Woman denies $18,000 expenses fraud

Press, 17 November 1981, Page 7

Woman denies $18,000 expenses fraud

A woman, who is charged with defrauding her husband’s employer of more than $lB,OOO over a period of almost three years, was refused suppression of her name by Mr Justice Roper in the High Court yesterday.

Kay Patricia Evans, aged 28, a housewife, has pleaded not guilty to 162 charges of defrauding D. M. Bain and Sons, Ltd, of more than $lB,OOO by drawing cheques on her husband’s imprest expense account with that firm.

While the jury was absent choosing a foreman, Mr ~W.

G. G. A. Young (for Evans) applied for continuation of the interim order for suppression of name made in the District Court based on the . medical report. He did not say whether the medical report applied to Evans or one of her relations.

His Honour said that there would be no further order for suppression. Mr G. K. Panckhurst appears for the Crown and will be calling 16 witnesses. Opening his case Mr Panckhurst said that D. M. Bain and Sons, Ltd, was a

wholesale firm and importer which dealt in china, toys, hardware and similar goods. Accused’s husband, Christopher Evans, joined the firm early in 1977 as a travelling salesman. He covered the South Island and was provided with transport by the firm. Accused’s husband spent about 40 weeks of the year making circuits of the South

Island. To meet his expenses on the road the company gave him an imprest account at the Lower High Street branch of the Bank of New Zealand. It was to cover expenses such as accommodation, petrol and meals. Mr Evans had to submit the used cheque butts and a weekly list of his expenses to the company. Late in 1979 John Stuart Bain, a director of the firm, became concerned about the amount of money which had been drawn from the imprest account. He decided, to tighten up on the system and asked for a more detailed return of expenses. Even after that he found amounts marked "personal” being withdrawn and he was not happy about that. Matters came to a head in March, 1978, when he saw an entry in the expense sheet marked $206 paid to Cooks Garage with receipt to follow. That service station was close to the home of Mr and Mrs Evans, and it was customary for Mr Evans to charge up expenditure incurred in Christchurch on behalf of his employer to that garage. No receipt arrived but two weeks later an A.N.Z. cheque written out by accused and signed by her husband, drawn on their personal account for $276, arrived. That cheque was not presented because Mr Bain wanted to know the reason why a personal cheque was being paid. In April Mr Bain’s concern deepened when a Canterbury Savings Bank bank cheque for $277 was received.

Mr Bain investigated the original expense and obtained the cancelled cheque from the bank and found out that the charge was not $206 but for $276 and that it had not gone to Cooks Garage but directly into accused’s personal savings account at the Canterbury Savings Bank.

It was the first knowledge Mr Bain had that cheques drawn on the imprest account were being used for matters not connected with company expenses.

After further discrepancies were found in the expense account the matter was reported to the police who discovered that 205 cheques unrelated to business expenses had been negotiated by the accused or paid into four different bank accounts. They were in addition to the legitimate expenses drawn by her husband, Mr Panckhurst said. It was found that on some cheque butts that the amount and its destination were totally misleading. Some butts were not filled in so there could be no systematic check. The Crown said that the case had all the classic features of fraud — irregularities and cover-up in the books of account. Cheques for $5BO were drawn on the imprest account while accused’s husband was on holiday. When questioned about those cheques accused said that her husband had many clients whom he . used to “shout” for. It was discovered that some of the cheques had gone to a cosmetics firm, Mr Panckhurst said.