Canterbury fraudster Nigel Terrence William Thompson left a trail of victims ranging from an elderly resident in a retirement village to Inland Revenue. There was little subtlety in his fraudulent conduct, with Thompson’s behaviour including stealing bank card details, selling customer’s cars and not accounting for the proceeds, failing to account for company PAYE to Inland Revenue, and attempting fraudulently to claim tax refunds on his own tax return when no refund was due.
The High Court was told of Thompson committing the bulk of his offences through the car trade.
Thompson set about defrauding taxpayers by not accounting to Inland Revenue for PAYE deductions of some $288,000 owed by his car dealerships trading variously as Nigel Thompson Motor Co Ltd and Nigel Thompson Motor Co (2016) Ltd. He used company money without authority to pay personal expenses. He submitted false applications to a finance company, taking money for financing deals on non-existent customer car purchases.
Evidence was given of Thompson contacting TradeMe customers looking to sell their vehicles. Several customers accepting his offer to sell on their behalf saw Thompson pocket the proceeds.
Business, Innovation and Employment intercepted attempts by Thompson to set up a car dealership in 2018 under a false name. Registration of a new company was blocked by Companies Office after Thompson was unable to verify the name he listed as director.
The court was told of Thompson committing multiple bank frauds after gaining access to victim’s bank cards. Victims included his landlord who mistakenly left his wallet at a property Thompson was renting and a retirement home resident employing Thompson to groom her car. He took $20,000 out of her bank account.
A church group was gulled into giving Thompson a blank signed cheque to pay for registration required on a car the church purchased. He stole $1100 dollars.
The level of sentence on conviction proved problematic, given the multiplicity of offences.
The general principle in the Sentencing Act is that similar offences result in sentences for each separate offence running concurrently (with the longest individual sentence setting the total term of imprisonment), while sentences for offences different in kind run concurrently (with each separate sentence being added together to give a total for the term of imprisonment).
In the District Court, Thompson was sentenced to three years seven months’ imprisonment. This was reduced to three years’ imprisonment on appeal to the High Court. Thompson’s frauds against his companies and the PAYE fraud against Inland Revenue should have been treated as connected offences sufficiently similar to result in concurrent sentences, Justice Hinton ruled.
Thompson v. Police – High Court (17.11.23)
24.014