Conspiracy alleged in plan to defraud two banks

Press, 6 September 1989, Page 12

Conspiracy alleged in plan to defraud two banks

Crown evidence was completed yesterday in the District Court trial of a man charged with involvement in a conspiracy to defraud two banks. The defendant, Curtis Robert Reeves, aged 25, denied a charge that on or about March 7 he conspired fraudulently with Peter Robert Elliott and others to defraud Trust Bank Canterbury and Postßank, Ltd, of $13,981.50.

The alleged conspiring was by agreeing to tender a Postßank cheque which had been fraudulently altered from $18.50 to $18,500, and to thereby enable the withdrawal of $14,000 by means of a bank cheque made payable to C. R. Reeves.

The trial, before Judge Erber and a jury, will end today. Mr Rupert Glover, for Reeves, said no defence evidence would be called. He and Mr Graeme Panckhurst, for the Crown, will address the jury this morning, before

the Judge sums up. Prosecution witnesses gave evidence that a man of similar appearance to Reeves went to the Papanui branch of Postßank on March 6 and asked for a bank cheque for $18.50.,

The next day a man called at the Bishopdale branch of Trust Bank Canterbury to deposit a cheque for $18,500 into an account in the name of a man, Kelly. About 1% hours later a man, giving his name as Kelly, telephoned a teller at the Linwood branch of Trust Bank Canterbury asking if he could draw against the cheque deposited to his account that day.

The bank teller advised that a quick withdrawal could not be made but that a special procedure could hasten the release of the funds.. The teller offered to call the person back and was given a telephone number.

The caller telephoned back twice. In the mean-

time, bank staff had ascertained the cheque had been altered from the original and, during the man’s third telephone call, the bank’s audit department and the police were also connected to the call.

It was arranged that he call to make a withdrawal.

A man duly arrived and wrote out a withdrawal slip, signed P. Kelly, for a sum of $14,000 to be paid by cheque to C. R. Reeves.

The police arrived while the man was at the counter. His identity was established as Peter Robert Elliott.

Mr Elliott, a university student, said in evidence that he had pleaded guilty and been sentenced for an offence relating to the bank fraud.

He gave evidence and was cross-examined for much of the morning session and into the afternoon.

He said he knew Reeves from meeting him

in a hotel and they also lived near each other.

Mr Elliott gave a detailed account of his own involvement in the matter.

It involved his being prevailed on by a man from Auckland, with a friend, to make use of a bankbook for a fraud. The bankbook had been left with him in 1987 by a young man who had stayed at his flat.

He said he was not prepared to disagree with them and agreed to be involved in the plan that was outlined.

Mr Elliott said he initially became involved unwittingly with the cheque for $18,500. He told of subsequently being picked up in a car and going to a bank to deposit a cheque. Before going to another bank to make the withdrawal he had telephoned the branch. When the teller asked for a telephone number to call back he gave Reeves’s

number. He did not want to give his own number, and planned to telephone back.

Mr Elliott said he went into the bank to make the withdrawal “and became unstuck.” He said his use of the name C. R. Reeves as payee on the intended $14,000 withdrawal had been suggested to him by the man from Auckland. He. assumed the man had identification to use that name.

He did not realise at the time that C. R. Reeves could be Curtis’s (the defendant) name. He did not know the defendant’s full name and thought Curtis was his surname.

He saw he had lent Reeves sums of money in a hotel and once had been paid back $18.50.

He had asked that the money be paid to him with a Postßank cheque. He said it as a way of carrying out the offence which had been suggested to him.