R v Robertson

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-004-010580

[2019] NZHC 2032

THE QUEEN

v

STEVEN ROBERTSON

Hearing:
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 May, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14,

17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 June, 1, 2, 3 July 2019

Counsel:

B M Finn, S B C O’Connor and C Brooke for Crown T A Simmonds and O J Cann for Defendant

Verdicts:

19 August 2019

VERDICTS AND REASONS OF KATZ J

Solicitors:B M Finn and S B C O’Connor, Meredith Connell, Auckland C Brooke, Financial Markets Authority

Counsel: T A Simmonds and O J Cann, Lorne Street Chambers, Auckland

R v ROBERTSON [2019] NZHC 2032 [19 August 2019]

Table of Contents

Paragraph

VERDICTS...................................................................................................... [1]

A. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW..................................................................... [3]

Overview of Crown and defence cases........................................................... [3]

Summary of my findings................................................................................. [6]

B. RELEVANT RULES OF LAW AND PRACTICE..................................... [27]

C. EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO MULTIPLE CHARGES............................ [39]
General evidence of Mr Robertson’s dishonesty......................................... [40]
The FMA investigation................................................................................... [45]
Where did the money go?.............................................................................. [65]

D. TRADING ON BEHALF CHARGES – LAW AND GENERAL EVIDENCE [74]
Introduction.................................................................................................... [74]

Theft by a person in a special relationship – the law.................................. [75]

Did Mr Robertson have control over the relevant funds?.......................... [77]
Did Mr Robertson trade the complainants’ funds in the financial
markets (or other markets)?........................................................................ [85]

The complainants’ evidence – common themes........................................... [87]
PTT staff – evidence relating to “trading on behalf”................................. [91]
Mr Robertson’s knowledge of the activities of Mr Burns and Mr Lynn [129]
Documents signed by the complainants...................................................... [135] CMC markets.......................................................................................................... [153]
A potentially exculpatory document?......................................................... [162]
Summary of general findings/relevant circumstantial evidence.............. [168]

E. TRADING ON BEHALF – EVIDENCE RELATING TO
SPECIFIC CHARGES................................................................................ [169]
Introduction.................................................................................................. [169]

Charge 38 (Richard Trott).......................................................................... [172]

Charges 18 and 19 (John Eaton)................................................................. [180]
Charges 42, 43 and 44 (Paul Slack)............................................................ [207]
Charge 12 (Andrew Craighead).................................................................. [231]
Charge 30 (Edith Dyson)............................................................................. [251]
Charge 8 (Peter Bailey)................................................................................ [261]

Charge 31 (Owen Farmilo).......................................................................... [273]
Charge 5 (Blair Cousins)............................................................................. [282]
Charge 36 (Elaine Breach).......................................................................... [293]
Charge 47 (Mary Boyle (deceased))............................................................ [307]
Charge 33 (Angela Abercrombie)............................................................... [327]
Charge 21 (John Frandi)............................................................................. [346]
Charge 34 (Colin Gibson)............................................................................ [363]
Charge 46 (William Anderson)................................................................... [375]
Charge 16 (John Cairns).............................................................................. [387]
Charge 14 (Robert Sutherland).................................................................. [399]
Charge 39 (John Ballam)............................................................................. [415]
Charge 2 (Andrew Johnston)...................................................................... [428]
Charge 35 (David Hook).............................................................................. [445]
Charges 24 and 25 (Kenneth McKee)......................................................... [463]
Charge 1 (Alan Empson)............................................................................. [479]
Charge 27 (Michael Corcoran)................................................................... [490]

F. THE SHAREHOLDING CHARGES – LAW AND GENERAL EVIDENCE [500]
Introduction.................................................................................................. [500]

Obtaining by deception – the law.............................................................. [501]

Did Mr Robertson have control over the relevant funds?........................ [506]
Was Mr Robertson acting with a claim of right?...................................... [508]
The key issue................................................................................................. [509]
Background.................................................................................................. [511]

Evidence of PTT staff.................................................................................. [513]

The manner in which Mr Robertson ran his business.............................. [515]
Failure to complete share transfer formalities........................................... [518]
The nominee clause in shareholders’ agreements...................................... [526]
Failure to inform accountants of the existence…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Katz J presided over the case of R v Robertson, which involved the defendant, Steven Robertson, being charged with multiple counts of theft by a person in a special relationship, obtaining by deception, and dishonestly using a document. The case was heard over multiple days, and the verdicts were delivered on 19 August 2019. The court found Robertson guilty of 23 charges of theft by a person in a special relationship, 11 charges of obtaining by deception, and four charges of dishonestly using a document. Robertson was acquitted of six other charges.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented during the trial, which included witness testimonies, documentary evidence, and expert forensic accountancy evidence. The Crown's case was that Robertson had devised and implemented three unlawful schemes to extract money from a select group of "VIP" clients. These schemes involved offering a "trading on behalf" service, selling fictitious shareholdings, and unauthorised use of client credit cards. The defence argued that the funds were either payments for trading software, loans, or genuine transactions.

The court found that Robertson had indeed carried out these unlawful schemes and had used the money for his own purposes, including funding a lavish lifestyle. The court also found that the Crown had proved the necessary elements of the charges beyond reasonable doubt, including Robertson's control over the relevant funds, his intent to deceive the victims, and the absence of any claim of right.

Continue reading R v Robertson

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established