Evidence in fraud case

Press, 5 August 1988, Page 15

Evidence in fraud case

A Christchurch man, now a company director, said in the District Court yesterday that “to a certain extent” gambling had caused the financial difficulties he had got into in early 1986. The accused, Brent James Burbery, aged 25, was being cross-examined at his trial on 14 charges of fraud, involving more than $9OOO, relating to offences allegedly committed in Auckland, Wellington, Napier and Te Awamutu from January 11 to March 27, 1986. During his evidence, Burbery had told of having a friend in Kuala Lumpur send a telegraphic transfer for $5OO because of his financial difficulties — but of his immediately spending all but $BO of it on race betting. The jury will retire this morning to consider its verdicts on the 14 charges, after hearing Judge Noble’s summingup.

Crown and defence final addresses were heard late yesterday. The hearing began on Wednesday afternoon,

when Crown evidence was heard. The defence case opened yesterday morning and Burbery was in the witness-box for more than half the day, giving evidence or being crossexamined.

The charges Burbery faces are 12 of using bank cheques or withdrawal vouchers to obtain a financial advantage for himself and two of obtaining credit by fraud at a hotel in Te Awamutu and a motel in Napier. Mr R. E. Neave appears for the Crown. Mr D. J. R. Holderness, for Burbery, said when opening the defence case that evidence would be that at the relevant time of his issuing the cheques or incurring debts Burbery had no intention to defraud. Evidence would be that Burbery previously had obtained loans from a source in Christchurch, and further funds would have been advanced to him in the North Island before his eventual return to Christchurch to work.

Burbery, in evidence, said he was a company director. He detailed vari-

ous jobs he had worked at in the North Island from 1982, interspersed with periods working as a computer programmer in Christchurch.

He had left this job to return to Wellington for a job offer with a computer firm. This job did not work out and he was not happy there and left, after about six weeks, in midJanuary, 1986. Burbery told of issuing various cheques from January 11. The first was cashed at a hotel in Wellington to place bets with a bookmaker. He cashed others also, but believed he had sufficient funds to cover them.. He cashed several cheques at the Wellington Racing Club’s meeting at Trentham and lost a substantial amount in race bets. He intended to continue travelling in the North Island at that time rather than return home to Christchurch to work. He knew his account would be overdrawn but intended to telephone to Christchurch to airange a personal loan. He did not do so because of his embarrassment, and his hav-

ing let people in Christchurch down. Later he also intended selling his holding of Robert Jones shares, worth more than $3OOO, but his sharebroker said there would be a delay in selling them. Referring to his booking into a hotel in Te Awamutu on February 14, 1986, Burbery said he told the proprietress that he had no money but was expecting money from overseas. He telephoned a friend in Kuala Lumpur, told him he had a few problems, asked if the friend could lend him some money, and was sent $5OO.

Burbery said he had given the proprietress his passport, driver’s licence, and supplied his home address in Christchurch.

After receiving the $5OO from Kuala Lumpur he paid the proprietress $BO and lost the remaining money on bets on racehorses.

Cross-examined, Burbery said his intention had always been to telephone Christchurch to ask for sufficient funds to be put into his account.

He agreed that he knew the cheques issued from January 18 onwards were written when he had insufficient funds in his account. He said he had chosen the “wrong option” in gambling and losing most of the $5OO he had borrowed from his friend in Kuala Lumpur, rather than paying the full hotel account at Te Awamutu.

He said he did not stop writing the cheques because he intended at the time to get the money from Christchurch by way of a personal loan. He had no intention of acting dishonestly, because he knew he could telephone Christchurch for the money. In the event, he had not telephoned Christchurch as intended because he “could not pluck up the courage” to ask for an advance. He was embarrassed at letting people down.

“It was a matter of pride,” he said. A witness called by the defence said that if Burbery had telephoned Christchurch the funds would have been advanced to him.