Manager faces 19 charges

Press, 8 March 1988, Page 20

Manager faces 19 charges

A prison, a welfare organisation, and various businesses were alleged in the District Court yesterday to have paid more than they should have for contracts for work done for them by the Christchurch branch of a firm. This was said to. have been because the firm’s local manager had caused extra materials or items to be charged to contracts the firm worked on, and had then used these materials or items at his own property. As a result, the manager faces trial on 17 charges of false accounting of purchase orders, by charging various sums totalling $4420 to businesses or organisations for which contracts were done; and two charges of theft of materials, valued at $2600 in one case and $lOOO in the other, while employed by the company.

The charges of false

accounting relate to various dates between July 5, 1983, and October 3, 1984, and the theft charges to November 1, 1982, and June 1, 1983. On the application of defence counsel, Mr B.J. Drake, the defendant was granted continued interim suppression' of his name. He denied all 19 charges. The trial; before Judge Noble and a jury, will continue today. The Crown, represented by Mr B.| M. Stanaway, with Mr J.; C. S. Sandston, is calling 17 witnesses. Outlining the Crown’s case, Mr j Stanaway detailed the company’s operations ! and said a relatively j sophisticated filing system was maintained, with details of jobs or contracts kept' in a manual filing system in Christchurch and the information forwarded to a computerised filing system at the company’s head office in Auckland.

The defendant was the Christchurch branch office manager from 1980 until August, 1985. Mr Stanaway said the Crown alleged that the defendant, on 17 separate occasions, either himself or through an employee acting under his instructions made purchases of materials which . were charged to his company. These purchases, totalling $4420, were purportedly for use in various contract works the company was engaged on, and were charged to - those contracts.! The result was that the additional costs were allegedly paid for by the company!or other organisations for which contracts were done, in the belief that they were part and parcel of the contract price.

Mr Stanaway said the defendant also allegedly destroyed 293 files which : were held in the com- '

Ipany’s manual filing sys- ! tern in Christchurch. These files contained in- ! formation such as contracts or quotations made by the company, and originals of invoices and payments made out on contracts. i While the loss of the ! records in the Christchurch office severely hampered the investigations into the alleged offences, it was not “fatal" because copies of the original ’ invoices, and computer entries, were i kept in Auckland, Mr Stanaway said. Referring to the two charges of theft as a servant, Mr Stanaway said these related to materials ordered for contract work done by the firm but unused when the jobs were completed. Instead of these being credited to the firm or organisation for which the contracts were done, they were allegedly (kept by

the defendant.

Mr Stanaway said the company became aware in 1985 of purchases made by the defendant, allegedly for his own benefit. He was spoken to by executive officers from the head office in Auckland and allegedly agreed that various purchaes referred to were for his own use. He said these had been made to offset long hours worked and as a “trade off” for storage on his property of materials and equipment belonging to the company. Mr Stanaway said witnesses would give evidence of various items being used at the defendant’s property. These allegedly were still in place when the police, investigating the complaints, searched the defendant’s property.