R v Roest - [2012] NZHC 1086

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2008-004-029179 [2012] NZHC 1086

THE QUEEN

v

CORNELIS ROBERT ROEST PETER DAVID STEIGRAD

Hearing: 18 May 2012

Appearances: B Dickey for Crown
P Dacre and R Butler for Mr Roest
B Keene QC and M E Cole for Mr Steigrad

Judgment: 18 May 2012
Charges: Cornelis Roest
False statements x6
False statement to trustee x2
Distributing offer documents containing false statement x10
Peter Steigrad
Distributing offer documents containing false statements x6

Plea: Not Guilty

Sentenced: 18 May 2012

SENTENCING NOTES OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Lowndes Jordan, Auckland

Copy to: B Keene QC, Auckland,
M E Cole, Auckland, P E Dacre, Auckland
R Butler, Auckland
J F Anderson, Auckland

R V ROEST & STEIGRAD HC AK CRI-2008-004-029179 [18 May 2012]

[1] Cornelis Robert Roest and Peter David Steigrad, you are for sentence this morning following your conviction on a number of counts arising from the failure of Bridgecorp Limited and Bridgecorp Investments Limited (BIL). In your case Mr Roest, you have been convicted and are for sentence on six counts under the Crimes Act of making false statements, two counts under the Companies Act of making false statements in directors’ certificates to the trustee and 10 counts under the Securities Act of distributing offer documents containing false statements.

[2] The maximum penalty for the offending under the Crimes Act is 10 years’ imprisonment and five years for the offending under the Companies and Securities Act charges.

[3] Mr Steigrad, in your case you are for sentence on six counts under the Securities Act. I note that following trial you were found not guilty on four other counts.

[4] Three other directors, Messrs Davidson, Urwin and Petricevic, have already been sentenced and dealt with by the Court. Messrs Davidson and Urwin pleaded guilty. Mr Petricevic was convicted following trial.

[5] Although it will be well known to you, I do need to briefly refer to the background.

[6] Bridgecorp was incorporated on 30 April 2001. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bridgecorp Holdings Limited (BHL) which is registered in Australia. It is in liquidation. Bridgecorp’s principal activity was the sourcing of funding and lending in relation to property financing transactions. It primarily funded that activity through investments from the public by issuing secured debentures to members of the public and through issuing redeemable preference shares to BIL.

[7] BIL was itself incorporated in April 2002 as a vehicle to raise further funds for New Zealand subsidiaries of BHL. It issued capital notes to the public and invested the proceeds from those activities into redeemable preference shares issued by Bridgecorp. BIL’s performance was entirely dependent on Bridgecorp.

[8] In order to raise money from investors Bridgecorp and BIL issued prospectuses and investment statements from time to time and registered them with the Registrar of Companies. The companies were required to appoint a custodian for the debenture holders, Covenant Trustee Company Limited.

[9] The Bridgecorp and BIL prospectuses were distributed from…

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 Roest

Details

AGLC: R v Roest [2012] NZHC 1086
Case: [2012] NZHC 1086
Decision Date: 18 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cornelis Robert Roest and Peter David Steigrad were sentenced by Venning J in the High Court of New Zealand after their convictions for various charges arising from the failure of Bridgecorp Limited and Bridgecorp Investments Limited (BIL). Roest was convicted on six counts under the Crimes Act for making false statements, two counts under the Companies Act for making false statements in directors' certificates to the trustee, and 10 counts under the Securities Act for distributing offer documents containing false statements. Steigrad was convicted on six counts under the Securities Act. The court considered the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act, particularly denouncing the offending, holding the offenders accountable, providing for the interests of the victims, and promoting a sense of responsibility in the offenders. Roest was sentenced to six and a half years' imprisonment, while Steigrad was sentenced to nine months' home detention, 200 hours of community work, and ordered to pay $350,000 in reparation.

Orders