SUPREME COURT Men gaoled for tax refund frauds

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33774, 21 February 1975, Page 14

SUPREME COURT Men gaoled for tax refund frauds

Two young men who defrauded the Department of; Internal Revenue of more ■ than $3450 in false income tax rebates by claiming that [they were Australians return- : ing home after a working i holiday in New Zealand, were ; gaoled by Mr Justice Maclarthur in the Supreme Court I yesterday. Bruce Urquhart King, aged 23, a rubbish collector, was ■ gaoled for two years and ‘ordered to make restitution i of $2001.68 on six charges of I false pretence and six of ! attempted false pretence. Raymond Peter Pyne, aged 23, a rubbish collector, was [ gaoled for 18 months on five, ‘Charges of false pretence, jand six of attempted false

pretence. Pyne withdrew his plea of guilty to a charge of obtain-; ing $558.26 by false pre- ; tence from the Inland Revenue Department at Christchurch. Both prisoners pleaded guilty to the charges in the Magistrate’s Court. The' Magistrate declined jurisdiction and committed them, to the Supreme Court for sentence. Mr G. R. Lascelles, for King, said that the prisoner had ability and that made the; offences all the more regret-', table. The offences were out of character. King had five units towards a B.A. degree and everything had gone 1 well until he fell foul of the law in 1970. i

Imprisonment would have a disproportionate effect on King's future and he would have to carry the stigma of it for the rest of his life His early career confirmed that this was a temporary lapse. The normal restraints were lost when King left home. He had been tempted into committing the ottences because of the cost of the ' yacht he was building. He needed money to finish the boat. King had faced up to his responsibilities and had saved the country a good deal of money by pleading guilty to the charges. He was a young man of considerable i promise who would work hard to make restitution, Mr Lascelles said.

Mr B. S. McLaughlin, for Pyne, said that the prisoner had made full restitution of $533.1 to the Department of Inland Revenue. He had borrowed the money from relatives and friends. It was difficult to explain Pyne’s involvement in the offences but according to friends it could have stemmed from the theft of stereophonic equipment valued at more than $2OOO and 250 records. Nothing had been recovered and the theft had become an obsession with him. It was not Pyne who had instigated the scheme to defraud the tax department. He had been inveigled into it King had been out of the country and knew the procedure of the department. Pyne had gained nothing from the offences. He had jeopardised his liberty and blemished his good name. He had a good work record and had served an apprenticeship as a printer. He was working as a rubbish collector to obtain money. He was sorry for what he had done and wanted to make amends, Mr McLaughlin

Mr D. J. L. Saunders, for the Crown, said that the offences were regarded by the Crown as particularly serious because the public interest was involved and a deterrent sentence had to be considered; because a large amount of money was obtained through a joint enterprise of a series of de-

liberate and calculated attempts over a period of six weeks to obtain monex by fraud. His Honour said that by a skilful plan the prisoners had obtained slightly more than $3450 from the Department of Inland Revenue and had attempted to obtain sexeral thousand dollars more. They had represented themselves as being entitled to tax refunds because they were going overseas and went to offices of the department throughout the South Island with false IRI2 tax forms. The plan was conceit ed b\ King but it xvas admitted that Pyne took a full part in carrying out the offences which were committed over a period of about six weeks in November-December. 1974. Counsel had rightly conceded that the offences were I serious but had urged everything possible in the prison- ■ ers’ favour and he would take their submissions into account, his Honour said. Both prisoners were young and they were first offenders ias regards crimes of dis--1 honesty. Each had a good background and there was a lot of good in both. The probation officers' reports were optimistic. “But this Court has to consider the public" interest as an extremely important factor in offences such as these,” his Honour said. "The skill of the plan, the way it was effected and the amount of money involved were such that I find I am left in no doubt that a sentence of imprisonment should be imposed on both of you. "King was more responsible than Pyne, for the inception of the plan. Had it not been for the factors an their favour they would have been sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment,'* his Honour said.