HUGE HATRY FRAUDS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 191, 14 August 1931, Page 11

HUGE HATRY FRAUDS

GUILT OF GIALDINI FIVE YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT SENSATIONAL ITALIAN TRIAL EMOTIONAL COURT SCENES One-time associate of Clarence Hatry and alleged to have suggested the fabrication of certificates by which the Hatry frauds were carried out, John Gialdini, the Italian financier, was found guilty at his trial in Milan, in June, of continued fraud in connection with public moneys and of forgery and uttering forged documents. Gialdini was sentenced to five years and ten months’ imprisonment with hard labour, with one year remitted, and fined £llO, likewise remitted. Subsequently ho lodged an appeal against the punishment. The remissions referred to are in accordance with the amnesty which was granted last year on the occasion of the wedding of the Crown Prince of Piedmont. Gialdini, who had already spent more than a year in prison, was ordered to pay the' costs of the third party, Sir Gilbert Garnsey, liquidator of the Hatry group of companies, and to compensate this civil claimant to the amount demanded in the documents in the case. The total costs in the case had not been determined at the time of the trial, but it is understood that Gialdini was required t.o deposit £20,000 to cover them. His estate in Italy, by an order of the Court, will continue to be sequestered. Charges Against Gialdini Following the £14,000,000 crash of six Hatry companies in September, 1929 Clarence. Hatry was sentenced in January, 1930, to 14 years’ penal servitude for'fraud and forgery of stock certificates. Three associates, Daniels, Dixon and Tabor, received shorter sentences. Gialdini left for Italy just before, the crash and was arrested at the Britis Government’s request. Italy does not consent to extradite its own subjects who are accused of criminal offences •abroad, but makes itself responsible for their trial and, if convicted, punishment. . Gialdini was arrested in Milan on March 15, 1930. The British authorities made an application for his arrest to the Italian authorities, and these sent the documents to the Public Prosecutor at Milan. The examining magistrate at the preliminary inquiry impounded two deposits of money, of a total value of £13,000, which Gialdini had made in two banks. I Evidence against Gialdini was taken in London, in May last year He was charged with forgery of public documents in England and with conspiring with Hatrv and others m the issue ol bogus certificates in connection with loans to Wakefield, Swindon and l Glouctn the nominal value of £900,000,

ostor. to the nominal vaiiw m ~ and with obtaining £795,700 by means of forged scrip. Evidence by Hatty Of the evidence taken on commission, perhaps the most interesting item was the testimony of Clarence Hatty, who was heard in Wandsworth . affidavit, like most of those which followed, tended to establish the close connection of Gialdini with the Hatty <companies. Accused’s counsel followed with the closest attention, frequently jumping up to challenge the exactness of the translation. Points from the written evidence are the following:—Gialdini was in daily consultation with Daniels and t-darencc Hatry up to Juno 23. 19-9. He w ss not only present at all meetings where loans were discussed, but ho was awarof the amounts issued in excess. Moreover he was present at the meeting which decided as a temporary measure, and in anticipation of a huge sum to be forthcoming within twenty-four hours to issue the bogus scrip certificates. Indeed, the idea of the excess stock was Gialdini’s. Nevertheless his object was to assist his group and not to pursue selfish ends. He put no money in his own pocket. i When Daniels was away Gialdini took over full charge of his work. He not onlv discussed but took part in the duplication of the Gloucester and bwindon stock. The story of the dra'natm meeting on Sunday, June -o, Hatry’s country house was repeated. At this Gialdini is alleged to have said that rather than face failure he would blow his brains out. He then helped to work out the duplication scheme. No revolver, however, -was produced. Depositions by Daniels were also produced. Reply by the Accused Gialdini’s reply to the depositions by Hatry and Daniels, was a complete denial." He said:—“My only sorrow is that Hatry and Daniels are not here. Had they been it would have been easy to establish the truth or otherwise of their statements about me. 1 anoiio

say that their depositions are a tissue of lies from beginning to end.” Standing almost motionless but very attentive at the corner of the large dock, Gialdini continued calmly:— “These two men misled and cheated me from the beginning. They duped everybody, even their closest friends, and they have neither heart nor conscience.” Turning to other affidavits, accused said that the witnesses could not know what was said and done during business meetings. It had been said that there were three lists of securities, but Gialdini only admitted to knowledge of ’ two —one of credits in banks and the other of securities in the office sales. EThe securities given as cover for loans 3 were not those in their own safes. Loans 1 were obtained against miscellaneous 1 securities acquired from banks or ob1 tained on the open market. i Loans -And Securities The Austin Friars Trust loans and those of the Corporation and General , Securities Company were negotiated by .. Daniels and Tabor, Gialdini said. Until , 1929 Gialdini never touched a loan for Austin Friars, and even after that date , very few. Daniels took charge of large loans > for which it was necessary to consult j the heads of banks, said Gialdini. He . himself did not know these people. The 2 lists to which he had access were not such as to give a complete idea of the 3 securities at their disposal. ) The speech for the prosecution was > delivered by the Public Prosecutor. , Signor Segureni,a clean-shaven young Sardinian who described Gialdini as a : “constitutional liar.” He said that as , a good Italian he must ask that full [ justice be done for the sake of his country’s good name. He was convinced that Gialdini was guilty if only because his guilt was clearly estab- . lished by the very post he had hold with the'Hatry group. There were also such facts as his escape from England, the telegram from Lausanne instructing his secretary, Mr Dyer, to destroy all his papers, and withdrawal of his from London in circumstances which could not be reconciled with the ex planations given by the defence. Emotional Speech for Defence Signor Gonzales, leading counsel for the defence, a very demonstrative speaker, thumped on the table, gesticulated, clapped his hands, and shouted until his hair was matted with perspiration, and he. was continually obliged to mop his brow. Gialdini’s plea, said Signor Gonzales, was one of innocence. The use to which he was stated to have put the false scrip was an unwitting one. There was nothing strange about his undertaking loans on behalf of the Austin Friars Trust, and then, like Daniels, seeking cover from the banks —it was part oi his ordinary duties. Gialdini denied that the fact of his meeting Hatry and Daniels every day proved that the former was aware of their criminal activities. They had every interest in keeping Gialdini in the. dark about the falsity of the scrip.

s With regard to Hatry “honesty,” it could only be pointed out that the judge in his own country had passed a very severe sentence upon him. Signor Gonzales objected to the word ‘ “flight” in connection with Gialdini > departure from London. Counsel ad-1 milted that it would have been more: ' correct on Gialdini’s part had he returned to London when scandal broke ■ out. ' The accusation that Gialdini had in- 1 ' stigated the frauds was a calumnious: ' one, declared Signor Gonzales. It wasj ' maintained that the offences did not begin until June 23, 1929, whereas in point of fact they had begun any time up to seven years before. Hatry and ? his associates lived on a continuous system of fraud. Their own depositions ‘ showed that Gialdini knew nothing before June 23. There were no proofs against Gialdini, but only circumstantial evidence. ’ urged counsel. It was true that Gial- ’ dini had been weak. He failed to pre- ' sent himself before the court in Lon don, an action which would have compelled appreciation. Gialdini’s wife, pale and overwrought, ; was in court for the final scene. Gialdini himself sat for four hours, nervously twisting a handkerchief in his hands, while his junior counsel, Signor Marchcsano, made an inpassioned ap- ? peal for acquittal. The prosecution, said this counsel. ' realising it had no other leg to stand on, had resuscitated the corpse of a : country house meeting in London and an imaginary threat of suicide by Gial : dini. “Those clean, honest, unsophisticated, straight-forward English finan- ‘ ciers could, of course, contemplate no other but orthodox methods,” he declared, “but the ‘Dago’ was capable of anything. That country house was nothing but a cave of brigands and blackguards.” In a fierce attack on the City of London, Signor Marchcsano declared ; that no country in the world contained : so many filibusters of finance as Eng land. Hatry and his colleagues were , “rogues of the first water.” The Judge: Why attack men who arc ■ now purging their crimes? This question was a check to Signor ■ Marchcsano’s oratory, and shortly after- < wards the verdict and sentence were • pronounce d