R v Love

Ralph Heberley Ngatata Love was found guilty of obtaining property by deception and appeared for sentencing. The maximum penalty for this offence is seven years imprisonment. Love was the Executive Chairman and a trustee of the Wellington Tenths Trust, which had been managing assets for the benefit of Maori people in the Wellington and Taranaki regions. The Trust was asset rich but cash poor, and Love and the other trustees developed a business model to develop the land for income and capital growth for the beneficiaries. One of the assets held by the Trust was land situated in Pipitea Street in central Wellington. Love and the remaining trustees saw this as a prime site for redevelopment and began negotiating with the Crown to acquire the remaining properties. During this time, Love began negotiating with property developers in Auckland and became aware that the Trust could gain a substantial upfront payment for giving a developer the right to develop the Pipitea Street land. This became known as a "lease premium." Negotiations with the developers took some time, and on 22 December 2006, Love signed an agreement to lease the Pipitea Street land to the developers without the knowledge of his fellow trustees. The developers paid a sum of $3 million to a company formed by Love, which was then used to reduce the amount owing on Love's mortgage. The Trust entered into a new arrangement with the developers, but none of the trustees or beneficiaries knew about the $1.5 million payment until several years later when the Serious Fraud Office began investigating the affairs of two individuals. Love stood down from his position in the Trust at that point. The court considered the starting point for the sentence to be four years nine months imprisonment, reflecting Love's overall culpability on the charge. The court applied a discount of 30 per cent, or 18 months, to reflect Love's contribution to New Zealand society and Maoridom, and a further discount of nine months to reflect his age and health issues. Love was sentenced to two years six months imprisonment, with the court noting that the sentence was designed to be a deterrent for trustees who manage assets on behalf of beneficiaries.