T.A.B. employee to stand trial on fraud charge

Press, 27 January 1987, Page 4

T.A.B. employee to stand trial on fraud charge

A Totalisator Agency Board employee, said to have been a big better, had obtained a signed cheque from a friend, and written the amount on it for $BOOO after a shortfall of this amount had been found in the agency’s takings.

Evidence of this was given in the District Court yesterday when the defendant, aged 34,. faced a preliminary hearing in the District Court of a charge that, last October 4, with intent to defraud the T.A.8., she took T.A.B. betting tickets to obtain for herself a pecuniary advantage. After hearing depositions of evidence of prosecution witnesses, Mrs C. M. Holmes and Mrs 0. M. Franks, Justices of the Peace, held there was sufficient evidence ■ to commit the defendant for trial.

They remanded her on bail pending a date for her trial in the District Court.

Interim suppression of her name was continued.

Her counsel, Mr D. J. R. Holdemess, reserved his defence.

Sergeant G. C. Jones prosecuted. The manager of premises in which a T.A.B. agency was operated gave evidence that on October 6 last year he checked the bank bag and saw a cheque for $BOOO, signed in another person’s name.

The witness went to the branch of the bank concerned to try to clear the cheque but it was not honoured.

He said the money in the bag totalled $4769.35; there should have been $12,769.35.

She asked if he would give her until the next day to get the money back, but he said he was not interested.

Cross-examined, the witness said the defendant told him she had a guarantor for the money, but he told her he was not interested in that

Asked how long she had to get the money back before he reported the matter to the police, the witness said his recollection was he asked for its return immediately.

A T.A.B. cashier said she used to see the defendant making bets at a T.A.B. branch at which she (witness) worked. She considered the defendant to be a big better. The witness said the defendant telephoned and then called at her house before work on October 6 with a cheque for $BOOO in another person’s name. She said she had taken $BOOO in cash and “here was a cheque in its place.”

The witness told her it was “not good” as cash had to be banked into the T.A.B. account. The defendant said not to tell the manager until she had got the money.

The witness said she did not think she could hide it from him, and did not want to do so.

Asked why she had taken the money, the defendant said she had “pranged” a car she had been looking after and the owners were returning that day.

The witness said she told the manager about the matter later that day. A sum of $BOOO was found to be missing. Cross-examined, the witness agreed that after the defendant had been told the cheque could not be banked in place of money she (defendant) had said to hold on to the cheque while she got the money.

A man gave evidence of knowing the defendant. She had asked him in

early October to borrow $l5O to $2OO to repair a car.

He gave her an open cheque which he signed. He said she had borrowed money from him in the past and had always repaid it The witness said he did not write out the cheque for $BOOO.

The signature on a cheque was his, but the amount written on it was in somebody else’s handwriting.

A man said he knew the defendant who approached him on October 6 asking to borrow $BOOO because she had pushed the wrong button on the machine.

She was not really sure of how there was a discrepancy in the amount

He told her he could not help her but suggested she see the “top man” in the T.A.B. He accompanied her to see the Christchurch area manager of the T.A.B. Cross-examined, the witness said the defendant appeared quite genuine and did not appear to understand how the deficit had arisen.

He said she had gone with him, without any hesitation, to see the area manager.

In a written statement made to Detective Sergeant D. M. Quested, the defendant allegedly said that on September 27 she had had plenty of bets, while working at the T.A.B. agency. Sometimes she got sidetracked and noticed the balances were down and would put in some money. She knew she was not supposed to bet while working. At a previous branch she had been supervised all the time, but at the agency she worked at she was not supervised.

She said she had a really good day and had won $lOOO. On October 4 she was very busy at the T.A.B. with between $15,000 and $16,000 in takings handled.

She had several bets, including $4O and $5O each way, and quinellas. Her biggest collect was $1334.

The defendant’s statement continued, in reference to a question by the detective whether she had played the machine and not put the money in each time, that it was possible, but she did not believe she could have run up $BOOO in a day. “But I suppose I could.”

She said she had then panicked and tried to get the money from a friend by saying it was for a car repair.

She knew the cheque would be no good, and still tried to raise the money from friends, but could not do so.

She telephoned the manager of the agency premises and he gave her 30 minutes to get the money to him. She tried to explain she did not take the money, but he would not listen. The defendant’s statement said she did not physically remove the $BOOO. She did not steal the money. It was possible she could have run up this amount by using the machine.

Detective Sergeant Quested said that, when interviewed again two days later, the defendant admitted she had made numerous bets over two days while working at the agency, but did not think she had obtained so much credit. Shown records of some quite large bets, she aid some were hers and some not.