Organiser admits being prize winner

Press, 22 February 1980, Page 5

Organiser admits being prize winner

The Mystery of the identity of “Pop Strongman,” who won a major prize in a national sports association raffle, was cleared up in the Supreme Court yesterday when the raffle organiser admitted that he was “Pop Strongman.” Mr Justice Casey will sum up this morning in the trial of Maiko Kaiputone Pahi, aged 56, a former company director and raffle organiser, who is now a sickness beneficiary. He has pleaded not guilty to 37 charges of using documents to obtain a pecuniary advantage and six of theft involving'more than' $33,000. -*• The trial which is' before Mr Justice Casey was set down for three days but will take five. Mr G. K. Panckhurst appears for the Crown, and with Mr L. M. O’Reilly for Pahi is Miss P. J. Devine.

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 is alleged gthat the offences were committed /"'between 1974 and the end of 1976. Pahi said in evidence that he was a sicknes-j: beneficiary because he had a heart complaint. He was purchasing the State house he had occupied for about 20 years and had a 1974 Holden Kingswood car. '■ The scheme to run national' raffles for sporting organisations was conceived in the early 19705. By advertising the raffles in the newspapers in.' the early stages he eventually built up a mailing list ;of about 18,000 names. • - ■ Circulars would be sent out with the raffle books offering persons a $5 book of tickets for $4. If' there were two raffles and the person who received the books did not want to buy the tickets he was offered a free ticket in each raffle.

After explaining the system for running the raffles Pahi said that often prize winners took the value of

the prize in cash. Members of his family and a sports club who had 'helped him run the raffles had not been paid for their services. Mr O’Reilly: The Crown says. that you quite dishonestly and fraudulently tried to - misappropriate money belonging to others. Pahi: If I’ve defrauded anyone it’s myself as I’m the only one. out of pocket. The national ' associations, the.. clubs and the agents always got their money but I didn’t get all my money. Pahi agreed that he had not told the full story to a detective when he said that he was not getting commission. His partner, James Martin, had received legal advice that tickets could be sold on a discount basis without contravening ' the law. He had taken discounts to which he was. entitled. To Mr Panckhurst Pahi agreed that the $39,000 involved was in the main discount money. He admitted that he told the same detective that he had Only withdrawn. money from the raffle account which he had earlier lent to that account.

Mr Panckhurst: If you: thought that discounts were! legal why did you not tell the police what you were doing? ■ . Pahi: At no time did I tell an untruth. I was asked if I took out a commission and I said no. I told him that I took out money which was : owed to me. It was my money. The money was owed to him from discounts which he had put back into the company. He had not deducted the discounts before the money was paid in as others had done. Pahi said that any profit from the raffles did not belong to the national sporting organisation but to him and Mr Martin because they took the risks. Shown a number of letters he had written to national sporting organisations Pahi agreed that they stated that the profits would be returned to the associations. When he had replied to counsel he had meant that the profit from hte company and not the raffles went to Mr Martin and himself. , In the poorer selling raf-

fles Pahi said he earned between $3OOO and $4OOO in ■ discounts and in the better selling ones between $6OOO and $7OOO. Asked about the myster-' ious “Pop Strongman.” who won a major prize, Pahi admitted that he was “Pop Strongman” and that the information he had given to the detective about him being an unknown man who drank at the Crown Hotel was,not correct. The dairy proprietor, whose name had been suppressed, had been paid $lOOO for the use of his name as a prize winner. Mr Panckhurst: You were paying $lOOO because you needed names to cover the money you had taken? Pahi:'No that wasn’t the case at all. It was because 1 or the club used his name on the unsold tickets. In this instance he asked me for $lOOO or the whole prize of $4OOO. Pahi denied that he had paid the money to the dairy proprietor because there was not enough money in the account to pay out the prizes because of what had gone on.