JBL trial ending

Press, 7 July 1977, Page 6

JBL trial ending

PA Auckland! The JBL jury is expected to j begin its deliberations this) evening after the summing! up by the trial judge, Mr; Justice Somers. His Honour told the jury that they would have to remain together until their de-' liberations were completed, (and that could well involve (arrangements having to be made for their accommodation overnight. His summing-up is expected to last most of today. The trial is now in its twelfth week. Nine former directors or executives of the JBL group have pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to defraud the public. There was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, Rex Evans, had acted fraudulently as a criminal, Mr R. L. Maclaren submitted. His client was an investor in a JBL syndicate and a sub-| stantial shareholder with his family in JBL Consolidated, Ltd, and JBL Minerals, Ltd. At no stage did his client attempt to dispose of hisl shares. Mr Maclaren submitted ( that if he saw the “storm I - clouds” gathering, if he knew-

'JBL was financially unsound! and receivership inevitable, ( (he would have been at great( i pains to dispose of his share- ( holding. ■| Another counsel, Mr S. G.l (Lockhart, said that, there was ■ no evidence that the accused,; (Hugo Stephen Fanning, j ■; reached an agreement to pursue an unlawful purpose. He! was entitled to be acquitted! on the charges he faced, j There was no question that! he was not guilty. He asked the jury if it was not strange conduct for Fanning, if he knew that JBL was unsound, to go overseas in 1972 and leave 60,000 shares in the company. “Was that not a clear indication that Fanning had no knowledge or fear that the company was unsound?" he asked. Mr Lockhart said it would be unreasonable to have expected a professional director to undertake the mammoth (task of personally investigating each of the nine companies of the group. Mr S. G. Ennor, for Philip Paul Sargent, said the ac-l ,'cused was a director of in-l tegrity, devoting his energies! (to the growth of the profitiable construction division. He iwas a man innocent of in-'

ilvolvement in any fraudulent J and criminal conspiracy. t! Sargent was on the board -1 because of his consruction skills. .( “The Crown case is shot >j through with fallacies," said ,(Mr Ennor. “The facts are not , there to uphold their point of ■view.” “I Sargent was no “yes man." I; He queried aspects about I which he was unclear or con- :; cerned and was given assurance on issues on which he : sought clarification. At one point he queried the • legality of the way in which ' investors’ funds were used 1 and he was told it was perfectly legal. He was told an acknowledgement of its use was to be signed by in- ' vestors. Sargent was perhaps a lonely person in the JBL directorate. He was a tradesman with a tradesman’s background, not a professional man. He was not skilled by examination in accountancy or law. No qualified person advised Sargent that the group | was unsound; and he bought I shares in the company as late as May, 1972. The trial will continue today.