Duncan John Napier and his wife Sara worked at Torbay Rest Home when Duncan Napier defrauded the company in offending spanning seven years. Photos / Dean Purcell, Supplied
Duncan John Napier and his wife Sara worked at Torbay Rest Home when Duncan Napier defrauded the company in offending spanning seven years. Photos / Dean Purcell, Supplied
A jury who convicted an Auckland businessman of stealing at least $600,000 from a North Shore rest home, then destroying financial records to cover his tracks, asked the judge why the man’s wife was not standing beside him in the dock.
Justice Timothy Brewer told the jury that sometimes there were “mysteries” in trials, but in this case police decided not to charge the wife with any offence.
Duncan John Napier was jailed for four years and 10 months in October after being found guilty of 45 fraud charges following a two-week criminal trial in the High Court.
The Herald was finally able to name Napier last week after the Supreme Court rejected an application by his most recent employer - a land development company - to permanently suppress his name to protect the company’s reputation.
Napier was convicted of systematically defrauding Torbay Rest Home in offending spanning seven years during his time as the home’s administration manager until his crimes were uncovered in 2012.
His wife Sara Ann Napier was employed as the nurse manager but abruptly departed her position about the same time as her husband. She is now a lecturer at AUT’s nursing department.
She was reprimanded in 2018 for failing to enquire into why millions of dollars were being misappropriated from the rest home, and found personally liable for some of the money by a High Court judge.
After Duncan Napier’s fraud was uncovered, the rest home’s directors carried out an audit of financial records. It revealed that the couple had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary overpayments.
Rest home cheques had also been used to pay personal expenses associated with the couple, including Sky subscriptions, school fees and gym memberships, and third-party contractors working on the Napiers’ luxury new-build home near Matakana.
The rest home company took successful civil court proceedings against the couple and their family trust in 2015. A decision by Justice Woolford found Duncan Napier overpaid himself and his wife $281,087.01, and that he had personally received at least $1,459,323.81.
The decision also found Sara Napier was personally liable for $720,310.53 in salary overpayments and unauthorised payments “had and received”. But unlike her husband, Sara Napier was not found to have misappropriated any money.
In 2018, Sara Napier was brought before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT) on four charges of professional misconduct relating to the rest home case.
Rest home director Mike Single said Sara Napier had benefited from her husband’s fraud and he was surprised she did not face charges.
“It will always stand as a challenge to understand why she was not called to account and required to defend her conduct in criminal proceedings.”
Duncan John Napier was jailed for four years and 10 months after being found guilty of 45 fraud charges in the High Court at Auckland. Photo / Michael Craig
Documents obtained by the Herald show counsel for the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) argued the Napiers had been “evasive and uncooperative” during the rest home’s investigation, refusing to provide core documents.
Sara Napier had repeatedly claimed her husband “made a mistake”.
They had both denied any wrongdoing and claimed all the payments were “legitimate reimbursement” for rest home expenses.
The documents show Sara Napier applied to have the High Court civil findings excluded from the HPDT case. But her application was thrown out by the tribunal, which said the findings were directly relevant to her conduct as a nurse and the charges she faced.
The PCC counsel stressed that the earlier civil judgment had not found that Sara Napier knew of the unauthorised payments, but the tribunal later found she ought to have known.
An audit of banking records showed that money received by the couple or third parties under their control “well exceeded their gross combined income” from the rest home.
Duncan Napier was a successful real estate agent working for Bayleys when two civil court decisions in 2015 and 2016 found he had earlier “misappropriated” more than $1 million during his time at the rest home.
Their sprawling Matakana property, estimated to have cost $1.425m to build, was described as “large and quite opulent”.
Indeed, the 2015 High Court judgment said it was “obvious that Mr Napier and his wife were living well beyond their means”.
A HPDT finding in 2018 reprimanded Sara Napier for failing to inquire into the misappropriation of millions of dollars from the rest home while she was nurse manager.
Though it could not find any direct evidence that she knew the money had been misappropriated, it said she “ought to have known” an “excessive” sum was being “misappropriated for the benefit of her and her family” and was thus unavailable for the benefit of the rest home and its residents.
“It was the tribunal’s assessment that the level of knowledge was wilful and reckless and she failed to make enquiries that an honest reasonable person would make,” the decision said.
Sara Napier was found “negligent in her management and understanding of rest home finances”, amounting to malpractice and bringing discredit to nursing. The other charges were not made out.
She was censured, ordered to pay $31,000 in costs and subjected to a year’s supervision.
Duncan Napier, meanwhile, went on to become a successful real estate agent with Bayleys before quitting the profession in 2017. He was charged by police in 2018 and his criminal case was eventually heard in August last year.
On day two of the trial, the jury asked the judge why Sara Napier was not part of the case.
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
Justice Brewer consulted with defence and prosecution lawyers in chambers before telling the jury that sometimes there were “mysteries” in trials and that in this case, police never charged Sara Napier with any offence.
