R v Bracken
[2021] NZHC 609
•26 March 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE
CRI-2019-016-1336
[2021] NZHC 609
THE QUEEN v
JOHN RICHARD BRACKEN
Hearing: 8 March 2021 Appearances:
C R Walker and M Mitchell for Crown Defendant appears in person
A M Simperingham as standby counsel
Verdicts:
26 March 2021
Reasons:
26 March 2021
REASONS FOR VERDICTS OF LANG J
R v BRACKEN [2021] NZHC 609 [26 March 2021]
Table of Contents
Para No
Background.......................................................................................................... [4]
Onus and standard of proof............................................................................. [17]
The Crown case.................................................................................................. [19]
The defence approach....................................................................................... [27]
Elements of the charge...................................................................................... [35]
Preliminary issues.............................................................................................. [43]
Jurisdiction [44]
Search of Mr Bracken’s property [48]
The use of s 17 Notices [53]
Failure to produce original documents [57]
The creation of the tax invoices on which BEL relied in its GST returns [61]
Ms Mookerjee [62]
Ms Raelene Poole [68]
The evidence given by suppliers about invoices ostensibly issued to BEL [82]
MSM Holdings Ltd (MSM) [82]
Wiri Pacific Ltd (Wiri Pacific) [90]
Pinnacle Timber Ltd (Pinnacle) [97]
Pure Dew Water Co Ltd (Pure Dew) [107]
W-Force International Ltd (W-Force) [115]Hiktown Ltd (Hiktown) [123]
Hiktown [124]
Kohumaru Forest [130]
Eric Lloyd [133]
NZ Pine Ltd (NZ Pine) [135]
J & R Whitehead Trust [146]
James Timber Ltd (James Timber) [152]
Healthy Start NZ Ltd (Healthy Start)........................................................... [158] Freight charges.......................................................................................................... [162]
Ray Ironman Ltd........................................................................................... [166]
Other purchases............................................................................................ [169]
Unmatched to specific suppliers................................................................... [172]
Prime Flooring [173]
CM Contracting [175]
Colson Importers [178]
The digger......................................................................................................... [180]
Conclusion........................................................................................................ [182]
Result................................................................................................................ [186]
[1] Mr Bracken faces 39 charges of dishonestly and without claim of right using goods and services tax returns with the intention of obtaining a pecuniary advantage.1 The returns in question span the period from August 2014 until July 2018.
[2] Mr Bracken does not recognise the validity of the charges and has refused to enter pleas to them. The Court has therefore proceeded on the basis that Mr Bracken denies the charges and the Crown must prove each of the charges to the required standard.
[3] Mr Bracken elected to be tried by a Judge sitting without a jury. I heard the evidence over eight days commencing on 8 March 2021. On 26 March 2021 I delivered verdicts in which I found Mr Bracken guilty on all charges. I now give my reasons for those verdicts.
Background
[4] Mr Bracken is the sole director of a company called Bracken Enterprises Limited (BEL). BEL was incorporated on 16 September 2003 with a share capital consisting of 1,000 shares of $1 each. The Bracken Family Trust (the Trust) owns 998 shares in BEL. The trustees of the Trust are Mr Bracken, his wife Margaret and a Gisborne accountant, Mr Richard Harding. Mr and Mrs Bracken each own one share in BEL.
[5] During the period covered by the charges BEL carried on two forms of business. First, it operated a sheep and beef dry stock farming business on land situated near Matawai, to the west of Gisborne. The land is owned by the Trust and BEL pays rental to the Trust for the use of its land.
[6] Secondly, BEL operated a business in which it deals in plywood and other timber products. It also exported these goods as well as kitset houses, milk, honey and bottled water to the Pacific Islands.
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 228(1)(b).
[7] BEL became a registered person under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act 1985 when it was incorporated in 2003. Its tax year ends on 30 June each year. Initially BEL filed GST returns every two months on what is known as a “payments basis”. This requires GST to be calculated in accordance with payments the registered person has made and received during the relevant period. In February 2016, BEL began accounting for GST on what is known as an “invoice basis”. This required it to account monthly for GST on transactions for which it had either invoiced debtors or for which it had been invoiced by creditors during the previous month. BEL was required to file GST returns within 28 days of the end of the month.
[8] The Gisborne accounting firm of Bain & Sheppard Ltd (Bain & Sheppard) acted as BEL’s tax agent. Mr Harding, one of the trustees of the Trust, was the director of that firm who dealt with Mr and Mrs Bracken in relation to BEL’s financial and taxation affairs. Ms Sandra Moorcroft, one of the firm’s employees, was responsible for preparing the GST returns. She said Mrs Bracken would usually drop off a folder of invoices at the end of each month. The firm had direct access to BEL’s bank records. Ms Moorcroft would then match the transactions shown in the company’s bank statements with those in the invoices. In situations where tax invoices had been issued or received but no payment had been made, Ms Moorcroft created journal entries to reflect the transactions contained in the invoices. Mr Harding said the firm would send copies of the GST returns to Mr and Mrs Bracken for their approval before submitting them to the Inland Revenue Department (the IRD).
[9] The IRD commenced an investigation of BEL’s GST returns in early 2018 after the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) notified it of potential irregularities in BEL’s tax affairs. The SFO had become involved in 2017 after Ms Raelene Poole, the person then responsible for preparing BEL’s invoices, contacted it to enquire about the legality of what she was doing. The Serious Fraud Office also referred the matter to the Assets Recovery Unit of the New Zealand Police.
[10] Detective Sergeant Paul Camplin of the Assets Recovery Unit subsequently interviewed Ms Poole on three occasions, and she permitted him to copy the hard drive of her computer and gave him some memory sticks. When these were examined the police found template invoices of the type BEL had been supplying to Bain
& Sheppard for use in compiling BEL’s GST returns. The police then passed this information on to IRD for further investigation to be carried out.2
[11] Mr Rob Macdonald was the tax inspector responsible for conducting the IRD investigation into BEL’s GST affairs. He issued notices under s 17 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 (s 17 notices) requiring entities that had dealt with BEL and Mr Bracken to provide the IRD with information and documents relevant to those dealings. Mr Macdonald issued s 17 notices to entities including BEL’s bank, Bain & Sheppard and persons who had supplied product to BEL during the period covered by the investigation.
[12] Bain & Sheppard provided Mr Macdonald with four Eastlight folders containing invoices Mr and Mrs Bracken had supplied for GST periods during the 2018 tax year. This material ultimately extended into April 2019. Bain & Sheppard had followed its usual practice of returning invoices held in relation to earlier years to BEL. BEL ignored s 17 notices that Mr Macdonald issued to it. The IRD has therefore never had access to invoices held by BEL for the tax years prior to 2018.
[13] Bain & Sheppard also provided the IRD with a copy of their working papers for the tax years ending 31 March 2014 to 2019. Ms Moorcroft created these as she prepared BEL’s GST returns for each period of taxable activity. They showed the manner in which Ms Moorcroft had compared and analysed individual transactions shown in BEL’s bank statements against the invoices provided for each period of taxable activity. This laid the foundation for each of the GST returns Bain & Sheppard had filed with the IRD.
[14] Mr Macdonald used the bank statements and the material provided by Bain & Sheppard relating to the 2018 year to determine how Bain & Sheppard had created BEL’s GST returns for that year. He also interviewed and obtained copies of invoices held by persons who had supplied product to BEL between 2014 and 2018.
2 The Assets Recovery Unit subsequently obtained restraining orders against property owned by BEL, the Trust and Mr and Mrs Bracken in civil proceedings commenced under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.
[15] The IRD laid the present charges on 30 May 2019 at the conclusion of Mr Macdonald’s investigation. They relate to the GST returns that BEL filed between 26 September 2014 and 28 August 2018. In each return BEL claimed, and received, a refund of GST. This occurred because each return disclosed that BEL had paid more input tax from product that it purchased than it received by way of output tax from product that it sold. BEL’s returns disclosed that it exported virtually all of the product that it purchased to the Pacific Islands. This meant that, although it was entitled to claim input tax credits for product that it purchased, it was not required to pay output tax on the product it then sold overseas. The sale of goods for export is a zero-rated activity for GST purposes.
[16] For the reasons I shall outline shortly the Crown contends the GST returns contained false information because they were based on fictitious transactions recorded in forged invoices that Mr and Mrs Bracken provided to Bain & Sheppard.
Onus and standard of proof
[17] Mr Bracken faces criminal charges. He enjoys the presumption of innocence. This means he is presumed innocent unless and until the Crown has proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, he bears no onus to give evidence or prove anything to answer any of the charges. He elected to call evidence but in doing so assumed no onus to prove anything at all.
[18] The Crown bears the onus of proving each element of each charge beyond reasonable doubt. This is a high standard and will only be met if, after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, I am sure of his guilt on any or all of the charges. It is not sufficient for the Crown to prove Mr Bracken is probably guilty or even very likely guilty.
The Crown case
[19] The Crown contends BEL’s GST returns were false because many of the claims for input tax credit related to fictitious purchases of product. These were supported by invoices purportedly issued by BEL’s suppliers but which the Crown contends were created by persons acting on Mr Bracken’s instructions. In addition, the Crown says
BEL falsely claimed it had undertaken the export of product received from its suppliers. This method enabled BEL to claim input tax on product it never received and to evade payment of output tax.
[20] The Crown also relies on the method Mr Bracken used to pay for product that it says BEL never received. In accordance with usual commercial practice BEL generally paid its suppliers on the 20th day of the month following purchase of product. BEL adopted a different practice for the purchase of the so-called fictitious product. It paid for those goods on the same date the invoice was issued. Mr Bracken made these payments by withdrawing cash from BEL’s account or obtaining a bank cheque made out to either himself or BEL. He then immediately re-banked the cash or bank cheque into BEL’s account, sometimes adding additional cash to the deposit to make it look different to the earlier withdrawal. Occasionally he would re-deposit the funds into another of BEL’s accounts or to an account that he operated in the name of “Mobile Veges”.
[21] The Crown says this resulted in a “money go round” that enabled BEL to claim it was paying for product when that was not the case at all. Neither Mr Harding nor Ms Moorcroft detected any anomaly because the bank records matched the invoices provided to Bain & Sheppard in relation to each period of taxable activity. Furthermore, two verification checks that the IRD carried out when BEL sought GST refunds amounting to more than $1 million also failed to detect any wrongdoing.
[22] The Crown contends this crude but effective scheme enabled BEL to falsely claim it had purchased product amounting to $133,960,931.10 and that it had exported goods to the value of $132,791,269 during the period covered by the investigation. In other words, it exported virtually all of product it purchased.
[23] The records held by the New Zealand Customs Service record that BEL exported products to Niue under its own name on 20 occasions between 1 May 2011 and 19 July 2018. The documentation BEL provided to the Customs Service in relation to those exports estimated the goods it exported had a total value of $478,000.
[24] BEL also sometimes exported product to the Pacific Islands in conjunction with a company called Shopexports and Freight Ltd (Shopexports). Shopexports was a freight forwarder that exported goods to the Pacific Islands. On occasions it would purchase timber from BEL for export. On some occasions both Shopexports and BEL would load goods in a container. The container would then be exported under the name of Shopexports rather than BEL. The value of goods BEL exported in this way is not known. It is unlikely to be significant for present purposes, however, because records held by the Customs Service show that Shopexports exported goods having a total value of just $3.2 million between January 2012 and July 2018.
[25] The Crown contends the fictitious transactions supported by forged invoices enabled BEL to obtain GST refunds to which it was not entitled totalling approximately $17.5 million. A summary of these transactions is contained in Appendix A to these reasons. The Crown produced this at trial as Exhibit 31.
[26] The amounts that BEL obtained is also set out on a charge by charge basis in Appendix B. The Crown produced this at trial as Exhibit 65.
The defence approach
[27] Mr Bracken did not directly confront the allegations the Crown made in relation to the charges. In particular, he did not address the Crown’s allegation that he had arranged for false invoices to be prepared. Rather, his cross-examination of Crown witnesses related largely to peripheral issues.
[28] By way of example, Mr Bracken cross-examined some witnesses about an issue that had arisen with BEL’s bank because he deposited large quantities of cash BEL had received from customers in the Pacific Islands. These entities apparently preferred to pay for product in cash. Mr Bracken suggested to Ms Shona Mookerjee, with whom he dealt at the bank, that the bank found the cash deposits difficult to process and stopped him from making them.
[29] It is difficult to see how this proposition was relevant to the central allegations the Crown made. In any event Ms Mookerjee did not agree with the suggestion Mr Bracken put to her. She said bank staff had noticed Mr Bracken was being put to
a great deal of effort because he was withdrawing and re-depositing large quantities of cash. She therefore did her best to persuade him to adopt a different system to make it easier for himself. She denied that the withdrawal and re-deposit of considerable quantities of cash created an issue for the bank, or that the bank stopped him from continuing with that practice. Mr Bracken did not call any evidence to take this issue further and I see no basis on which it might assist Mr Bracken to defend the charges in any event.
[30] Mr Bracken also asked several of the suppliers who were called as Crown witnesses whether they recalled being visited five or six years ago by some Indian men. Some had no recollection of this occurring whilst others recalled it vaguely. Mr Bracken did not go on to explore the issue further with any of those witnesses, however, and he did not adduce any evidence about it. It is therefore of no relevance for present purposes.
[31] Mr Bracken called three witnesses to address other issues. Two of these, Mr Stuart Ross and Mr Collin Fry, gave evidence about the scale of BEL’s export operations and the size of the various business premises from which it operated. They also gave evidence about assisting Mr Bracken to load containers of timber and building materials for export to the Pacific Islands. In addition, Mr Bracken asked them about conversations they had heard Mr Bracken engage in with high-ranking politicians from the Pacific Islands regarding the export of kitset houses to that region.
[32] This evidence did not advance Mr Bracken’s case to any material degree because the Crown has always accepted that BEL carried on legitimate trading activities of this type. Furthermore, evidence from the New Zealand Customs Service demonstrated that BEL had exported quantities of timber and building products, including kitset houses, to the Pacific Islands on 20 occasions during the relevant period.
[33] Mr Bracken’s third witness was Mr Benjamin Te Pairi, who gave evidence regarding his views of constitutional issues and tikanga-related matters. Mr Te Pairi contended the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the present charges. I deal with this
issue later in these reasons.3 It is sufficient for present purposes to say that I reject Mr Te Pairi’s evidence on this issue.
[34] It follows that the evidence called by Mr Bracken is of little or no relevance to the issues I am required to decide. I must therefore determine whether the evidence adduced by the Crown is sufficient to prove the charges to the required standard.
Elements of the charge
[35]Section 228 of the Crimes Act 1961 provides:
228 Dishonestly taking or using document
(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to obtain any property, service, pecuniary advantage, or valuable consideration,—
(a)dishonestly and without claim of right, takes or obtains any document; or
(b)dishonestly and without claim of right, uses or attempts to use any document.
…
[36] Section 228 lies within Part 10 of the Crimes Act 1961. Section 217 of the Act provides the following definitions relevant to charges laid in that Part:
dishonestly, in relation to an act or omission, means done or omitted without a belief that there was express or implied consent to, or authority for, the act or omission from a person entitled to give such consent or authority
document means a document, or part of a document, in any form; and includes, without limitation,—
(a) any paper or other material used for writing or printing that is marked with matter capable of being read; or
(b) any photograph, or any photographic negative, plate, slide, film, or microfilm, or any photostatic negative; or
(c) any disc, tape, wire, sound track, card, or other material or device in or on which information, sounds, or other data are recorded, stored (whether temporarily or permanently), or embodied so as to be capable, with or without the aid of some other equipment, of being reproduced; or
3 At [44]-[47].
(d) any material by means of which information is supplied, whether directly or by means of any equipment, to any device used for recording or storing or processing information; or
(e) any material derived, whether directly or by means of any equipment, from information recorded or stored or processed by any device used for recording or storing or processing information
obtain, in relation to any person, means obtain or retain for himself or herself or for any other person.
[37] There is no dispute that BEL used the GST returns because, through Mr and Mrs Bracken, it authorised Bain & Sheppard to file them with the IRD on its behalf. Furthermore, the returns enabled BEL to obtain pecuniary benefits in the form of the GST refunds it received. Nor can there be any dispute that each return fell within the definition of “document” contained in s 217. The only issue to be determined is whether Mr Bracken arranged for, or assisted, BEL to use the GST returns dishonestly and without claim of right with the intention of enabling it to obtain the refunds it received.
[38] In this context the Crown alleges Mr Bracken was a party to offending by BEL because he procured or assisted it to commit the offences.4 Furthermore, he knew exactly what BEL was doing because he was the architect of the entire scheme. He also acted intentionally and knowing that what BEL was doing was dishonest and without colour of right.
[39] The definition of “dishonesty” in s 217 focusses on an act, in this case the use of a document, committed when the person committing the act does not believe there was express or implied consent or authority for that act from a person entitled to give such consent or authority. During closing submissions Ms Mitchell submitted on behalf of the Crown that the dishonesty in this case flowed from the fact that Mr Bracken had created false invoices without the knowledge or authority of the entities in whose name they were purportedly issued. The fact that those entities had no knowledge of what he was doing meant they could not give their consent or authority to the use of invoices issued in their names.
4 Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1)(c) and (d).
[40] This submission would have merit if Mr Bracken had been charged with dishonestly using forged invoices with intent to gain a pecuniary benefit. However, he is not charged with dishonestly using the invoices in that way. Rather, he is charged with using the GST returns with the intent to obtain a pecuniary benefit for BEL. I consider the dishonesty must relate to that act rather than the act of using the invoices.
[41] There may be cases where a taxpayer files tax returns in the belief that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue has approved or authorised the treatment of transactions in a particular way for tax purposes. In such cases it will be difficult for the Crown to prove an offence has been committed under s 228(1)(b).
[42] This is not such a case. There can be no suggestion Mr Bracken believed the Commissioner had authorised or approved the inclusion of fictitious transactions in BEL’s GST returns. I therefore consider dishonesty will be proved in the present context if the Crown can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Bracken authorised Bain & Sheppard to file GST returns that he knew were based on false information about the transactions underpinning the returns. This is because, in common with all taxpayers, Mr Bracken knew BEL was required to file tax returns that accurately reflected those transactions it had undertaken that affected its liability to taxation.
Preliminary issues
[43] Before considering the issues that are central to the charges I deal with four preliminary issues.
Jurisdiction
[44] Mr Te Pairi based his submission that the Court had no jurisdiction to determine the charges on the fact that Mr Bracken had been “whangaied” into an incorporated society known as the Nga Tikanga Māori Law Society Inc. This body is apparently incorporated under the Te Ture Whenua Māori/Māori Land Act 1993 and the Māori Incorporations Constitution Regulations 1994.
[45] Mr Te Pairi relied on the following observations made by Judge Wickliffe on 30 August 2004 in a case before the Māori Land Court involving the Te Nahu Whānau Trust:5
Court: Yes. I have to say that I’ve had a look at the documents that have been filed regarding the incorporation proposed by the Ngā Tikanga Māori Law Society. It seems an interesting proposal but just to note that that idea of incorporation is different to and separate from Māori incorporations set up under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act and created in this Court. They are quite different I just want you to know that so when you go into your meeting, whatever decision you made, you make it knowing and understanding that they’re two different things. We’ll have our Court officer there who can explain what an incorporation is under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act which is incorporated by order of the Court and there is a difference to the incorporation established by Ngā Tikanga Māori Law Society. They will provide their proposal and outline what that is when they talk to you. But they’re different and the Court has no jurisdiction over the entity that is created under the Tikanga Māori Law Society and that body is quite different.
[46] As will be apparent, Judge Wickliffe made these observations during a discussion with the parties rather than as a formal ruling or determination. More importantly, however, she made them in an entirely different context to the present. The proposition that this Court has no jurisdiction to determine charges laid against Mr Bracken under the Crimes Act 1961 is plainly contrary to established authority. The Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 relates to Māori land under the land transfer system established by the Land Transfer Act 2017 and its predecessors. It does not apply in any way to the Crimes Act 1961 or to criminal law in New Zealand. Furthermore, there is no express provision in the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 giving the Māori Land Court or any corporation established under that legislation the power to exercise any jurisdiction in relation to criminal offences.6
[47] The Crimes Act 1961 extends to all individuals who reside in New Zealand regardless of any affiliation they might have with any incorporated society. I therefore reject the proposition that this Court has no jurisdiction to determine the charges in the present case.
5 Gorst – Te Nahu Whanau Trust (2004) 107 Wairoa MB 88 (107 WR 88).
6 R v Miru HC Auckland T992580, 26 April 2000 at [9].
Search of Mr Bracken’s property
[48] The police obtained a search warrant that entitled them to search the farm on which BEL operates its business. Detective Camplin was a member of the police team that executed the warrant on 18 December 2018. He said Mr and Mrs Bracken were not home when they arrived, so he left officers guarding the address whilst he executed another search warrant at Mr Bracken’s son’s address. He then returned to the farm and a short time later Mr and Mrs Bracken arrived. At that point the police gave Mr Bracken a copy of the search warrant and proceeded to search the property. He said that, although the police had removed a gate when they first went onto the property, they did not need to gain forcible entry to the dwelling because Mr Bracken led them into it.
[49] Mr Bracken cross-examined the detective about several aspects of the search. First, he challenged Detective Camplin’s assertion that the police waited until Mr and Mrs Bracken arrived before searching the address. Mr Bracken suggested the police had already entered the address before he and his wife arrived. The detective denied this occurred and I have heard no evidence from any other witness to the contrary.
[50] Mr Bracken also pointed out that the signature of the person who issued the search warrant was indistinct on the copy of the warrant that the police gave him. That was not the case with the copy of the search warrant the detective had with him when he gave evidence. Having seen both documents I am satisfied that the wording of both documents is identical even though the layout is slightly different. I do not consider any issue arises from this.
[51] Next, Mr Bracken suggested to the detective that the police entered a woolshed on the property by breaking a padlock when they had no right to search the woolshed. The wording used in the search warrant makes it clear, however, that the police had the power to search the entire farm property and to forcibly enter any building if they needed to.
[52] These issues are rendered moot in any event because the Crown did not produce any of the items seized by the police during the search of the farm as exhibits
at the trial. Any irregularity arising out of the search of the farm is therefore immaterial for present purposes.
The use of s 17 Notices
[53] In his closing submissions Mr Bracken asked me to scrutinise the s 17 notices Mr Macdonald had issued to persons connected with this case. He contended Mr Macdonald had issued the notices after the charges were laid and he did so for an improper purpose, namely to gain evidence to support the charges.
[54] It is not possible for me to undertake this exercise because Mr Macdonald was not asked to produce copies of the s 17 notices when he gave evidence and was cross- examined. The date upon which he issued each notice is therefore not in evidence. It is noteworthy however that Mr Bracken did not formally challenge the admissibility of any evidence obtained using the s 17 notices before trial or when Mr Macdonald gave evidence.
[55] Mr Macdonald also said he began the investigation in March 2018 and issued the s 17 notices shortly thereafter. He stated in cross-examination that he had not issued any s 17 notices after the charges were filed on 30 May 2019. This is not surprising because the material obtained from Bain & Sheppard and BEL’s bank and suppliers underpinned the IRD’s decision to lay the charges. The IRD could not have made that decision if Mr Macdonald had not already obtained the bulk of that material.
[56] I am therefore satisfied that, although it is not now possible for me to conduct the exercise of determining when the notices were issued, the available evidence points to the conclusion that Mr Macdonald issued them prior to 30 May 2019.
Failure to produce original documents
[57] In his closing submissions Mr Bracken criticised the fact that the prosecution had produced copies of documents and not the originals. This issue was not explored in any depth during the trial and Mr Bracken did not formally object to copies of documents being produced rather than originals until he made his closing submissions.
[58] The objection overlooks the fact that in many cases no original document exists because the documents were created electronically. By way of example, the material downloaded from Ms Poole’s computers and hard drives originally existed only in electronic form. Similarly, the material Mr Macdonald obtained from Bain & Sheppard, BEL’s bank and suppliers was all stored by those entities in electronic form. The spreadsheets prepared by Mr Macdonald and produced at trial were also created electronically.
[59] In the absence of any formal objection taken before or at trial I am not prepared to sift through the eight folders of documents that were produced at trial to see whether it would have been possible for the Crown to have produced the originals of some documents rather than copies. In any event I see no unfair prejudice to Mr Bracken arising out of the fact that copies of some documents were produced as exhibits rather than the originals.
[60] The alleged creation of false tax invoices lies at the heart of the case against Mr Bracken. I therefore deal with this issue first.
The creation of the tax invoices on which BEL relied in its GST returns
[61] The Crown alleges that Ms Shona Mookerjee7 and Ms Raelene Poole were responsible for creating many of the tax invoices that BEL provided to Bain & Sheppard so they could prepare the GST returns.
Ms Mookerjee
[62] Ms Mookerjee met and dealt with Mr Bracken whilst she was working on a part-time basis at the Takanini branch of the ANZ bank. Mr Bracken went to that branch regularly to withdraw and deposit funds into BEL’s bank accounts. Ms Mookerjee said he would visit the branch on two to three occasions each week to deposit or withdraw funds, often in cash. She noticed that the transactions followed a definite pattern in which a withdrawal would be accompanied by a corresponding deposit. Over time Ms Mookerjee said she became aware Mr Bracken had a farm in
7 Ms Mookerjee went by the name of Shona Grimes at the time of the events about which she gave evidence.
Gisborne and that he exported products such as timber, building materials and water to the Pacific Islands.
[63] Ms Mookerjee said she found Mr Bracken a friendly person and easy to deal with. She said that after she had been dealing with Mr Bracken at the bank for some time he suggested to her that she could work for BEL on a part-time basis preparing invoices. She agreed to this and began preparing tax invoices on BEL’s behalf in the second quarter of 2015. She continued in this role until the second quarter of 2016.
[64] Ms Mookerjee said Mr Bracken provided her with sample invoices BEL had received from its suppliers. She then turned these into documents that could be used as templates. She would meet Mr Bracken periodically and he would provide her with bank statements and details of the tax invoices he needed her to create so they matched the transactions shown in BEL’s bank statements. She would then create the invoices on her own computer and print off copies that she would give to Mr Bracken. She said she would change the invoice number and ensure the date and amount shown in each invoice matched the dates and amounts of transactions shown in the bank statements. The description of the product purchased generally did not change. She said she could remember creating invoices in the name of Wiri Timber and Pure Dew Water but could not recall the names of other suppliers in whose name she created invoices in this way. She said she understood she was creating the invoices to enable Mr Bracken’s accountant to reconcile Mr Bracken’s accounts.
[65] Ms Mookerjee said Mr Bracken paid her between $200 and $300 in cash for each batch of invoices she produced. She had no idea that she may have been doing anything wrong and said she would not have created the invoices if she had thought this was the case. She recalled showing Ms Poole what to do when Ms Poole assumed responsibility for creating invoices for Mr Bracken in 2016.
[66] In cross-examination Ms Mookerjee agreed that the transactions Mr Bracken undertook at the bank were normal but said that it was very time-consuming for him. She also said it was rare for customers to deposit and withdraw cash amounts of the size Mr Bracken was withdrawing and then re-depositing. She said she endeavoured to help Mr Bracken streamline what he was doing because of this fact.
[67] Ms Mookerjee has no reason to lie about what she says she did for Mr Bracken and he did not challenge her evidence on any substantive issue. I am satisfied Ms Mookerjee is a truthful and reliable witness and I accept her evidence accordingly.
Ms Raelene Poole
[68] Ms Poole said she first met Mr Bracken in Christchurch in 2014 when she responded to an advertisement in the local newspaper that sought applicants for the position of a tour guide. She met him at a hotel on a Sunday for a job interview. She spent the rest of the day with Mr Bracken and also spent that night with him. She said they quickly became involved in an intimate relationship and this resulted in her travelling to Auckland. By that stage the job she had originally applied for was no longer available but Ms Poole said she accepted an offer by Mr Bracken to move to Auckland so she could assist him in the running of his business. She said she was originally going to be a paid employee but this did not eventuate.
[69] Ms Poole said she worked at BEL’s yard in Auckland, which at that time was near the airport. She helped load containers with building items that were to be sent to Niue. This included joinery, piping and household appliances.
[70] Ms Poole said she ultimately moved to Auckland on a permanent basis. She and Mr Bracken rented an apartment near the airport and Mr Bracken helped pay the rent. If they went out for meals he would pay for both of them, mainly using cash.
[71] In or about March 2015 Ms Poole said Mr Bracken’s business moved to Pukekohe. They then rented an address at Port Waikato. During this period Ms Poole said Shona Mookerjee was creating Mr Bracken’s invoices for him. She did not like the fact that Mr Bracken would meet with Ms Mookerjee at different locations, including motels, in connection with the creation of the invoices. She also said Mr Bracken would become frustrated because Ms Mookerjee would occasionally not have invoices ready when he needed them for his accountants. She therefore offered to create the invoices for Mr Bracken herself.
[72] Ms Poole confirmed that Ms Mookerjee showed her how to create the invoices from template documents. Ms Poole said she scanned the templates into an application
called Paint. She used the templates to create invoices in which the only item she needed to change was the date and the amount for which the invoice was issued. She would then print the invoices off and provide them to Mr Bracken. He gave her instructions regarding the dates and other information to be entered on each invoice by writing them down on a piece of paper or sending her a photograph on his cellphone. She would then create the invoices and print them out using a printer at the library or some other place where the public could use a printer.
[73] During her evidence Ms Poole was shown copies of invoices contained in the folders of documents Bain & Sheppard had provided to the IRD in relation to the 2018 year. She confirmed these were copies of invoices she had created. They included invoices that purported to have been issued by Pure Dew Water and the J & R Whitehead Trust.
[74] Ms Poole said she did not understand what Mr Bracken was going to use the invoices for. She believed he had asked her to create them because he is dyslexic. She became concerned about what she was doing when one of Mr Bracken’s friends, Mr Alan Ebbett, made a passing comment that Ms Poole should not be making the invoices because she could get into trouble and go to jail. She then made enquiries on the internet and ultimately telephoned the Serious Fraud Office at some stage during 2017. She says the Serious Fraud Office told her to continue creating the statements for Mr Bracken so that suspicion would not fall on her if what he was doing was subsequently discovered.
[75] Ms Poole said she did not hear from the Serious Fraud Office again but approximately a year later Detective Camplin came to her address. At that stage she was still creating the invoices for Mr Bracken. She agreed to provide Detective Camplin with memory sticks and copies of the hard drive on her computer. She said she was preparing 12 to 15 invoices every month in the names of several different companies. She thought this continued from about August 2015 until approximately February 2018. She said she asked Mr Bracken on one occasion whether what she was doing was legitimate and would not get her into trouble. She said he told her it was fine.
[76] Mr Bracken initially purchased a desktop computer and then subsequently a laptop for Ms Poole to use both in preparing the invoices and for her personal use. Ms Poole said she ceased preparing invoices for Mr Bracken in early 2018 when he stopped giving them to her to prepare. She understood he had arranged for his daughter to prepare invoices in her place.
[77] Mr Bracken challenged Ms Poole vigorously about several aspects of her evidence. He also suggested she would not have continued preparing the invoices if she seriously believed he was doing anything wrong. Ms Poole agreed with that suggestion.
[78] Ordinarily it would be necessary to scrutinise the evidence given by Ms Poole with some care. This arises from the fact that she plainly remains deeply troubled by the way in which her relationship with Mr Bracken ended. This could easily colour the evidence she gave about her dealings with him. Importantly, however, Mr Bracken did not challenge Ms Poole’s assertion that she acted on his instructions to prepare invoices in the name of BEL’s suppliers from mid to late 2015 until early 2018. There is also the fact that both the police and Mr Macdonald found documents relevant to the present charges after Ms Poole gave Detective Camplin access to the material stored on her computer and memory sticks.
[79] There is some doubt as to whether Ms Poole is correct in saying she began preparing invoices in 2015 because Ms Mookerjee claimed to have been responsible for preparing the invoices until 2016. This issue is immaterial for present purposes because, regardless of which date is correct, both women acknowledge that Ms Mookerjee initially prepared the invoices and that she then passed that responsibility over to Ms Poole. That fact is confirmed by the documents the police found on Ms Poole’s computer and memory sticks. I am therefore satisfied that on central issues Ms Poole is a truthful and reliable witness.
[80] The combined effect of the evidence given by Mr Mookerjee and Ms Poole is that from 2014 they were creating invoices to match transactions shown on BEL’s bank statements. They were doing so in accordance with the direct instructions of
Mr Bracken. They gave the invoices to Mr Bracken, who then passed them on to Bain & Sheppard for the purpose of preparing BEL’s GST returns.
[81] I now turn to consider the evidence given by suppliers about invoices ostensibly issued by them to BEL.
The evidence given by suppliers about invoices ostensibly issued to BEL
MSM Holdings Ltd (MSM)
[82] MSM is primarily a property development company that undertakes subdivisions and other land transactions. Up until recently Mr Gerald Williams was a director of MSM. He said in evidence that MSM had a sideline business involving the production and sale of UHT (long life) milk. MSM engaged a company in Hastings to treat, bottle and label the milk on its behalf. The milk was bottled under MSM’s label, for which it held a trademark. MSM then sold the milk to a network of distributors.
[83] Mr Williams said he recalled receiving an enquiry from one of his distributors about the possibility of selling milk to Mr Bracken for export. He also recalls sending one or two pallets of milk to this distributor to be passed on to Mr Bracken as a sample. MSM also provided the distributor with a pro forma invoice setting out the terms on which MSM would be prepared to supply milk to BEL via the distributor.
[84] Mr Williams said nothing eventuated from this proposal. He does not recall sending further milk to either his distributor or BEL after the initial sample. He said that if any sales had occurred MSM would have issued invoices to its distributor and not to Mr Bracken or BEL directly.
[85] Mr Williams’ evidence is starkly at odds with the documentary material obtained by Mr Macdonald from Bain & Sheppard. Bain & Sheppard held invoices showing that BEL had purchased quantities of UHT milk from MSM totalling
$2,510,813 during the 2018 tax year. Each of the invoices for these transactions was for the sum of $66,074.40 inclusive of GST.
[86] The working papers created by Bain & Sheppard showed that BEL had also purchased milk from MSM to a total value of $1,652,485.40 and $2,312,592.80 during the 2016 and 2017 years respectively. These figures were based on invoices provided to Bain & Sheppard when they prepared GST returns during those years. The transactions BEL allegedly undertook with MSM therefore ostensibly involved the purchase of product to a total value of $6,475,891.20. This resulted in BEL claiming input tax credits amounting to $844,681.46.
[87] When he gave evidence Mr Williams was asked to look at one of the invoices Mr Macdonald had obtained from Bain & Sheppard. He said it looked like the pro forma invoice he had provided to his distributor in answer to the query about the possibility of supplying milk to Mr Bracken. The invoice that was shown to Mr Williams was headed “Pro Forma Tax Invoice for Samoa Order”. Mr Williams said an invoice for the actual supply of product would not be headed up in that way.
[88] Furthermore, each of the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard for the 2018 year related to the supply of two 20-foot containers of Farm Fresh UHT milk. Each was said to contain 13,880 bottles of milk. In total the invoices relate to the sale of 78 containers of milk over a nine month period. If the invoices supplied to Bain & Sheppard in 2016 and 2017 are taken into account they show that BEL bought more than $6.4 million worth of milk from MSM between 2016 and 2018. The sheer volume and value of these transactions is such that Mr Williams could not be mistaken when he said MSM did not supply milk to Mr Bracken or his company. He would have been well aware of doing business of that magnitude over a three year period. The only realistic conclusion to be drawn is that the invoices Mr Bracken supplied to Bain & Sheppard in the name of MSM during this period were not genuine.
[89] This is also supported by the fact that BEL purported to pay the invoices issued by MSM on the same date they were issued. The working papers and bank statements show Mr Bracken paid each of the invoices using cash or bank cheques that were withdrawn from and then re-deposited to BEL’s bank account on the same day. No payments were ever made to MSM.
Wiri Pacific Ltd (Wiri Pacific)
[90] Wiri Pacific is a supplier of timber products, including kitset houses. Its director, Mr Luke Worthington, said in evidence that Wiri Pacific’s business focusses on the export of product, mainly to the Pacific Islands. It does not sell product domestically in New Zealand.
[91] Mr Worthington said he had had some dealings with Mr Bracken, although he described these as being minimal. He recalled dealing with Mr Bracken on two or three occasions in 2010 relating to the supply of Gibraltar board having a total value of $13,000 to $14,000. He said that at one point Mr Bracken also sought a quote for the supply of kitset houses but nothing had eventuated of this.
[92] The records held by Bain & Sheppard include three invoices that purport to have been issued to BEL by Wiri Pacific during the 2018 tax year. These are dated 7, 10 and 28 July 2017 respectively. Each is for the sum of $56,567.50 and relates to the supply of a 63 square metre kitset house described as “Fiji Wiri Timber”. BEL purported to pay each invoice on the day it was issued. It did so by means of a cash withdrawal or bank cheque drawn on and then re-banked to its account the same day. BEL claimed input tax amounting to $22,252.50 in relation to these transactions.
[93] The working papers created by Bain & Sheppard show that BEL also purchased product from Wiri Pacific during the 2015, 2016 and 2017 tax years for the sums of $1,964,428.50, $2,401,058.50 and $2,402,413.50 respectively. Mr Bracken must have provided Bain & Sheppard with tax invoices to support the underlying transactions during those years. This meant BEL’s records show it purchased product from Wiri Pacific worth a total sum of $6,937,602.50 between 2015 and 2018. It claimed GST input tax credits amounting to $904,904.67 in relation to these transactions.
[94] Several factors demonstrate that the invoices provided to Bain & Sheppard were false. Mr Worthington was only asked about the supply of the three kitset houses in July 2017. He said it was inherently unlikely that his company would be able to supply three kitset houses within such a short period. He also said his company would use entirely different wording on any invoices that it issued for the supply of such
products. He also said he has never used the wording “Fiji Wiri Timber”. In addition, tax invoices issued by Wiri Pacific have six-digit numbers whereas the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard are numbered 305, 306 and 307. Furthermore, the software programme that Wiri Pacific uses to create its invoices would not permit invoices to be created with the layout used in the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard. Finally, those invoices all contain a GST component. Mr Worthington says Wiri Pacific does not charge GST on the sale of product because it is all for export.
[95] Although Mr Worthington was not asked directly about the transactions shown in Bain & Sheppard’s working papers for the previous three years I am satisfied they are also fictitious. Mr Worthington would undoubtedly have remembered doing business of this magnitude with BEL or Mr Bracken over a four-year period if the transactions had occurred. He would not have described his dealings with them as being minimal. Mr Worthington’s evidence that his company only issued a single pro forma invoice to BEL is also telling.
[96] I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Wiri Pacific did not issue the invoices found in the documents held by Bain & Sheppard. I am also satisfied the transactions shown in Bain & Sheppard’s working papers as having occurred prior to the 2018 year did not occur. It follows that Mr Bracken must have arranged for invoices to have been created to match the transactions shown in the bank accounts for the tax years between 2014 and 2018.
Pinnacle Timber Ltd (Pinnacle)
[97] Up until 31 March 2017 Pinnacle operated as a timber processor and distributor. On that date Pinnacle sold its business to a third party.
[98] Bain & Sheppard’s working papers for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 tax years show that BEL had purchased product from Pinnacle totalling $2,125,073.78, $8,605,711.89 and $14,444,854.62 respectively during those years. The tax invoices held by Bain & Sheppard for the 2018 tax year showed that between 6 July 2017 and 4 May 2018 BEL purchased timber and timber products from Pinnacle having a total value of
$13,210,439.
[99] If the bank statements and Bain & Sheppard’s working papers are correct BEL purchased product from Pinnacle having a total value of $38,386,079.29 during the 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 tax years. This enabled it to claim GST input tax credits amounting to $5,006,879.91 on those transactions. Of this sum it was not entitled to claim credits amounting to $4,963,094.48.
[100] BEL’s bank records showed it had paid Pinnacle by withdrawing cash or obtaining bank cheques drawn on its own account and made payable to Mr Bracken or BEL. These were then re-banked to the BEL account on the same day. They were not paid into Pinnacle’s bank account.
[101] Mr Macdonald issued Pinnacle with a s 17 notice. In response Pinnacle provided him with copies of the invoices it had issued to BEL for product sold to it between 2015 and 2019. These recorded transactions having a total value of approximately $335,000 during the 2015, 2016 and 2017 tax years. Pinnacle had no records of any sales occurring during the 2018 tax year.
[102] A notable feature about the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard lies in the fact that they describe transactions that occurred after Pinnacle had sold its business. Mr Thomas Logan, Pinnacle’s director, said Pinnacle wound its business down and was placed in liquidation after 31 March 2017. He therefore considered there was no prospect it had sold BEL any product during the 2018 tax year. He also made the point that it would have taken Pinnacle ten years to produce the volume of timber referred to in those invoices. In addition, he said the highest level of turnover Pinnacle had ever achieved in a single year was less than $11 million.
[103] Mr Logan was also sure Pinnacle had not issued the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard. He pointed out that the figures contained in those invoices were in a different font to those produced by Pinnacle’s software programme. He also said that Pinnacle’s invoices contained a great deal more information about the product sold than was contained in the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard. Furthermore, one of the invoices required BEL to pay the amount claimed in the invoice on the same date the invoice was issued. Pinnacle’s terms of trade with BEL required payment to be made by the 20th day of the month following the issuing of the invoice.
[104] I accept Mr Logan’s evidence without reservation. He has no axe to grind with Mr Bracken and was patently an honest and reliable witness. It is obvious that Pinnacle did not issue the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard and that those documents do not reflect transactions undertaken between Pinnacle and BEL during the 2018 tax year.
[105] Furthermore, there is an enormous discrepancy between the level of sales recorded in Pinnacle’s records between 2015 and 2017 and those recorded in BEL’s bank statements and Bain & Sheppard’s working papers. This is such that I have no doubt the invoices Mr Bracken supplied to Bain & Sheppard for those years were largely false. It is also noteworthy that, as was the case with the 2018 tax year, the level of product purchased by BEL during the 2017 year is approximately $3 million higher than Mr Logan said his company ever achieved by way of total turnover in a single year. The volume of product required to fulfil orders of this magnitude would also have been well beyond Pinnacle’s ability to supply.
[106] It follows that BEL’s GST returns overstated the value of product purchased from Pinnacle by the sum of $38,050,391.18 during the tax years between 2015 and 2018. The provision of false invoices in relation to these transactions enabled it to claim GST input credits totalling $4,963,094.50 during those years.
Pure Dew Water Co Ltd (Pure Dew)
[107] As its name suggests, Pure Dew is a commercial supplier of distilled water. One of its shareholders, Mr Tony Gillion, gave evidence at trial. He said his company’s principal customers were New Zealand’s two largest supermarket chains.
[108] Mr Gillion said Pure Dew’s only involvement with BEL related to a transaction that ultimately did not go ahead. One of Pure Dew’s customer service representatives received an enquiry from BEL about the possibility of purchasing water from Pure Dew for the purposes of export. This resulted in Pure Dew issuing a pro forma invoice to BEL on 7 June 2016 setting out its terms of trade. One of the most important of these was a requirement that the purchase price be paid in full before the product left Pure Dew’s premises. Pure Dew heard nothing further from BEL and ultimately issued a credit note reversing the amount claimed in the pro forma invoice.
[109] The documents held by Bain & Sheppard included numerous tax invoices that purported to have been issued by Pure Dew during the 2018 tax year. These recorded the sale and purchase of product worth $4,057,200 between 10 July 2017 and 26 April 2018. BEL claimed input credits totalling $529,200 in relation to these transactions. Once again each of the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard was paid on the same day it was received by means of funds drawn from and immediately re-deposited to BEL’s bank account.
[110] Mr Gillion said these transactions did not occur. He pointed out that his company’s annual sales to the two supermarket chains total just $2.3 million. If the transactions shown in the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard had taken place they would make BEL Pure Dew’s biggest single customer. Mr Gillion would obviously have known if this was the case.
[111] The invoices held by Bain & Sheppard are superficially similar to the pro forma invoice Pure Dew issued to BEL on 7 June 2016. Upon closer examination, however, there are noticeable differences. Mr Gillion said his company uses the MYOB accounting software. The font used to create the figures in the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard is different to that used in invoices created by the MYOB software. In addition, one of the invoices has two different dates in it. It is headed 26 February 2017 but in the payment instructions the invoice date is said to be 26 February 2018. Mr Gillion said the MYOB software would not permit an invoice to have two separate dates.8
[112] All these factors confirm Pure Dew did not issue the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the transactions described in them never occurred.
[113] Bain & Sheppard’s working papers and BEL’s bank statements show that BEL also purchased product from Pure Dew totalling $1,548,000, $1,568,350 and
$1,859,200 during the 2015, 2016 and 2017 tax years respectively. It claimed input tax credits for all these transactions. Although Mr Gillion was not asked about them his evidence makes it plain they did not occur. If they had taken place BEL would
8 BEL’s bank statements show this invoice was paid on 26 February 2018.
have purchased product having a value similar to that supplied by Pure Dew to its two biggest customers during each of those years.
[114] I am therefore satisfied Mr Bracken provided Bain & Sheppard with false invoices that recorded fictitious purchases from Pure Dew having a total value of
$9,032,750 during the tax years from 2015 to 2018. This enabled BEL to obtain GST refunds totalling $1,178,184.78 during that period.
W-Force International Ltd (W-Force)
[115] W-Force is a supplier and exporter of honey. Its principal, Mr Wei Wang, said in evidence that he set the company up in 2016 to export product, including milk and honey, to China. His business partner has a contact from whom the company acquires honey. It then exports the honey or sells it to third parties.
[116] The documents held by Bain & Sheppard for the 2018 year include nine invoices that purport to have been issued by W-Force. Each of these was for the sum of $372,260 inclusive of GST. In total the invoices record that BEL purchased honey from W-Force having a value of $2,978,080 between 6 July and 22 September 2017. BEL’s bank statements show that BEL paid each invoice on the day it was received using funds withdrawn from and then re-banked to its own account.
[117] Mr Wang said Mr Bracken approached him about the prospect of buying honey from W-Force in or about September 2016. Mr Bracken told Mr Wang he had a large customer in Korea to whom he wished to sell the honey. W-Force then generated a pro forma invoice to BEL dated 8 September 2016 setting out its terms of trade. Mr Wang said he heard nothing further from Mr Bracken and BEL never placed an order for the purchase of honey.
[118] The invoices held by Bain & Sheppard are different in some respects to the pro forma invoice W-Force issued to BEL on 8 September 2016. Mr Wang did not accept that W-Force had issued the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard and denied that any transactions had gone ahead.
[119] I accept Mr Wang’s evidence because it is supported by the fact that his company was never paid for any honey. All of the payments went into BEL’s bank account.
[120] Bain & Sheppard’s working papers and BEL’s bank statements also record that BEL purchased product from W-Force having a total value of $8,934,240 during the 2017 tax year. If correct, this meant BEL purchased honey to a total value of
$11,912,320 during the 2017 and 2018 tax years.
[121] Mr Wang was not asked whether his company had supplied this product to BEL during the 2017 tax year but the tenor of his evidence makes it clear these transactions never occurred. He said the only dealing his company ever had with BEL was the sale recorded in the pro forma invoice that never went further. He would obviously have remembered if his company had sold product worth more than $8 million to BEL during the 2017 year.
[122] It follows that Mr Bracken provided Bain & Sheppard with false invoices recording that BEL had purchased honey from W-Force having a total value of
$11,912,320 during the 2017 and 2018 tax years. This enabled BEL to claim input tax credits totalling $1,553,780.87.
Hiktown Ltd (Hiktown)
[123] The evidence under this head relates to three sets of transactions. The first relates to invoices allegedly issued in the name of Hiktown, the second relates to logs allegedly purchased from an entity called Kohumaru Forest and the third relates to payments allegedly made to Mr Eric Lloyd.
Hiktown
[124] Mr Mark McKenzie is the Managing Director of Hiktown. He bought the company from Mr Eric Lloyd on 4 October 2017. He said he bought the company because it owned a block of land near Hikurangi in Northland. He thought this would be a suitable site on which to store dwellings that had been removed from their original sites.
[125] The documents held by Bain & Sheppard include numerous invoices recording that BEL purchased logs from Hiktown between 6 October 2017 and 1 August 2018. Bain & Sheppard created journal entries recording the purchase of logs worth $21,648,000 because there was no record of BEL having paid Hiktown’s invoices seeking payment of this sum. Mr Harding said Mr Bracken told him the logs were being exported and that BEL would receive payment when they reached their destination.
[126] If the invoices are genuine they show that BEL purchased just under 170,000 tonnes of raw logs during this period. Mr Thomas Logan from Pinnacle, who has vast experience in the timber processing business, said a large logging truck would on average carry 30 tonnes of logs. This means BEL purchased the equivalent of 5,667 truckloads of logs from Hiktown. That is a huge quantity of timber by any standard.
[127] Mr McKenzie said Hiktown had never been involved in the supply of logs and had never supplied any logs to BEL. He denied any knowledge of a sample invoice issued to BEL under Hiktown’s name. He said he had met Mr Bracken on just one occasion when Mr Lloyd introduced him as a friend.
[128] I accept Mr McKenzie’s evidence on these issues. There is no reason to believe he would have any reason to lie about them. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest BEL was involved in the business of dealing in raw or processed timber in such quantities. As I have already noted, the records held by the New Zealand Customs Service show that BEL exported goods to a total value of $478,868 on 20 occasions between 1 May 2011 and 19 July 2018. None of these comprised a shipment of logs.
[129] I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt both that Hiktown did not issue the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard and the transactions BEL allegedly undertook with Hiktown did not occur.
Kohumaru Forest
[130] BEL’s bank statements and Bain & Sheppard’s working papers recorded that between 14 August and 8 September 2017 BEL purchased logs having a total value of
$4,982,976 from an entity called Kohumaru Forest.9 It had paid for these in circular transactions involving withdrawals from and deposits to BEL’s bank account on the same day. BEL also provided Bain & Sheppard with export invoices showing it had exported the logs to an entity called Taewon Lumber Co Ltd in South Korea. BEL had claimed input tax credits on all but the final purchase from Kohumaru Forest, which was for the sum of $921,024.
[131] When Mr MacDonald searched the IRD’s computer system he could not find any trace of the GST registration number recorded on invoices allegedly issued by Kohumaru Forest. Nor could he find any other evidence of that entity’s existence. He therefore treated the Kohumaru transactions as being the same as, and forming part of, the Hiktown transactions. The reason for this is not entirely clear although it may have been because both sets of transactions involved the purchase and export of raw logs.
[132] Once again, however, and largely for the same reasons I have found the purchases from Hiktown did not occur, I am satisfied BEL never undertook any transactions with an entity called Kohumaru Forest.
Eric Lloyd
[133] Mr Macdonald also included within the Hiktown transactions a series of payments that BEL made to Mr Eric Lloyd, the previous owner of Hiktown before it was sold to Mr McKenzie.10 On seven occasions between 2 October 2017 and 29 June 2018 BEL withdrew sums of money in differing amounts. These totalled $1,744,960 and were stated in Bain & Sheppard’s working papers to relate to Eric Lloyd. On some occasions they were said to be for “GST” or “GST share for logs”. BEL claimed input tax credits for all but two of these, the exceptions being payments of $200,000 and
$160,000 that occurred on 4 December 2017 and 20 April 2018 respectively.
[134] BEL was not entitled to claim any input tax credits for these payments because on all but one occasion the money drawn from its bank account was immediately deposited into Mr Bracken’s “Mobile Veges” account. On the other occasion it was
9 These are set out in the schedule produced as Exhibit 29.
10 These are also set out in the schedule produced as Exhibit 29.
paid into a bank account in the name of Mr Bracken’s parents.11 In the absence of any explanation for these transactions they are effectively circular in nature like most of the other transactions with which this case is concerned. I am therefore satisfied these payments did not relate to genuine supplies of services to BEL.
NZ Pine Ltd (NZ Pine)
[135] Mr Keith Jarman is the shareholder and director of NZ Pine. He said in evidence that the company is a wholesale timber trader dealing typically with other wholesalers and traders rather than the public at large. It trades in the domestic market and is not involved in the export of timber. Mr Jarman said he had had a business relationship with Mr Bracken for 15 or 16 years and had become friendly with him during that period.
[136] Mr Jarman said NZ Pine began selling to BEL in 2014 and it was one of his company’s largest customers. He said that in a typical year BEL would purchase product worth around $500,000 from NZ Pine. He said that in a good month BEL would purchase around $100,000 worth of product. The greatest volume of sales occurred during the calendar year 2015, when BEL purchased product having a value of $776,000. The terms of trade required BEL to pay for product on the 20th day of the month following purchase.
[137] Mr Jarman provided Mr Macdonald with copies of documents relating to trading activities between BEL and NZ Pine after being issued with a s 17 notice. Mr MacDonald then compared these with the records held by Bain & Sheppard and several discrepancies emerged.
[138] First, Mr Macdonald noted that BEL’s bank statements recorded transactions on 8 December 2015 in which the sum of $819,375 was withdrawn from BEL’s account and then immediately re-deposited back into the account. BEL had claimed an input tax credit on this transaction in the sum of $106,875. The records that NZ Pine provided to the IRD did not include this transaction or invoice. Mr Macdonald
11 Mr Macdonald said he could not trace the ultimate destination of $90,000 that formed part of a withdrawal on 20 April 2018.
subsequently found an invoice dated 8 December 2015 from NZ Pine for the sum of
$819,375 in the documents stored in Ms Poole’s computer.
[139] Several factors call into question the genuineness of both the payment and the invoice found on Ms Poole’s computer. First, the fact that the invoice was found on Ms Poole’s computer suggests she created it. Secondly, it is significant that NZ Pine has no record of the transaction. The only sale to BEL that is recorded in NZ Pine’s ledger during December 2015 occurred on 4 December 2015 and was for the sum of
$22,634.20. NZ Pine’s records show that this was the only amount still outstanding to NZ Pine as at 31 December 2015. The omission of the invoice from NZ Pine’s records is notable because, given the amount claimed in the invoice, it would have obvious ramifications for NZ Pine from a taxation perspective.
[140] Thirdly, the invoice found on Ms Poole’s computer differs markedly in appearance from those issued by NZ Pine using the MYOB accounting software. Finally, the invoice is for a sum greater than the value of the total annual trade that Mr Jarman said the two companies had undertaken during the 2015 calendar year.
[141] I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that NZ Pine did not issue the invoice dated 8 December 2015 and that it records a transaction that never occurred.
[142] Next, BEL claimed an input tax credit on three transactions that allegedly occurred on 29 October 2015. These purported to relate to purchases from NZ Pine of product having a total value of $858,529.41.12 BEL’s bank records show the payments were made using withdrawals from BEL’s account followed immediately by deposits back into BEL’s bank account. The records held by NZ Pine do not include these transactions. The only sale to BEL shown in its records during October 2015 occurred on 14 October 2014, and related to goods sold for the sum of $56,161.
[143] I am satisfied these transactions were not genuine. The fact that they are not shown in NZ Pine’s records is obviously significant for the reasons already discussed. They also fall outside BEL’s usual trading pattern with NZ Pine, which involved the purchase of product worth up to around $100,000 in a good month. Furthermore, they
12 The payments were in the sums of $85,000, $450,000 and $323,529.41.
are significantly greater in value than the total amount of product that NZ Pine typically sold to BEL on an annual basis. They also exceed the value of the largest value of product ever sold in a single calendar year.
[144] Finally, Bain & Sheppard’s working papers show that BEL claimed input tax credits on the purchase of goods to the value of $145,719.49 on 14 March 2016. This relates to a withdrawal of funds from BEL’s account followed by a deposit of the same amount to Mr Bracken’s “Mobile Veges” account on that date. The only sale to BEL shown in NZ Pine’s records during March 2016 relates to goods sold to BEL on 3 March 2016 for the sum of $64,946.45. For the reasons I have already given in relation to the earlier transactions involving NZ Pine I do not accept that any transaction occurred between BEL and NZ Pine on 14 March 2016. Any invoices that Mr and Mrs Bracken provided to Bain & Sheppard in support of its claim for tax credits for these transactions would accordingly have been false.
[145] It follows that on each of these occasions Mr Bracken arranged for BEL to obtain input tax credits based on false invoices and fictitious transactions. In this way BEL obtained GST refunds amounting to $237,863.99 on fictitious purchases totalling
$1,823,623.90 during the 2016 tax year.
J & R Whitehead Trust
[146] The J & R Whitehead Trust was involved in the production and sale of honey. One of the trustees, Mr John Whitehead, said in evidence that the company began trading in 2003 and sold this aspect of its business to a third party on 31 March 2017.
[147] The documents held by Bain & Sheppard included seven invoices issued in the name of the Trust between 6 July and 18 August 2017 for a total sum of $6,166,421.90. These purported to relate to the purchase by BEL of honey from the Trust between those dates. BEL claimed input credits totalling $814,837.64 in relation to these transactions.
[148] BEL’s bank statements and Bain & Sheppard’s working papers record that BEL also purchased honey from the Trust having a total value of $18,477,838.84 during the
2017 tax year. If correct, this means BEL purchased honey from the Trust having a total value of $24,644,259.74 during the 2017 and 2018 tax years.
[149] Mr Whitehead said that a representative of BEL had contacted the Trust in August 2016 to enquire about the possibility of purchasing honey. The Trust sent BEL a pro forma invoice and an agreement for the sale and purchase of honey. The Trust required BEL to sign the agreement and make payment in full before it would deliver the honey. The Trust heard nothing further and never received the signed agreement back from BEL. It therefore issued a credit note to reflect the fact that the transaction recorded in the pro forma invoice had never proceeded.
[150] Mr Whitehead viewed samples of the tax invoices allegedly issued by the Trust and held by Bain & Sheppard. He confirmed that these had not been issued by the Trust because they were in a different format to invoices issued by the Trust. More importantly, all the transactions in the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard occurred after the Trust had sold its honey business. This meant the Trust could not have undertaken those transactions.
[151] Mr Whitehead’s evidence on this point satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt that the Trust did not issue the invoices held by Bain & Sheppard and the transactions that they record never occurred. Similarly, the transactions for which invoices must have been provided to support claims for input tax credits during the 2017 year were also fictitious. It follows that the creation of false tax invoices enabled BEL to claim input tax credits totalling $3,214,468.66 on alleged purchases of honey from the Trust.
James Timber Ltd (James Timber)
[152] BEL’s bank statements and Bain & Sheppard’s working papers for the 2015 and 2016 tax years showed that BEL had purchased product, presumably timber, from an entity called James Timber during those years. In each case cash or bank cheques had been drawn on BEL’s account to pay James Timber and then re-deposited to that account immediately. In 2015 these payments totalled $1,188,800 and in 2016 they totalled $1,975,000. BEL therefore ostensibly purchased timber having a total value of $3,163,800 from the entity called James Timber during those tax years. This enabled it to claim input tax credits amounting to $412,669.57.
[153] Mr Macdonald subsequently found an undated tax invoice in the name of James Timber for the sum of $48,000 on Ms Poole’s computer. This recorded James Timber as being based at “Highway 44, Tokoroa”.
[154] Bain & Sheppard’s working papers recorded that BEL had purchased product for the sum of $48,000 from James Timber on no fewer than 32 occasions during the 2016 tax year. This represented all but four of the transactions BEL allegedly conducted with James Timber during that tax year. During the 2015 tax year Bain & Sheppard’s working papers also recorded numerous transactions with James Timber but these were for varying amounts.
[155] Mr Macdonald was unable to establish that any legal entity existed under the name of James Timber Ltd during the 2015 and 2016 tax years. He discovered that a company called James Timber Ltd had been incorporated in Christchurch but removed from the Companies Register on 19 July 2013. Attempts to contact the director of this company were unsuccessful.
[156] Other enquiries Mr Macdonald made to establish the legal identity of James Timber proved fruitless. He has therefore proceeded on the basis that the withdrawals and deposits that BEL made through its bank account indicate the transactions involving James Timber are fictitious and that any invoices BEL provided to Bain & Sheppard in support of its claims for input tax credits were false.
[157] There is nothing to suggest Mr Macdonald’s conclusion is incorrect. The manner in which circular payments were made, coupled with the fact that a template invoice in the name of James Timber was found on Ms Poole’s computer, satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt that BEL did not engage in any genuine transactions with that entity. It is likely in fact that no such entity existed during the 2015 and 2016 tax years. Rather, Ms Poole created false invoices in the name of James Timber to match the transactions shown in BEL’s bank accounts during those years. Mr Bracken then used the invoices to claim input tax credits in relation to these transactions. The fact that the invoice found on Ms Poole’s computer was for the sum of $48,000 no doubt reflects the fact that virtually all of the transactions for the 2016 year were for that amount.
Healthy Start NZ Ltd (Healthy Start)
[158] The material downloaded from Ms Poole’s computer included a tax invoice from an entity called Healthy Start (NZ) Ltd. This related to the purchase of colostrum manuka honey in May and June 2016 for sums totalling $1,446,681. This invoice was paid through withdrawals from BEL’s bank account that were immediately deposited back into the account. BEL had claimed input tax credits of $188,697.52 in relation to these transactions.
[159] Mr Macdonald ascertained from the IRD’s computer system that Healthy Start was registered for GST on 5 May 2015 and then de-registered the same day. It only filed one GST return after that date. This disclosed that the company had not engaged in any taxable activity during the very brief period when it was registered for GST. The records held by the IRD suggest the company has never traded, and it was removed from the Companies Register on 14 November 2016.
[160] In response to a s 17 notice the company advised that it had never supplied product to BEL. This fact, together with the fact that the invoice was found on Ms Poole’s computer, persuades me that these transactions never occurred.
[161] BEL therefore obtained input tax credits amounting to $188,697.52 in relation to transactions that never occurred between itself and Healthy Start, using false tax invoices that Ms Poole prepared on Mr Bracken’s instructions.
Freight charges
[162] During the 2015 and 2016 tax years cash and bank cheques totalling $147,730 and $33,178 respectively were withdrawn from BEL’s bank account. In Bain & Sheppard’s working papers the withdrawals were coded as being used to pay freight charges. In some instances Bain & Sheppard’s working papers noted that the payments were made to a transport company called Smith and Smith. BEL claimed input tax credits in the sum of $23,596.70 in relation to these transactions.
[163] These withdrawals did not become circular transactions because there is no direct evidence to suggest the funds withdrawn were immediately re-banked into
BEL’s account as occurred with payments purportedly made to other suppliers. Mr Macdonald noted, however, that these withdrawals occurred on dates when other circular withdrawals and deposits were made. He also noted that during the 2015 and 2016 tax years deposits were sometimes made of larger cash sums than had been withdrawn from the account on the same day. Mr Macdonald considered one explanation for this might be Mr Bracken’s desire to ensure the sums of cash deposited into the account did not correspond exactly with those withdrawn earlier the same day. Mr Macdonald therefore believed Mr Bracken may have been adding cash derived from the withdrawals for freight payments to augment other funds withdrawn and then re-deposited the same day.
[164] Mr Macdonald’s suspicion on this point is logical and understandable. It also seems inherently unlikely that BEL would pay accounts rendered by transport and freight providers either in cash or by bank cheque when it paid its other suppliers by direct credit or direct deposit into their bank accounts.
[165] There seems to be no dispute, however, that a genuine transport operator trades under the name “Smith and Smith”. It also appears that Mr Macdonald did not take steps to interview anybody from that firm to ascertain whether it provided services to BEL during the 2015 and 2016 years and, if so, whether it received payments in cash or by bank cheque. Furthermore, Bain & Sheppard required BEL to provide invoices to substantiate claims for input tax credits. There is no suggestion it did not follow that practice when processing the so-called freight payments for GST purposes. These factors persuade me the Crown has failed to prove this aspect of its case beyond reasonable doubt. It follows that I do not accept the item appearing in Appendix A as “Freight cheques” has been established to the required standard.
Ray Ironman Ltd
[166] BEL’s bank statements and Bain & Sheppard’s working papers disclosed that the sums of $159,097.50 and $67,728.85 had been withdrawn from BEL’s bank account in the form of cash or bank cheques during the 2015 and 2016 years respectively. BEL had claimed input tax credits amounting to $50,337.90 in relation to these transactions.
[167] Bain & Sheppard’s working papers described these as being payments to Ray Ironman Ltd, a supplier of iron products. Mr Macdonald considers most of these withdrawals would have been in cash and that in the absence of any supporting documentation they represent cash available to Mr Bracken and/or BEL. He therefore considers BEL should not be permitted to claim any deduction for them.
[168] There is no dispute, however, that Ray Ironman Ltd is a genuine supplier of product and Ms Poole remembers dealings between BEL and that company. Mr Macdonald did not interview anybody at Ray Ironman Ltd to confirm whether BEL paid for product in cash or by way of bank cheque during the 2015 and 2016 years. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe Bain & Sheppard was not provided with tax invoices before including these items in claims for GST input tax credits. It follows that the Crown has not proved this aspect of its case beyond reasonable doubt. The items in Appendix A relating to “Ray Ironman Ltd” must be disregarded as a result.
Other purchases
[169] Mr MacDonald considered seven other payments that BEL made during the 2015 and 2016 tax years were questionable. These were for differing sums and totalled
$139,308.22 and $74,094 for the 2015 and 2016 years respectively. BEL had claimed input tax credits in relation to all these transactions.
[170] All four transactions that occurred during the 2015 year were described in Bain & Sheppard’s working papers as relating to the purchase of timber whilst the three transactions that occurred in the 2016 year were described simply as being “purchases”. Again, there is no reason to consider Bain & Sheppard departed from its usual practice of requiring BEL to provide tax invoices to support any claim for GST input tax credits.
[171] Mr Macdonald said he was unable to recall whether these payments were made in the context of circular transactions and said he would need to confirm this before committing himself to that assertion. On my reading of his evidence he never returned to this topic. In the absence of additional evidence on the point I am not prepared to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that these transactions were fictitious. It follows
that I do not accept that the Crown has proved its case to the required standard in relation to the transactions referred to in Appendix A as “‘Others’ bank cheques”.
Unmatched to specific suppliers
[172] In Appendix A Mr Macdonald included the sum of $979,968.15 within the notation “Unmatched to specific suppliers”.
Prime Flooring
[173] As I understand the position this item relates to payments made to three suppliers, including Prime Flooring. Cash and bank cheques to a total value of
$250,854.14 were withdrawn from BEL’s bank account between 25 August 2014 and 29 May 2015. Bain & Sheppard’s working papers indicated these were paid to an entity called Prime Flooring. Mr Macdonald accepted that other payments made to Prime Flooring by way of direct deposit and having the notation “BP” (bill payment) were likely to be genuine. He did not accept the same could be said for payments made by cash or bank cheque.
[174] Again, however, there is no dispute that Prime Flooring dealt with BEL during this period on a commercial basis. In the absence of any direct evidence from a representative of Prime Flooring about its trade relationship with BEL, and/or evidence that they formed part of circular payments, it is not possible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that these payments were not genuine.
CM Contracting
[175] During the 2017 tax year BEL’s bank statements and Bain & Sheppard’s working papers recorded transactions in which BEL purchased items of equipment from CM Contracting for $67,712 and $399,169 on 8 July and 2 November 2016 respectively. The same sums were immediately re-deposited to its bank account on the same day. Bain & Sheppard’s working papers recorded that BEL had exported the items to the Pacific Islands on the same day it purchased them.
[176] During the 2018 tax year Bain & Sheppard’s working papers recorded that BEL purchased another item of equipment from the same supplier on 19 January 2018 for
the sum of $296,355. It then re-deposited the same sum to its bank account immediately thereafter. The working papers showed that BEL had exported this item of equipment to an entity in Rarotonga. BEL initially accounted for GST output tax on the sale of this item but Bain & Sheppard subsequently reversed the output tax in a journal entry relating to the return filed by BEL for the month of March 2018. The net result was that BEL claimed an input tax credit on the purchase of the equipment but did ultimately did not pay output tax when the equipment was allegedly exported.
[177] The circular nature of these transactions in both tax years persuades me they are not genuine.
Colson Importers
[178] Mr Macdonald also identified a series of transactions between BEL and Colson Importers during the 2018 tax year. These related to the purchase of items of equipment such as diggers and the subsequent export of those items. None of the transactions involved circular payments and I understood Mr Macdonald to accept that they may well be genuine. I therefore put these transactions to one side for present purposes.
[179] It follows that, of the sum of $979,968.15 identified by Mr Macdonald under the notation “Unmatched to specific suppliers”, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that $763,236 related to fictitious transactions.
The digger
[180] The final entry in Appendix A is notated “Add GST x Digger journals May 2018”. It relates to a transaction involving the purchase and possible subsequent sale of a Hitachi digger. There is a suggestion BEL claimed it had exported the digger to the Pacific Islands but it appears to still be in New Zealand because it is currently subject to restraining orders obtained by the Commissioner of Police under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.
[181] The evidence about this item is very complicated but as I read the notes of evidence Mr Macdonald ultimately accepted this transaction had no effect from a GST perspective. It therefore needs to be disregarded for present purposes.
Conclusion
[182] The earlier part of the narrative set out above in relation to the creation of invoices demonstrates a clear pattern of behaviour on Mr Bracken’s part. In several cases he approached a supplier and enquired about the possibility of obtaining product from that supplier. The supplier then rendered a pro forma invoice setting out the terms on which it was prepared to supply product to BEL. Thereafter the supplier never heard from Mr Bracken or BEL again.
[183] In this way Mr Bracken obtained a copy of the supplier’s invoice. He then passed the invoice to persons such as Ms Mookerjee and Ms Poole so they could prepare tax invoices matching the deposits and withdrawals he had already made to BEL’s bank account. In other cases, such as Hiktown, Mr Bracken is likely to have used his friendship with the owner of the company to obtain a copy of the company’s letterhead. He then used it for the same purpose as he used the invoices obtained from other suppliers.
[184] This scheme enabled BEL to claim that it had entered into transactions amounting to $133,422,376.52 when that was not the case.13 This in turn enabled BEL to claim tax refunds to which it was not entitled amounting to $17,402,918.68. Mr Bracken enabled BEL to further muddy the waters from a GST perspective by creating invoices showing it had exported virtually all the product it had purchased. The export records held by the New Zealand Customs Service shows BEL plainly did not export goods having this value.
[185] Mr Bracken was the architect of the scheme because he arranged for the invoices to be created showing both the purchase and subsequent export of the fictitious product. He also physically carried out the banking and re-depositing of
13 This figure adopts the figures used in Appendix A but omits the value of purchases I have found the Crown has failed to prove were fictitious.
funds to BEL’s bank account to create the impression the transactions were genuine. He did so throughout in full knowledge of the effect of what he was doing and with the intention of enabling BEL to obtain GST refunds to which he knew it was not entitled.
Result
[186] On reviewing the charges I am satisfied that the Crown’s failure to prove all its allegations does not affect the verdict to be entered on each charge. In those instances where I have found certain allegations not proved the Crown can point to other aspects of the tax return in question being false. I have therefore delivered guilty verdicts on each charge.
Lang J
Analysts of rat fake purchases claimed by Suplfler name{annuaIised) for the 39 GST penods ended 30 June Z014to 3I Judy Z018
}zaza )ZD19’V Tolali’ _
Pinnacle Timber Ltd
Less genuine sales as advised| Net false purdiases ex Pinnacle
|52,1 2S,073.78
|-569,403.01
|$Z,ŒS,670.77
|58,60S,71. 169
|-51S9J89.82
|513,210,439.00
'@ |538,386,079.2 9
i°°, i |-5335,688.1 1
NZ Pine Lto
Less genuine sales as aJvsed
I¥et false purchases ex NZ Rs |
Hikto+vn kt<I
fiecorded by Bank payments fiecorded by journals |
Net false purdiases HMtmvn
Puie Des ¥Vater C‹x kul
¥Vin Paafic Ltd
MSM Noldinp NZ Ltd
W-Forœ Intemaioiæl Ltd 3amœ Timber LUI| nealtt›ystanîIv.i) ua
nay Ironman md Ray Ironman Ltd
"Œhers" bank CheQies
Llnrrætcla<l tospeaf< suppbers° Total lake puröiases claimed|
|5602,133.38
-5602,133.38
5147,730.00
5151,097.CO
5139,308.22
|52,dS3,S24.93
-562 9,901.03
|S1,S68,350.00
|52,401,Œ8.CO
|51,6S2,48SA0
*51,975,000.00 533,178.00
|5362. 3.85
574,094.00
|5648,080.01
-5648,080.01
|51,859,200.00
|52,402,413' I
|52,312,592 W
|518,477,837.84
|58,934,240.ŒJ
|5609,786.65
|-5609,786.65
_
|54,0S7,200.00
|5169,702.00
|52,510,813.00
|S6,166,421.SO
|52,978,080.ŒJ
}5z,6z4,00o.00 ['
|$4,313,524.97
-52,489,001.07
5›4,›7›,00o.00
Falsely claimed GST as above
Add GST x ’Dgger’ Journals May 2018
|52,542,994.14
|S6,303,I49J5
|§6.303.149.15
|ö 103,740.00
S34z,26O.s7 }S17,40z,91s.64
b103,740.0L
4
0
0