A company that employed a convicted fraudster is fighting to have its named suppressed to avoid commercial and reputational damage. Photo / NZME
A company that employed a convicted fraudster is fighting to have its named suppressed to avoid commercial and reputational damage. Photo / NZME
The current employer of a man found guilty of stealing up to $1.4 million from an Auckland rest home says his name should remain suppressed to protect the firm's corporate reputation and the considerable commercial interests of its shareholders.
The company, involved in hundreds of millions of dollars in high-end property developments, says it would suffer significant damage if somehow linked to the man's historical dishonesty offences.
Its lawyer even suggested people might think the firm was involved in a conspiracy to conceal fraud through its ongoing support of the offender - who the Crown says is likely to be jailed at sentencing this month.
The lawyer also alleged a vendetta by the man's former friend to smear his name and that of anyone who subsequently hired him.
However, the Crown opposes the company's application for permanent name suppression, saying it took a risk employing the man when it knew he could face charges which could result in serious criminal convictions.
"For their own commercial reasons they decided to stand by [the man]," Crown prosecutor Sam McMullan wrote in submissions.
"Such commercial decisions cannot now displace the public interest in knowing [the man's] character - a man convicted of serious dishonesty offending over a prolonged period of time and in circumstances where he attempted to cover up the fraud."
The man holds a key role in the company dealing with financiers.
Evidence revealed he'd siphoned money from the rest home accounts in offending spanning seven years, using the money on personal expenses such as school fees, Sky TV subscriptions and gym memberships, and to pay contractors working on his and his wife's dream lifestyle home.
It also emerged he'd set up a sophisticated accounting system and removed financial records in order to conceal his offending and "systematically defraud" the aged care business for his own gain.
Justice Timothy Brewer declined to grant the man suppression saying the public had a right to know about the offender's extensive dishonesty. Photo / NZME
The man and his current employer sought name suppression, but Justice Timothy Brewer earlier dismissed the application, citing the principle of open justice, and saying the required threshold of extreme hardship had not been met.
People who had future business dealing with the man "should not have concealed from them this criminal history", Justice Brewer said.
The company appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal in Wellington last month. The Herald has obtained written submissions, detailing the company's concerns about its commercial reputation and the need for its name to remain secret.
The company's lawyers argued it should not be penalised for being a good corporate citizen and giving the man a "second chance" in spite of his background of dishonesty.
"It is only through members of the business community being prepared, and even encouraged, to provide opportunities to those with a history of misconduct that those [rehabilitative] goals can be met."
Bob Hollyman KC told last month's hearing the defendant had "reformed" since the offending and "taken the opportunity to right the ship".
People should be given the opportunity for redemption and rehabilitation, and naming the man would prevent that from happening, Hollyman said.
The company's submission said the man had an unblemished record during his years with the firm, becoming an integral member of the management team, responsible for critical relationships.
"At no stage over this period has [the man] done anything to cause the applicants to question his integrity, honesty, or trustworthiness."
But the company argued it would suffer "highly significant commercially and reputationally" consequences if its name was now published in connection with the man's earlier offending.
"...the consequences, at their most severe, would impact not only the applicants, but also commercial partners who have purchased land in their developments."
The company also claimed the man's former friend and rest home business partner had a vendetta against him, and was hell-bent on destroying the man's reputation and ensuring anyone associated with him was "publicly vilified".
The submission cited the friend's alleged attempts to discredit the offender's wife through various professional bodies, and claims he tried to generate media interest in the case - with lawyers annexing six Herald stories, "mostly by the same reporter", as apparent evidence.
"It is submitted that the evidence shows a pattern of concerted, unpredictable, widespread, illogical, and unfounded efforts to discredit those associated with [the man] merely by virtue of that association," the submission claimed.
It was further claimed that ending suppression risked "improper, unfounded allegations, and associated public campaigns against the applicants and their businesses".
The company also argued the offender had freely disclosed his criminal charges to his bosses, and that his criminal record would now be available to any prospective employers.
The Crown took a different view.
McMullan argued the man was far from upfront about his past, telling the company he'd never "intentionally been dishonest" - which he said was proven to be a lie by the jury's verdicts.
The man's criminal record was not publicly available and publication of his identity alongside his convictions would provide important context for the public, McMullan said.
"Protection of the community is clearly a relevant consideration."
McMullan said the company knew there was a risk that the man could be criminally charged when it hired him in 2017 and chose to keep him on when charges were laid the following year.
The company's claimed hardship was "purely economic", McMullan said.
"Those short-term effects must be balanced against the effect of permanently inhibiting the public's right to know about [the man's] character and his offending."
Appeal Court Judge David Goddard said reintegration and rehabilitation of offenders were generally meant to take place under the public gaze, "not under a cloak of secrecy".
