Tax case evidence

Press, 13 July 1985, Page 5

Tax case evidence

The jury retired early last evening to consider its verdict in the trial in the District Court of a former company secretary who faced 22 charges of wilfully making a false declaration under the Sales Tax Act. The Court, on the first day of the trial, heard that more than $BO,OOO in sales tax had been undeclared. The defendant, whose name was suppressed in the interim, faced charges that in 22 months between July, 1979, and July, 1982, he made false declarations in the monthly returns of sales tax payable. He pleaded not guilty on all counts. Mr J. J. Brandts-Giesen, for the defendant, submitted to the jury yesterday that on about 14 of the charges “it was a question of the jury’s believing the defendant.” “He accepts that with respect to the other eight charges the only verdict is one of guilty,” Mr BrandtsGiesen said. In his final address to the jury, Mr Brandts-Giesen submitted that the pressures of business on the defendant were the cause of the 14 remaining false declarations. “There is insufficient evidence to prove that with

respect to all but eight of the charges the defendant was wilfully making false returns,” he said. “With respect to the 14 charges the defendant declares that he made declarations which he has since found were incorrect but at the time did not know were incorrect. “He got himself into a tangle but did not intend to make those false declarations and did not intend to be dishonest. The onus of proof is on the Crown and if you have a reasonable doubt about it, it is your legal duty to acquit the defendant of those charges.” Mr D. J. L. Saunders, on his final address for the Customs Department, submitted that the false returns were the result of the defendant’s incompetence in handling the company’s affairs. “Whether or not the managing director at the time knew a little more about the situation than he has said in court today is hardly a defence for the accused,” Mr Saunders told the jury. The first witness in the box during yesterday’s trial was Adrian Walter Bound, a Customs Department officer. In further evidence yesterday morning, Adrian

Walter Bound, a Customs Department officer, was cross-examined on evidence relating to exhibits of company invoices and sales tax returns filed with the Customs Department. Another witness, the managing director of the company during the time the charges relate to denied instructing the defendant not to pay the correct sales tax. “I knew of the individual sales tax processed which I agreed with,” he told the Court. “When each of these left my desk it was passed on (to the defendant) for processing. “I did not keep a tally of individual tax items. I did not know anything about sales tax problems until the end,” the witness said. If he had known sooner, he would have done something about it. He did not remember the defendant ever talking to him about sales tax. A third witness, David Anthony Campbell, a senior officer of the Customs Department, read to the Court on Mr Saunders’ request a record of an interview held by the Customs Department with the defendant in April, 1983. Mr Campbell confirmed that the department did not lay charges until August, 1984. This was because the department’s file on the case was sent first to its head office in Wellington and then to the Crown Law Office for approval to lay charges, he said. A friend of the defendant, briefly called by the defence, confirmed that the defendant’s alleged conduct in relation to the charges was out of character with the person he knew. In his summing-up to the jury, Judge Pain said that the verdict on each charge had to be unanimous. Among the elements that had to be proved was that the defendant knew he was making false declarations, the Judge said.