Raffle organiser 'did not intend to defraud anyone'

Press, 21 February 1980, Page 5

Raffle organiser 'did not intend to defraud anyone'

When the organiser of] national sporting raffles | used money from the ticket; sales he believed that he' was entitled to those tunasl and had no intention of de-1 frauding anyone, said Mr L. M. O’Reilly, when. opening the case for the defence in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr O’Reilly is appearing for Maiko Kaiputone Pahi, aged 55, who has pleaded not guilty to 37 charges of using documents to obtain a pecuniary advantage and six charges of theft, involving more than $39,000. The Crown. alleges that Pahi siphoned off money to which he was not entitled from New Zealand Fund Raising Promotions, Ltd, a company which he' operated to run raffles for national sporting organisations. It alleges that the offences were committed between, 1974, and the cad of 1976. Mr Justice Casey is presiding. Mr G. K. Panckhurst appears for the Crown, and with Mr O’Reilly for Pahi is Miss P. J. Devine. The case will finish today. Mr O’Reilly said that the Crown had painstakingly set about to prove a number of facts which were not really in dispute, but it had failed to produce any evidence on the crucial issue to show that the arrangements between Pahi and the national sporting associations on behalf of whom he had con-

; ducted the raffles had resulted in anyone being defraud- ' led. 1 The national association , i received its 4c on every 'ticket which was sold and if the association did the ac-. tual selling then it received i a further 24c which meant that it received more than : half of each 50c ticket. < The Crown had failed to produce one witness from either a national sporting or- : ganisation or club to say i that they did not receive : what was due to them. Pahi : would say that he had not < defrauded any of these organisations and had never intended to. New Zealand Fund Raising Promotions, Ltd, was formed i by Pahi and James Martin to ; promote national raffles and they decided what each of them would get. The company was a structure to enable them to negotiate : cheques and it was not in- i tended that it should make a profit. Adjustments were : made after the drawing of 1 each raffle by Pahi and Martin. Pahi would say that he ' had never defrauded the company of one cent. A procedure was adopted after ; the closing of each raffle whereby unsold tickets were taken over and either left as blank butts or non-de. plumes were written out. It had been shown by the : Crown case that there was no “jack-up” of the draw ■ v...ich was always carried 1

but under police supervision. The butts of the winning tickets were produced on each occasion the raffles were drawn. The national association received its 4c commission on each of those unsold tickets. It might well be that what Pahi did was wrong under the Gaming Act by taking a commission or a discount on the tickets but he had not been charged with that, Mr O’Reilly said. The jury could not find Pahi guilty because it considered what he had done was immoral. When Pahi used funds from the ticket sales he believed that he was entitled to that money and he had no intention of defrauding anyone. Clearly Pahi had failed to tell the investigating detective the full story and that he was getting a discount. Had he done so he would not have been in Court today. The police had very fairly admitted that Pahi had been adamant that he had only taken the money he was entitled to, said Mr O’Reilly. When the hearing resumed yesterday his Honour issued a warrant for the arrest of a woman who failed to appear to give evidence. She was supposed to have won a car in one of the raffles but she had stated that she ■ had never received the prize. A dairy proprietor, who had his name suppressed at his own request because he was in business, said that he had met accused through his brother, Piri Pahi. Witness said that although his address and telephone number had appeared on the butt of a ticket, which won an overseas trip for four valued at $l2OO in the Indoor Bowls Federation raffle drawn in December, 1975, he had never purchased that ticket. But he had bought other tickets. After the results were published someone drew his attention to them and he spoke to Pahi at his home and they then went to the bank in Hereford Street to collect the money. On leaving the bank Pahi asked witness to sign the

back of the winning ticket ; and when he did so Pahi offered him some money, i Witness had said: “Don’t be ■ so stupid,” but Pahi thrust ; the money into his hand; He did not know how much it was but it could have been a ; couple of hundred dollars. He presumed that he got the money for helping Pahi out by doing him a service. Trevor Alvin Frank Richards, a drainlayer, of New Brighton, said . that he had purchased a ticket in a national greyhound racing raffle at the Esplanade Hotel. The raffle was drawn in March, 19C7. A newspaper advertisement stated that T. Rich- ■ ards, of New Brighton, had won a prize. After being unable to find the ticket he telephoned Pahi and asked him what the position would be if he covld not produce the ticket. Pahi told him that if he had won a prize he would get it. Pahi had asked his name and the prize he had won. . Pahi was told it was a trip for two to Singapore. ■ Pahi paused and then said: “There’s a story about that. There was a misprint in the

paper and the winner was T. Rickard, of Seaview Road, New Brighton.” Witness heard nothing more about the matter until much later when two detectives asked him if he had won a prize. Tainui Rickard, a painter, said that in March, 1976, he was working for Pahi’s company, Pamac Transport, Ltd, which operated from the State Coal Depot in Moorhouse Avenue. At the time he lived in Seaview Road and Pahi was his boss. Pahi had never told him that he had won an overseas trip and he had never received the prize or. the money. To Mr O’Reilly Mr Rickard said that he was a memt .• of a syndicte at the State Coal Depot which purchased raffle tickets. Constable Robert Henry Moore said that in November, 1976, he spoke to Pahi about tree raffles he had organised. Pahi had told him that he was not a professional organiser and that he did it for the love of sport. He got no payment of any kind for ining the raffles.