[1] Mr Chevin you are for sentence on nine representative charges of theft by a person in a special relationship.1 The maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment.2 You pleaded guilty to a previous version of these charges following a sentence indication I gave you on 5 August 2016.3 I annex a copy of that indication to these notes and will sentence you in accordance with it today.

[2] Since the sentence indication, the charges which you are facing have been amended. You now face nine charges rather than 10, as the Crown is no longer pursuing Charge One, the “TTA charge”. In formal terms, you withdrew your pleas of guilty to the earlier charges and promptly entered pleas of guilty to the amended charges.

Background

The offending

[3] The background to your offending is set out in full in my sentence indication. However, for the sake of completeness, I will briefly summarise the more important facts.

[4] You were one of five defendants due to commence a 12 week trial on

8 August 2016. You were the only defendant to plead guilty. The trial of your co- defendants has now well exceeded its allotted time and is still ongoing. The principal defendant in the Crown case is your acquaintance Mr Bublitz. The allegations are that he acquired and used two finance companies, Mutual Finance Limited (Mutual) and Viaduct Capital Ltd (Viaduct), to support his various property interests. You and the other defendants are said to have assisted him. Mutual, which had the benefit of a Crown guarantee, was purchased and used, according to the
Crown, to support Viaduct through a series of illegal related party transactions.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 220.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 223.
3      R v Chevin [2016] NZHC 1819; Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 61.

[5] Your admitted offending occurred over a period of four to five months. The basis of the charges against you is that you had control, along with others, of investors’ funds in Mutual. The funds were held on terms that required them to be dealt with in accordance with a Debenture Trust Deed. You have pleaded guilty to dealing with certain funds otherwise than in accordance with those requirements. As I mentioned earlier, the Crown no longer pursues the “TTA charge” so the total value of the transactions in the remaining charges is $2,280,000.

[6] The remaining charges relate to specific aspects of the related party transactions. They are:

(a) That you were involved in purchasing a loan to Homebush Trustees

Limited from Viaduct for $495,000;

(b)That you were involved in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Chevin

Details

AGLC: R v Chevin [2017] NZHC 285
Case: [2017] NZHC 285
Decision Date: 28 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Chevin involved the defendant, Peter Louis Chevin, who was sentenced for his involvement in a financial scheme that involved significant theft and breaches of trust. Chevin was one of five defendants in a case where the principal defendant, Paul Neville Bublitz, allegedly used two finance companies, Mutual Finance Limited and Viaduct Capital Ltd, to support his property interests. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Chevin, who had pleaded guilty to nine charges of theft by a person in a special relationship. The legal issues included determining the starting point for sentencing, adjusting for personal factors such as Chevin's cooperation with the investigation and his remorse, and applying a discount for his guilty plea. The court considered comparative cases and the nature of Chevin's involvement in the scheme, ultimately deciding on a starting point of two years and nine months imprisonment. After adjusting for personal factors and applying a discount for Chevin's cooperation and guilty plea, the court sentenced him to nine months of home detention on each of the nine charges to which he pleaded guilty. This sentence aimed to hold Chevin accountable, denounce his conduct, and acknowledge the gravity of his offending.

Orders