Compared with other SFO cases against failed finance company directors and executives, it is its worst strike-rate to date.
That's not to say the SFO hasn't suffered courtroom losses before - it failed to prove one set of charges against Capital + Merchant Finance directors Wayne Douglas and Neal Nicholls, who later were jailed for more than eight years each.
Two of the three accused in the Dominion Finance case were also acquitted, but in that matter a higher proportion of charges brought to trial by the SFO resulted in guilty verdicts than in this one.
As well as being the biggest loss for the SFO in a finance company case, the SCF trial also could end up as the most expensive for the taxpayer.
Given the trial went on for five months, it could well cost more than the $1.5 million spent during the Financial Markets Authority's investigation and prosecution of five Bridgecorp directors.
Adam Feeley, the head of the SFO when charges were laid in December 2011, described the 14-month probe into South Canterbury Finance as the "most resource-intensive and time-consuming in recent history".
He said the "value of the fraud alleged to have been committed exceeds anything in the history of white-collar crime in New Zealand".
It was Feeley, now the Queenstown Lakes District Council chief executive, who copped part of the criticism from former SCF accountant Terry Hutton when charges were withdrawn against him last year.
"I believe the withdrawal of the charges reflects the poor standard of investigation work initially undertaken by Adam Feeley and his investigation team."
No doubt more criticism will follow after today's result but SFO director Julie Read this morning said she was satisfied there was enough evidence to warrant the prosecution:
"This was a difficult and complex prosecution. While the SFO was unsuccessful in part, given the scale of the collapse and the impact it had on investors, it was clearly in the public interest to put all matters before the Court."
"I am also satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to warrant bringing this prosecution - the Court, not the SFO, is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not that evidence is sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt."
"In this case, we have failed to satisfy the Court to the required standard in relation to Mr McLeod and Mr White but I consider that the case was investigated thoroughly and that our counsel presented the best possible case to the Court," she said.
SCF CHARGES AND VERDICTS
Count 1: False statement by promoter
Sullivan: Not guilty
White: Not guilty
Count 2: False statement by promoter
Sullivan: Guilty
Count 3: False statement as promoter
Sullivan: Guilty
Count 4: False statement as promoter
Sullivan: Guilty
White: Not Guilty
Count 5: False statement as promoter
Sullivan: Guilty
Count 6: Theft by a person in a special relationship
Sullivan: Not Guilty
Count 7: Theft by a person in a special relationship
Sullivan: Not Guilty
White: Not Guilty
McLeod: Not Guilty
Count 8: Theft by a person in a special relationship
McLeod: Not Guilty
Count 9: Obtaining by deception
Sullivan: Guilty
Count 10: Obtaining by deception
Sullivan: Not Guilty
White: Not Guilty
McLeod: Not Guilty
Count 11: False accounting
McLeod: Not Guilty
Count 12: False accounting
McLeod: Not Guilty
