines, New Zealand and the Cayman Islands.Their business relationship is in disarray; there are currently four separate High Court actions underway.

Mr Hemi alleges Mr Stone is in cahoots with Mike Tyler. The High Court was told Mr Tyler came to have titular control of Autoterminal’s business empire following a 2009 restructuring. Mr Tyler took control of a key Autoterminal company holding shares as trustee for Mr Stone and him, Mr Hemi said. Mr Tyler subsequently acted only on joint instructions from both him and Mr Stone, he said.  Since Hemi and Stone fell out, Mr Tyler has sided with Mr Stone, refusing to provide information, Mr Hemi complains.

The New Zealand High Court ordered Mr Tyler to disclose details of his Autoterminal employment contract together with evidence of all payments and benefits received plus all communications with Mr Stone evidencing any agreement or promised reward for Mr Tyler to side with Mr Stone against Mr Hemi.           

Mr Stone told the court he is not in any business relationship with Mr Hemi.  This statement does not fit well with documents Mr Stone filed in a Cayman Island court in June 2020 stating the two were business partners, Associate judge Lester said.

Hemi v. Tyler – High Court (26.08.20)

20.146

Asset Forfeiture: Commissioner of Police v. Wishart

One day before sentencing on cannabis supply charges, Richard Wishart saw the High Court confirm an agreed deal forfeiting $210,000 as proceeds of crime: $200,000 paid across from his family trust together with some $10,000 cash seized in a police raid.

Police allege purchase of a residential property on Nagpur Crescent in Wellington suburb Broadmeadows was tainted, funded with the proceeds of crime.  Nagpur is held in the name of the Wishart Family Trust.  Nearly ten thousand dollars in cash was seized from the property in a 2019 drug bust.  The High Court approved a Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act settlement between Wishart and police.  The cash is forfeit.  Nagpur Terrace remains in Trust ownership, provided the Trust pays across $200,000 within ten working days.  Failing that, Nagpur is sold.

Commissioner of Police v. Wishart – High Court (25.08.20)

20.145

Family Company: Drummond v. O'Rorke

 For Christine Drummond it was death by a thousand cuts.  Sister Julie O’Rorke would only agree to terms for sale of their Taranaki dairy farm when dragged to the court door, subsequently raising new objections only settled again at the last minute before yet another court hearing. 

The High Court was told five sisters initially farmed at Opunake in partnership before Mooncoin Farm Ltd, controlled by Christine and Julie, took ownership in 2002.  Some fifteen years later, Christine was looking to sell up.  The farm was valued at $8.2 million.  Julie offered $6.6 million.  One year on, with no agreement reached, Julie faced the possibility of a court-appointed liquidator forcing a sale when Christine took action under the Companies Act.  Before a court hearing, the two sisters agreed terms.  The High Court was told Julie subsequently failed to pay the agreed deposit and failed to settle on settlement date.  With further court action looming, a substantial part of the agreed price was paid, with money held back as part of the ‘wash up.’

Julie then haggled over compensation for diseased cows, empty heifers and livestock she claimed were hers but wrongly counted as part of Mooncoin’s herd.  These issues were settled in the face of yet another scheduled court hearing.  There was more.  The High Court was told Julie subsequently demanded an agreed eight per cent interest calculation on the difference between Christine’s drawings from Mooncoin and her drawings should be calculated with interest compounding. Their latest ‘court-door’ agreement had been silent on whether interest payable meant simple interest or compound interest. This dispute did get a court hearing. Justice Clark ruled simple interest applied; accounting calculations reviewed by all sides during the sisters’ earlier negotiations expressly excluded compound interest.  The two sisters difference in drawings was not disclosed in the published court judgment, but Christine had threatened earlier to demand a management fee of some $208,000 to counter Julie’s demand for compound interest on compensation for the difference between their two loan accounts.

Drummond v. O’Rorke – High Court (21.08.20)

20.144

Ngati Tama: Ngati Tama Trust v. White

Threats to damage Ngati Tama’s commercial interests led to kaumatua Allen Potete White’s bankruptcy after he failed to pay a $13,800 court costs order.

Mr White was incensed by Taranaki iwi Ngati Tama’s performance in losing a 2001 $14.5 million Treaty settlement following a series of improvident investments.  He had returned home in 2014 after working in Australia for nearly four decades. Demanding accountability, he threatened to disrupt ongoing commercial operations unless he was provided with detailed accounting information.  Ngati Tama Custodian Trustee Ltd, the commercial vehicle holding iwi assets, sued. It said Mr White had improperly obtained a 2016 confidential report setting out sales revenue and sales projections for Homesoft, a business part-owned by Ngati Tama.  The report was labelled ‘strictly confidential’ and stated it was not to be distributed.  Mr White threatened to contact existing and potential customers with evidence of what he called ‘abysmal management’ within Homesoft unless he was provided with the financial information demanded.  In the High Court, Ngati Tama obtained an injunction blocking contact with any Homesoft customers. Mr White did not appear in court to defend the application.  He was ordered to pay $13,800 of Ngati Tama’s legal costs.

When Ngati Tama applied to bankrupt Mr White for non-payment, he challenged the need for an injunction.  Associate judge Smith ruled there was no evidence that the injunction should be overturned.  Mr White said bankrupting him was designed to silence him, blocking his plans to be voted into office as a Ngati Tama trustee.  Judge Smith said it was commercially proper for Ngati Tama to take legal action to get what it is owed. The court was told Mr White was not elected as trustee in the most recent iwi elections.

With his behaviour, Mr White brought bankruptcy on himself, Judge Smith said; bankruptcy does not stop him continuing his forceful criticism of Ngati Tama’s financial performance.  Evidence was given that Ngati Tama’s investment performance is currently being questioned in both the High Court and the Maori Land Court. 

Ngati Tama Trust v. White – High Court (20.08.20)

20.143 

Insurance Fraud: Taylor v. Asteron Life

 Cancelling insurance cover following a fraudulent claim does not permit insurers to recover prior payments on claims validly made, the Court of Appeal ruled.

Dunedin insurance broker Peter Taylor was entitled to keep initial income protection payments made for partial disability totalling $51,830 while required to repay some $320,000 for ongoing monthly claims proved to be fraudulent.

Mr Taylor claimed on an Asteron policy after being diagnosed with bone cancer in 2009, receiving regular payments of about $6000 monthly.  Required to provide ongoing evidence of his loss of income to justify continued payments, Mr Taylor did not disclose income generated by staff or trailing commissions on cover written in earlier years.  Asteron cancelled the policy in 2016, claiming repayment of all benefits paid.

The Court of Appeal was asked to rule on how the recently enacted Contract and Commercial Law Act applied to fraudulent insurance claims. Cancellation for fraud operates prospectively, not retrospectively, the court ruled.  Any current fraudulent claim can be refused; this includes a refusal to pay anything on a ‘padded claim’ where an otherwise valid claim has been fraudulently misrepresented by overvaluing the value of a loss or including as a loss items which never existed or were never lost.  Allowing any recovery at all on padded claims would encourage fraud, said the court.  Otherwise: if the padded claim is successful, I gain; if not, I suffer no loss since the valid part of the claim is paid.

A fraudulent claim does not cancel an insurance contract retrospectively, the court ruled.  Claims properly made previously under the policy still stand.

Evidence did not establish that Mr Taylor was deliberately dishonest with initial claims under his Asteron income protection policy, the court said.  Rather, the information provided was confusing and contradictory.

Taylor v. Asteron Life Ltd – Court of Appeal (19.08.20)

20.142

Maori Land: Nicholls v. WT Nicholls Trust

 George Nicholls appeal to tikanga when occupying Oamaru Bay Holiday Park near Coromandel was described by the Maori Land Court as cover for his selfish behaviour which together with intimidation saw him grabbing land properly belonging to whanau.  He was ordered to pay $834,400 compensation; revenue received from campground fees with no deduction for business expenses.

The 23 hectare Oamaru Bay campground together with farms at Paeora and Coromandel plus land at Koputuaki Bay formed part of substantial Maori land holdings inherited by ten children of Wiremu Tawhia Nicholls.  Under Maori customary law, they collectively inherited as co-owners.  In 2008, George Nicholls, together with his brother, took control of Oamaru Bay, without other co-owners’ consent, using the land to run a holiday park.  Attempts to trespass George were unsuccessful; a person cannot be trespassed from land they co-own.

At Maori Land Court suggestion, Wiremu’s land was transferred to an ahu whenua trust: the WT Nicholls Trust.  This overcame the common difficulties of multiple-owned Maori land where there is no management structure in place.  Elected trustees of the ahu whenua trust take control.  The Nicholls Trust then sued George to recover revenue for his use of Trust land at Oamaru Bay to run a business.  He was ordered to pay $834,400; identified gross revenue generated by the business.  A deduction of $44,000 was allowed; one-tenth of the gross revenue received before the ahu whenua trust was established when the land was held in co-ownership, this being George’s and his siblings’ then share of gross revenue as co-owners.

The Trust also got an injunction ordering George and his supporters off the land.

George appealed without success to the Court of Appeal.  He should be allowed to deduct business expenses from the gross revenue used to calculate damages, he claimed.  The court said he had been given ample opportunity before the Maori Land Court to detail his expenses but had chosen not to.

Nicholls v. W.T. Nicholls Trust – Court of Appeal (13.08.20)

20.141

Asset Forfeiture: Commissioner of Police v. Snowden

Real estate owned by convicted drug dealer Paul Andrew Snowden’s family trust was ordered sold as part of $743,300 criminal profits order.

Snowden was convicted in 2010 on charges of supplying cannabis and in 2014 and then 2015 on charges relating to methamphetamine supply. The most recent convictions resulted in cumulative prison sentences of six years three months.  Police took action under Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act to recover drug profits.

The High Court was told Snowden paid $460,000 in 2001 for a 1.6 hectare property on Karaka Road in south Auckland.  Title was registered in name of Karaka Farmlets Ltd with Karaka Farmlets later coming to be owned by Snowden’s family trust.  Snowden had absolute control over his family trust. He was trustee and a beneficiary. He held power to appoint and remove trustees.  He was also sole director and a shareholder of Karaka Farmlets.

In the High Court, Justice Gault determined Snowden generated profits totalling $743,300 from drug dealing.  While illicit profits did not fund the initial 2001 purchase of Karaka Road, subsequent mortgage payments funded from drug profits meant Karaka Road was ‘tainted property,’ Justice Gault ruled.  Illicit profits invested in ‘tainted property’ plus any capital gain are liable to forfeiture.

Sale of Karaka Road was ordered with up to $743,300 from proceeds of sale forfeit.  Since the cash component of the trust’s original purchase was not tainted by criminal activity, it is only tainted mortgage repayments and that proportionate share of Karaka Road’s capital gain which can be seized on sale.

Commissioner of Police v. Snowden – High Court (12.08.20)

20.140

Bankruptcy: Singh v. Official Assignee

 As a bankrupt, Cheryl Sitara Singh no longer controls her assets and cannot direct Insolvency Service as to how and when these assets can be sold, the High Court ruled.

Ms Singh was forced into bankruptcy in July 2019 by the body corporate of Richmond Terraces, a thirty-apartment complex in Flat Bush, south Auckland.  It was a leaky building.  She had refused to pay levies imposed for remedial work.  Insolvency Service identified debts of some $374,000; unpaid levies plus legal costs resulting from a series of unsuccessful court cases challenging the levies and against both the body corporate and its members.  Ms Singh owned two properties: her apartment at Richmond Terraces and a second apartment at Avenue Road in Otahuhu.

She challenged attempts by Insolvency Service to sell Avenue Road during Auckland’s covid-19 pandemic restrictions.  The property was passed in at auction; the highest bid was $47,000 short of reserve.  Ms Singh’s claim to have a buyer willing to pay a price close to reserve came to nothing. This potential buyer said he was no longer interested when contacted by Insolvency Service.  A buyer has since been found, Insolvency Service told the court. The net return on settlement will not be enough to clear Ms Singh’s bankruptcy debts.  Sale of Richmond Terrace is next.  It has potential net equity of about $265,000 after payment of a mortgage debt and sale expenses.

Ms Singh’s persistent and repetitive attempts to frustrate Insolvency Service’s sale of assets is raising bankruptcy costs, Justice Moore said.  He refused Ms Singh’s request for a court order blocking any sale.  To regain control of her assets she must apply for annulment of her 2019 bankruptcy, he said.

Singh v. Officlal Assignee – High Court (11.08.20)

20.137

Residential Restrictions: Jackson v. Small

What to one is thing of beauty, to a neighbour can be an eyesore.  Geoff and Aria Small will be forced to demolish an equestrian barn on a south Auckland lifestyle block unless they convert it into an architect-designed home complying with subdivision building covenants.

In 2013, the Smalls bought into a lifestyle subdivision on Ingrams Road, Ramarama.  Covenants over the land restrict owners to construction of a single dwelling together with a farm outbuilding ‘usual and reasonable for … rural use [and of] a pleasing and aesthetically compatible appearance’ in keeping with neighbouring properties.  Neighbours complain the Smalls have developed a commercial operation; a utility shed, stables and a barn which has been converted into living accommodation.  A horse walking area, arena and yards complete what they describe as an equestrian facility.  Legal argument over what was, or was not, permitted on site was first aired in the High Court back in 2018, with all sides appealing to the Court of Appeal.

Back in the High Court, Justice Gordon ruled either remediation or demolition of the Smalls barn was needed; it did not comply with subdivision rules.

Neighbours do not have a right of veto over what is built, Justice Gordon said, but the Smalls took no steps to ensure their existing building complied with subdivision rules.  The Smalls were given three months to supply neighbours with architect designed plans for a new or remediated building.  If neighbours agree with the plans, the new build must be completed within fourteen months, she said.

If no agreement is reached, court-ordered demolition is a possibility.

Jackson v. Small – High Court (11.08.20)

20.139

David Henderson: Gower & Tubbs v. FTG Securities Ltd

Interests associated with property developer David Henderson paid $100,000 to buy a South Canterbury second mortgage security over Tuam Ventures Ltd, one of his former Christchurch property developments.  They get nothing in return after a High Court ruling that they cannot enforce the South Canterbury mortgage and they cannot share in some $3.5 million held by Tuam receivers.  

Receivers took control of South Canterbury Finance Ltd assets in 2010 after a $1.6 billion government-funded payout to depositors.  They took over South Canterbury’s $1.1 billion loan book, looking to sell these loans and repay government.    FTG Securities Ltd, with David Henderson’s wife Kristine Buxton as director, paid $100,000 to buy up a South Canterbury second mortgage over Tuam Ventures Ltd, a Christchurch property company formerly controlled by Mr Henderson.  He is currently barred by court order from managing any business until December 2022.

FTG’s rights to enforce this mortgage were challenged by Bank of New Zealand; a 2007 refinancing of Tuam Ventures when Mr Henderson was in control saw Canterbury Finance agree it could not sell its second mortgage without approval from first mortgagee BNZ.  The High Court was told receivers of Tuam Ventures are currently holding cash of about $3.5 million for distribution to mortgagees.   FTG Securities is not entitled to any of this money; a series of cases through the High Court and the Court of Appeal ruled South Canterbury’s agreement not to sell the mortgage was enforceable.

Government interests through Crown Asset Management Ltd alone are allowed to collect on South Canterbury’s second mortgage, Justice Osborne ruled.  Evidence was given that FTG Securities borrowed $105,000 in 2015 from Christchurch-based Secured Finance Ltd to fund purchase of the currently uncollectable South Canterbury second mortgage.

Gower & Tubbs v. FTG Securities Ltd – High Court (10.08.20)

20.138

 

Post judgment note: BNZ is seeking to wind up FTG Securities Ltd alleging it is insolvent following non-payment of $43,133 legal costs awarded in favour of the Bank.

Charities Registration: Greenpeace v. Charities Registration Board

 Allowing Greenpeace registration as a charity creates a seismic shift in charities law. Political lobbyists can gain the tax benefits of charities registration; no longer is there any need for registered charities to directly carry out tangible good works.

Since 2008, Greenpeace has been fighting a legal battle to gain registration as a charity allowing donors to get a tax rebate for donations and Greenpeace itself to earn income tax free.  The Charities Board refused registration; Greenpeace was a lobby group, often acting illegally though acts of civil disobedience promoting its causes, it said.  On appeal to the Supreme Court, charities law was re-interpreted; advocacy on ‘public benefit’ issues through participation in the political and legal process could amount to a charitable purpose, it said.  Acting against slavery and negotiation of Waitangi Tribunal claims were two past examples of activities given charitable status, the Supreme Court pointed out.

Armed with this Supreme Court ruling, Greenpeace again fronted up to the Charities Board.  Again, it was refused registration.  Greenpeace did not satisfy the legal definition of a charity, it said.  Greenpeace was a lobby group advocating for political change, most recently promoting sustainable fishing, protesting dirty dairying and calling for fossil fuels to be phased out, the Board said.  Supporters were encouraged to lobby members of parliament directly.

Back in the High Court, Justice Mallon ruled protection of the environment may be a charitable purpose in itself.  As a global issue, success requires ‘broad-based support and effort,’ she said.  Ruling that Greenpeace is eligible to register as a charity, Justice Mallon said there is a public benefit in advocating for environmental issues.

Greenpeace of New Zealand v. Charities Registration Board – High Court (10.08.20)

20.136

GST: Ward v. Official Assignee

 That wheel-clamping companies do not pay GST is akin to kidnappers not being liable for GST on ransom payments, Judge Bell mused when refusing Gordon Ward’s application to reverse a 2015 bankruptcy.

Mr Ward’s company, NZ Wheel Clamping Co Ltd, was pushed into liquidation by Inland Revenue in 2014 for unpaid taxes totalling some $300,000 including $115,712 claimed due for GST.  Wheel Clamping liquidators chased Mr Ward for just over $712,000, money they claimed he had taken from the company plus damages due for alleged breaches of the Companies Act.  Legal action was halted when Mr Ward filed for bankruptcy.  He was automatically discharged from bankruptcy in July 2018.  His bankruptcy creditors received nothing.

During his bankruptcy, Mr Ward learnt of a GST tax case successfully argued by another wheel-clamping company; no GST was payable on wheel-clamping revenue because motorists payments are a fine, there was no reciprocity of services creating a taxable supply.

Mr Ward sought to annul his bankruptcy, allowing him to resume control NZ Wheel Clamping.  Back in control, he would have his company sue Inland Revenue for overpaid GST, pay off all company debts and have money left over for company shareholders, he told the High Court.  Evidence was given that Inland Revenue had already repaid $190,000 GST to NZ Wheel Clamping liquidators.  Mr Ward says his company is owed more than this.

Associate judge Bell refused the annulment.  The post-bankruptcy speculative possibility of Mr Ward’s company recovering further GST did not justify annulment of a bankruptcy appropriately ordered six years previously, he ruled.  Even if further GST could be recovered, payment first goes to NZ Wheel Clamping creditors before anything passes to Mr Ward personally, Judge Bell said.

Companies Office records show NZ Wheel Clamping creditors received nothing on liquidation; the $190,000 GST repaid by Inland Revenue was swallowed up by liquidators’ remuneration and expenses. 

Ward v. Officlal Assignee – High Court (7.08.20)

20.135

Will: re Estate Joseph Grbavac

 Joseph Grbavac arrived in New Zealand as a teenager in 1938, emigrating with his family from Dalmatia.  Like many in west Auckland’s Croatian community he prospered, dying aged 94 with assets valued at some $10.5 million.  His actions when amending a 2004 will prior to death led to two weeks of evidence in the High Court; the amendment was ruled invalid, Joseph did not understand what he signed. 

Married with no children, Joseph named close relatives as beneficiaries of his estate.  The most valuable assets were commercial properties together with rural land in west Auckland including Sunnyview Orchard at Huapai.  Joseph died in 2015.  His last will, dated 2004, left his estate to a sister, nieces, nephews and a grandnephew.  This will was not challenged in court.  What was challenged was a 2013 codicil, amending the 2004 will, cutting out as residuary beneficiaries two nieces and a grandnephew; for one niece and the grandnephew this was a loss of $1.06 million each.

The central legal issue was Joseph’s testamentary capacity at the time he signed the 2013 codicil.  Evidence was given that he was then under palliative care for end stage renal failure.  Some relatives gave evidence that while frail, Joseph was alert to what he was doing. Others said he had lost interest in life, at times muddled and confused.  Lawyers had spent several years drafting and redrafting changes to his will.  Nothing was signed; lawyers felt Joseph was just going around in circles, unable to make up his mind.  They did not keep detailed notes of reasons for proposed changes. At one stage his lawyer rang Joseph’s family doctor asking generally about their mutual client’s mental competency given the various drastic changes being mooted for a new will.  The doctor did not keep any detailed file notes either.  Lawyers acting for Joseph were unaware when he signed a 2013 codicil put in front of him that he had cataracts and was unable to properly read the contents.

Justice Duffy ruled the 2013 amendment invalid.

Re Estate Joseph Grbavac – High Court (6.08.20)

20.134

Fraud: Kumar v. R.

 Desperate to avoid deportation for fraud offences, Manoj Kumar’s appeal against conviction fell over when he admitted offences of deception and theft when seeking leave to appeal.

In 2017, Kumar pleaded guilty at a District Court trial for his part in an employment scam engineered through 2 Cheap Computers Ltd and for his theft of hired camera equipment.  When Cheap Computers advertised a staff vacancy, nine applicants paid across a total of $59,250 after being told this money would help their visa applications.  The money was then stolen.  Film equipment hired by Kumar valued at $95,100 was also stolen.  The day after flying out for India, he sent a brief email to the hire company saying the equipment had been lost, expressing the hope it was insured.  Kumar was arrested when he returned to New Zealand five months later.

At his trial, Kumar accepted a prosecution offer of six months community detention plus payment of reparations in return for a guilty plea.  Later learning that conviction meant deportation, Kumar sought to appeal, asking the Court of Appeal to allow his appeal nearly one year out of time. Kumar appeared in person. Approval for a retrial was refused. There was no miscarriage of justice. Kumar admitted the offences when explaining why he should be allowed to appeal, the Court said.

Kumar v. R. – Court of Appeal (3.08.20)

20.133