INTERPOL CONSULTED DURING INQUIRIES INTO FINANCING JBL TRAWLERS

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34106, 19 March 1976, Page 3

INTERPOL CONSULTED DURING INQUIRIES INTO FINANCING JBL TRAWLERS

Z Press Assoc tat tern) AUCKLAND, March 18.' Inspector (’. E. ! Sturt told (he JBL • lower court hearing today that, during his inquiries. he had been in contact with Interpol. , He was answering ques- | tions put to him in crossexamination by Mr S. ( Alexander, counsel for the | defendants. Rex Evans and Erie Waiter Thompson. 1 he inspector who was giving evidence for the third <

day. had been asked by Mrl i Alexander: "Have you been I involved with any other : police forces or police! agencies in the course of < your inquiries?” i He replied: "Apart from < New Scotland Yard, yes. < Interpol.” I This, he said, had been in i relation to the Greyhound Finance Corporation," which I helped with trawler finance, t This company was referred i to in several of the exhibits 1 before the Court. I Mr Alexander- Which s officers at JBL were in- i volved in arranging the Greyhound transaction? <

I Mr Sturt: Messrs J. Jeffs land Binney (Jeffs’s personal assistant) as I recall it. Mr Sturt said he had no deep knowledge of syndication as practised by JBL in Australia, but believed the Australian practice was fairly similar to that in NewZealand. Asked by Mr Alexander if he knew whether the Aus-i tralian police were making inquiries into these activities, the witness said he believed the Australian fraud squad, which worked in conjunction with the Corporate Affairs Commission in Sydney, was awaiting the outcome of the New Zealand case before considering action.

Before the Court are Francis William Ralph, Peter Kenneth Le Neve Arnold. Philip Paul Sargent. Michael Bruce Gurney Thomson. Barrie Phelps Hopkins. Hugo Stephen Fanning, Thompson. Hugh Buchanan Jones, and Evans.

They are charged, with James Jeffs and Vaughan Jeffs, in their absence, and JBL Consolidated. Ltd, with conspiracy to defraud and fraudulently promoting. Co-operation Earlier in his cross-exam-ination, Mr Alexander had asked Mr Sturt if Binney. whom the officer inter- 1 viewed in Australia, had been co-operative in the same manner as the , NewZealand defendants. “He (Binney) consented to my interviewing him, but 1 found him most evasive ‘with his answers,” said the , witness.

He could not recall asking Binney to make his files available, but he had earlier made inquiries about documents at Macquarrie Street

'(JBL’s Sydney head office): and had been informed there iwas "nothing left.” I Mr Alexander: From the inspection you have made of the documents, is it apparent to you there must have been a large number of documents in the possession of Binney and other Australian executives? Mr Sturt: There would have been a certain amount i relevant to the New Zealand i activities, but certainly not a large amount. I' L.K. interview Referring to his interview w’ith J. Jeffs in England, the witness told the Court: “The most 1 can say in his favour-' as regards co-operation is! simply that he consented to an interview To my mind that is where his co-oper- ■ ation stopped.” He had no direct evidence that the interview with Jeffs was recorded on tape, but he believed this was so. A taperecorder was in the room where the interview took.’ place, but it was not work- : ing. Mr Alexander: So that, if the interview was being taped, then, to use a collo- i quialism, the room was bugged? — Yes. The witness said he had reason to believe that Vang-, han Jeffs was going to re-1 'turn to New Zealand for the! hearing, but that James Jeffs prevented him. Mr M. D. Robinson, counsel for the defendent, Ralph: The Government Receiver (Mr D. L. Hazard) has been, quoted as saying J. Jeffs had absolute personal control, not only at board level, but! throughout the group down to second-line executive staff. Would that appear to be correct?” Mr Stuart: I don’t neces-

isarily agree with Mr Haz-i aid's use of the word. "absolute." .1. Jeffs's control was: indeed strongly felt through-, out the whole of the group.: and was certainly quite' marked. Cross-examined by Mr S. |C. Ennor, counsel for the defendant. Sargent, Mr Sturt said his' inquiries indicated there were matters of disagreement between the defendant and J. Jeffs. It was correct that, by October 15, 1971, the directors had agreed Sargent was Ito concentrate fully on managing construction activities. .Mr Ennor asked Mr Sturt if concern felt by Mr Meiklejohn (a JBL director) and Sargent about certain Ithings being morally . wrong was referred to in a memorandum of May 11, 1972.-Mr-Sturt said that was correct. : Mr Ennor: Was it made, clear to you that one of the! matters about which the. moral rightness was ques-l tioned was a proposal that! the Jeffs family interests: .would gain the benefit of! some assets from Welling-, ton? — Yes. Mr Ennor: A proposal [ that, if implemented, couldi have affected the JBL group! to the extent of some! $400,01)0? — Yes. Sydney meeting Mr Sturt said Mr Meikle-1 John and Sargent had a meeting in Sydney on May 5, 1972. with J. Jeffs, Mr Binney. and a Mr Lowenthal. A deed of covenant was procured from Jeffs in which he acknowledged that certain assets were to be held ■by him in trust. Mr Epnor: Did you gather that the Jeffs-Sargent disagreements were of fairly Jong standing? — Yes. Another witness, David

Kennedy said that about - May. 1972, he invested s4ooo> in the Petone No. 1 terminating syndicate. , A Mr Slater, a JBL sales- . man. told him that the money would be held in trust until the syndicate was completed. “Some two weeks later; when the collapse was made: public I contacted Mr Slater again to inquire about the’ safety of the investment, and he told me that he expected there would be no difficulty as the moneys had been paid to be held in trust for this specific purpose," said Mr Kennedy. Had he known his $4OOO would be used for purposes other than for the Petone land, and later .building, he , would have had no further J interest in the investment. Percival Taylor said he had invested $3500 in thes Union Street syndicate. He , would not have done so had' he known the company was . in financial difficulties, or; that the money was not to I, be used for the purchase of'j the property. Land sale John Carter, secretary of Titan Plant Services, said that in 1971 his company entered into an agreement ' with JBL for the sale of I land in Lower Hutt worth $65,000. A deposit of $1 was paid. : with the balance due on Julv 31, 1971.

After pressure from the company's solicitors JBL paid $.35,000 on the due date, and the balance on August 16. Mr Carter said the reason given for the settlement's not taking place was that JBL Sargent Construction, Ltd. had overlooked the setItlement. date.