“VICIOUS RACKET”

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 249, 17 July 1937, Page 8

“VICIOUS RACKET”

Frauds on Employment Fund JAIL FOR OFFENDER “It is as bad a form of fraud as possible and reflects very gravely on the character of those who commit it,” said Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, yesterday, during the hearing of charges of obtaining money from the Employment Promotion Fund by means of false statements. “This can almost be described in the colloquial term as a vicious racket. The term ‘racket’ is appropriate, I think, to describe frauds on the fund provided by a generous Government to assist those unfortunates who are not able to fit into the economic and industrial life of the community.” In the first case, Neville Edward Gaudy, aged 21, pleaded guilty to three charges of making false statements for the purpose of obtaining money under the Employment Promotion Act. Mr. E. A. Selman, District Employment Officer, said at the time the offences were committed Gandy was a single man, 20 years of age, living with his widowed mother and a younger sister and was apparently mainly responsible for their support. He was therefore granted the same measure of relief assistance as a married man. His mentality was not very well developed, but he knew if he declared his true private earnings his sustenance allowance would be reduced or discontinued and he, therefore, succumbed to the temptation of concealing his identity by the adoption of an alias while working casually on the wharf. “This type of offence was all too prevalent at the time, and exceedingly difficult to detect, but Gandy was probably encouraged in his actions by older and- more unscrupulous individuals,” said Mr. Selman. “His casual earnings did not amount to very much in the aggregate, but in May, 1936, he received an accident when working for Johnston and Co., under the name of G. E. Thompson, and drew weekly compensation at the rate of £3/13/4 for seven weeks, and also obtained sustenance under his own name at the rate of £l/9/- a week. Again in December, 1936, he met with an accident while working for the Union Steam Ship Company, of New Zealand, Ltd., and drew £3/13/4 a week compensation as G. Thompson, for seven weeks. In five of these weeks he also obtained £l/15/- sustenance by means of false declarations.” On May 12, 1936, Gaudy declared that during the week ended May 9, the amount of wages, remuneration or payment of any kind received by him was nil, though he actually received £3/5/2 for work he did on the waterfront under the names of N. Gandy and G. Thompson. On June 15, 1936, he declared his personal earnings as nil, though he was actually receiving at that time £3/13/4 a week compensation from Johnston and Co., in the name of G. E. Thompson. On February 16 he again declared his income as nil, but under the name of G. Thompson he drew in wages £3/9/11 for work performed on the waterfront. As a result of those and other similar false declarations, Gandy obtained approximately £27 in excess of the amount of relief to which he was entitled. Gandy’s explanation was that he had drawn the excess relief to help his mother, who was having a hard struggle to make ends meet.

Addressing Gandy, the magistrate said no doubt be had been told the money could be easily obtained. He would be ordered to come up for sentence within two years if called upon, on the special condition that he refund £27 under the direction of the probation officer.

“You are strong and able. The country is needing able young men to work on the farms. Some of you young men think you can have a good time in the towns, but that means you are only getting your living by these fraudulent means,” said the magistrate when Gandy told him he was out of work and had no prospect of employment. “I was working for a month on a farm at Martinborough. I had to get up at 3 a.m. and I never got to bed till nine o’clock. All the time I w’as there I received no pay,” Gandy replied. That was a matter to be looked into, the magistrate said in asking the probation officer to endeavour to find Gandy suitable employment. Maximum Penalty. “I am very glad indeed that at last the department has taken action under the Justices of the Peace Act, which enables the court to take appropriate action against this class, of offender,” said the magistrate when Laurence Petersen appeared before him and pleaded guilty to four charges of obtaining £1 from the Employment Promotion Fund by falsely representing his income to have been nil whereas in each case it had been high enough to debar him from receiving sustenance. “There have been plenty of warnings and anyone who comes up now can expect the maximum penalty,” said the magistrate. The district employment officer said he had been instructed to proceed against Petersen under the Justices of the Peace Act for false pretences because of his deliberate frauds on the Employment Promotion Act. In order to obtain the maximum sustenance rate of £1 a week during April and May last he consistently furnished “nil” declarations as to his private earnings or other income. In the weeks covered by the charges his net earnings on the waterfront amounted to £4/18/!). £5 1/1. £2/16/8 and £3/17/8 respectively, and these were sufficiently high in each case to debar him from receiving any sustenance at all. There was a serious aspect of the charges relating to the sustenance payments obtained by Petersen on May 14 and 20. On May 10, Petersen, under the excuse he was suffering from a bad cold, prevailed on his brother to present his declaration of earnings for the previous week. The declaration was accepted, but as the brother was leaving the bureau he was recognised as a claimant who had presented a declaration earlier in the day. Explanations were obtained from Petersen and his brother, and it appeared at first as if they had both acted innocently, though it should be well known by now’ that all sustenance grantees must report in person at the beginning of the week to lodge their claims if they were to, be eligible for payment later in the week. Petersen’s claim having been accepted, his name was included on the pay sheets, but on May 13 when he called to draw his money be was seen to be under the influence of liquor. Payment was therefore deferred till the following day, and Petersen was warned if he were again observed under the influence of liquor he would be refused relief altogether. Petersen now admitted that on May 10 when bls declaration was presented by proxy he was actually working on the Hokitika and earned £l/16/6 net on that day alone. Had he presented true declarations of earnings for those two weeks

he would naturally have been refused any sustenance. The total excess relief obtained by Petersen was £5/12/3, but the circumstances were such that the department would like to see an example made. He was a single man without any dependants. On the first two charges Petersen was sentenced to three months' hard labour, the sentences to be cumulative, and on the other two he was convicted and discharged. £lOO FINE AT AUCKLAND “Seems Very Deliberate Case” By Telegraph—Press Association. Auckland, July 16. A fine of £lOO and costs was imposed by Mr. C. K. Orr-Walker, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court to-day, when Joseph Hood was charged with making a false statement under the Employment Promotion Act. A Department of Labour official said that Hood registered in 1031 as a married man. In June last year he and a woman he had been living with went to England. On his return he immediately registered for relief again, describing himself as married. At no time did Hood disclose what amount of money was held by the woman with whom he lived. He received £lOO/3/- in excess of what he was entitled to. Counsel for Hood said that Hood was previously a ship’s steward, but had been unable to obtain employment for six years. “It seems to be a very deliberate case,’’ said the magistrate, in imposing the fine.