While a 12-week trial was due to begin in February, Bublitz last month applied to delay it in the hope he can get money together for legal representation.
Bublitz, formerly represented by a Queen's Counsel, said last month that he now cannot afford a lawyer and has been denied legal aid.
In support of his adjournment application, Bublitz provided an affidavit and report from forensic accountant Tina Payne.
The report, in the words Justice Venning, highlighted difficulties Payne perceived with documents received from the FMA.
"She concludes that the documents are the most disorganised disclosure she has ever received; that the documents contained thousands of pages of unnecessary duplications and many more thousands of pages of "rubbish". While she has been able to establish there are numerous missing documents it is unknown what further documents should have been supplied," Justice Venning said.
As well as mentioning the software issue, the Crown said the document duplication was because it is the FMA's practice to include documents that are identical on their face but come from a different source.
The FMA said the majority of issues within Payne's report could be resolved within a month and Justice Venning said the issue over disclosure wasn't in itself enough to support an adjournment.
There is a reasonable prospect Mr Bublitz will receive funding from those sources. Whether it is sufficient to fund his defence entirely or whether it will only assist him on a limited basis it is impossible to say at this stage.
The real issue, in Justice Venning's view, was over whether the trial should be delayed to enable Bublitz to get legal representation or, alternatively, to give him more time to mount his defence without a lawyer.
Bublitz's lawyer for the adjournment application, Fletcher Pilditch, said during a hearing last month that his client would be better able to fund his defence from February, when money from a Queenstown property development could become available. This would be a mixture of a loan from a trust associated with the development and payment for Bublitz's services on the project, the court heard.
Although Bublitz had provided more information about the proposed arrangement since the hearing, Justice Venning said there was force in the prosecution's argument that issue of whether he would be able to fund legal representation was still "far from certain".
But the judge said there were enough documents provided to the court to satisfy him that the arrangement existed.
"There is a reasonable prospect Mr Bublitz will receive funding from those sources. Whether it is sufficient to fund his defence entirely or whether it will only assist him on a limited basis it is impossible to say at this stage," Justice Venning said.
He said it was in the interests of justice to allow the delay, given Bublitz was facing 49 charges, was the central defendant in the trial and that the others charged will also be affected by his role in the proceeding.
"I accept that Mr Bublitz has not sat on his hands. He would prefer to be represented and has taken some steps to achieve representation in these proceedings," the judge said.
The trial is now due to begin on August 8.
