Accountant Fined For Stabilisation Breach

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32048, 24 July 1969, Page 8

Accountant Fined For Stabilisation Breach

Derek Norman Goodman, aged 39, an accountant, was fined $5O by Mr E. S. J. Crutchley, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday on a charge brought under the Hire Purchase and Credit Sales Regulations, 1967. Goodman, who was represented by Mr W. A. Wilson, pleaded guilty. Goodman was charged that on February 18 he aided Easter Motors, Ltd, in the commission of the offence of entering into a transaction with Alister Douglas Campbell for the purpose of defeating the Hire Purchase Regulations and Credit Sales Stablisation Regulations 1957 by inflating the price of a 1957 Holden car from $3BO to $660, sold to Campbell, and by recording that a 1955 model Ford Anglia car valued at $330 had been traded in by Campbell to enable him to obtain a minimum deposit of 50 per cent provided for in amendment 18 of the Hire Purchase and Credit Sales Stabilisation Regulations. Detective T. J. Knowles was the officer in charge of the case and the statement of facts was read by Detective Sergeant T. J. C. Joy. It was the same as that read to the Court on July 1 when Easter Motors, Ltd, was charged with committing a breach of the Hire Purchase and Credit Sales Stablisiation Regulations involving the same transaction. A plea of guilty was entered for the company by Mr A. N. Maclean. Mr Wilson said that it ill behoved counsel for Easter Motors, Ltd, to describe Goodman as ‘‘the villain of the piece” as the company and its managing director, Ernest James Easter, were just as much involved. The transaction was in contravention of the regulations and was connived at by Easter and it was what Easter expected him to do if a sale was to be achieved.

“The allegation thgt Goodman was ‘the villain of the piece’ is sheer poppycock,” Mr Wilson said. “Easter signed the agreement and Goodman only witnessed the form. Transactions of this nature are not uncommon among motor dealers. Some persona would not be able to

buy a car if it was not done. “Mr Easter was not an innocent party. Easter Motors, Ltd, and in effect Mr Easter as managing director, has a long list of convictions under the Licensed Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. The defendant has no previous convictions. “Easter Motors, Ltd, stood to gain most from the deal but the defendant would have received a commission. Goodman has one unit to gain to obtain his accountancy degree. He was extremely humiliated by the reference made to him by counsel for Easter Motors, Ltd,” said Mr Wilson. Mrs E. G. Field, the original owner of the Holden car, had not been defrauded because of the inflated price for which the Holden was supposed to have been sold. She had not purchased the car herself but on behalf of her son, who was a minor, Mr Wilson said. The Magistrate said that it was not possible for the Court to make a precise or proper finding as to the degree of responsibility of Easter Motors. Ltd, and Goodman. He would not say whether the company or Goodman was primarily responsible. The act and regulations were passed for the worthwhile purpose of stabilising the economy of the country. The offence was not a trivial one but he' accepted that the only gain made by the defend, ant was a commission and that the company would have gained most. The maximum fine for an individual was $2OO. The defendant knew what he was doing was wrong and he chose to go ahead and do it. A penalty also had to have a deterent effect, the Magistrate said.

Later yesterday Easter Motors, Ltd, was fined $l5O when the company appeared before Mr H. J. Evans, S.M., for sentence on the charge of committing a breach of the Hire Purchase and Credit Sales Stabilisation Regulations.

The Magistrate said that Goodman claimed that the firm knew what was going on. “It seems to me that each side is blaming the other, it must be plainly said that the company must bear responsibility for this,” he said.