Former car salesman admits perjury charge

Press, 7 May 1987, Page 4

Former car salesman admits perjury charge

A former North Canterbury car salesman was committed to the High Court for sentence on May 21 after pleading guilty in the District Court at Rangiora yesterday to two charges relating to evidence he gave to the Motor-Vehicle Dealers’ Licensing Board. The man, whose name was suppressed in the interim, pleaded guilty to a charge of perjury and a charge of fabricating evidence. The charges are indictable. He was remanded on $2OOO bail, with a surety for the same amount. A probation report was called for. He was represented by Mr G. E. Langham. Detective David Cartwright said in evidence that in 1986 a licensed motor-vehicle dealer applied to the Licensing Board for the defendant to be appointed as the company’s chief executive officer. The MotorVehicle Dealers’ Institute filed a notice that it wished to be heard with respect to the application. The application was heard in Wellington in April, 1986. Detective Cartwright said that evidence was given on oath. Before the hearing the company was advised that

to satisfy the Licensing Board’s criteria it would be necessary for the company’s share capital to be increased by a cash injection of $55,000 into the company account. Independent evidence would also be required to show where the money had come from. Detective Cartwright said the defendant had told the board that his father-in-law had lent him $65,000 interest-free over a period of five years and that this was the source of the money which he had deposited in the company’s bank account. He produced a letter ad-" dressed to the chairman of the board which confirmed that the writer had lent his son-in-law the money for him to use in his business. “This letter was supposedly signed by the defendant’s father-in-law. This evidence was completely false,” said Detective Cartwright. The defendant’s father-in-law had not lent the money, had not written the letter, nor had he signed it. At the same hearing, a bank statement was produced showing a substantial deposit into the firm’s account. “The main source of this deposit was, in fact, a

cheque which the defendant had written out of his own bank account and deposited into the company’s bank account for the purposes of obtaining a substantial credit balance,” said Detective Cartwright. The personal cheque had been dishonoured by the bank the next day.

The defendant had also told the board that his father-in-law was involved with him in the development of a property and that his father-in-law was financing $210,000 towards this and was paying interest on mortgages over the property.

“Inquiries established that these statements were also false and that the defendant’s father-in-law has no involvement in these properties whatsoever,” said Detective Cartwright. Detective Cartwright said that the defendant had said he had been forced into committing the offences to convince the board that the company’s share capital had been increased. He had freely admitted giving perjured evidence and arranging for the false document to be produced at the hearing.