$40m mortgage fraud accused fight for name suppression

Auckland District Court at 69 Albert street, Auckland. New Zealand Herald photograph

Four people charged in an alleged mortgage fraud case involving more than $40 million of loans and accusations of kickbacks to bank staff are fighting to keep their names secret.

The quartet face charges of obtaining by deception over information provided to secure more than $40 million of mortgage finance on dozens of Auckland and Hamilton properties.

They were granted interim name suppression when they first appeared in Auckland District Court last month and fought to keep it in place this afternoon before Judge Philippa Cunningham.

Three of the quartet have also been charged with breaching the little-used Secret Commissions Act.

Those charges allege that payments, ranging from $5000 to more than $30,000, were paid by and to bank staff in return for approving suspect mortgage applications.

The SFO alleges total kickbacks paid exceeded $500,000, with one accused lawyer alleged to have paid a bank staff member $253,303 over an eight-month period.

Courts documents describe the four's occupations as a manager, a banker, a lawyer and a director.

The lawyer in the case argued that naming him would identify the firm where he worked until recently.

That firm, which also has name suppression, is concerned about the damage to its reputation if it is identified, the court heard.

Another of the defendants, a manager at a property development company, argued that naming her would have a devastating impact on the business.

Sub-contractors would stop providing work on credit, she said through an interpreter.

The woman's lawyer said that if the business became insolvent because it was identified that could hurt those sub-contractors.

The woman also said that if name suppression was lifted it would have a negative impact on her parents and parents-in-law, who were in their seventies and grappled with health issues.

However, SFO prosecutor Todd Simmonds said that the woman's parents were well enough to serve as the directors and shareholders of companies associated with her business.

Judge Cunningham indicated during the hearing that she didn't believe that arguments about the woman's parents' health would meet the required threshold for suppression.

The hearing, however, after being partly argued this afternoon, has been put off to finish next week.

Their names remain suppressed at least until then.