1 Comment 1 Commentby Niko Kloeten
The sentence was handed down in the High Court at Auckland this morning by Justice Pamela Andrews, who said home detention wouldn't have been appropriate for the case, due to the scale of Urwin's offending.
Crown prosecutor Brian Dickey had asked for a jail sentence of four years for Urwin due to his involvement in the Barcroft related-party transaction and his lack of remorse; Urwin's lawyer argued for home detention.
Justice Andrews reduced Urwin's sentence from a starting point of three years and three months with a discount for his good character and low risk of reoffending, as well as his early guilty plea.
However, she said the losses involved in Bridgecorp were higher than in other finance company cases that have been before the courts such as Nathans Finance and Lombard Finance.
Urwin had been due to stand trial alongside fellow Bridgecorp directors Rod Petricevic, Robert Roest and Peter Steigrad, who were convicted earlier this month; however, Urwin made a last-minute guilty plea in November last year.
Former Bridgecorp chairman Bruce Davidson has already been sentenced to nine months' home detention, 200 hours community service and ordered to pay $500,000 in reparation to investors after pleading guilty to 10 Securities Act charges.
The other three directors have yet to be sentenced; Petricevic and Roest are also due to face trial in September on Serious Fraud Office charges relating to Bridgecorp transactions.
Bridgecorp collapsed in July 2007 owing $459 million to 14,000 investors.
Niko Kloeten can be contacted at niko@goodreturns.co.nz
| « KiwiSavers unaware of scheme changes | Managers warn against more KiwiSaver regulation » |
Special Offers
© Copyright 1997-2024 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved
There seems to be a huge emphasis on the judicial system kicking the guts of those who used to be considered as "saviors" for thousands of investors who enjoyed often "triple" the returns in their finance co investments over a comparable bank term deposit?
a) Does anyone confirm that the relevant sentencing judge (or close friends or family members) are totally clear of having had any involvement in finance company investments themselves?
b) Prospectii of those days (on which the current allegations are mostly based) had wording within that was supposedly overseen by their independent trustees, yet no trustees ever seem to be implicated in these charges?
c) The figure of circa $400 million (losses) by Bridgecorp virtually matches the same amount "lost" in the old Money Managers First Step investments, and there has been mention by several that those losses were substantiated largely as a result of forms of "related party transactions".
Subsequently, one would have to wonder why the investigations into the lost $400 million (plus) appear to clearly have drifted away a year or so ago?
Surely the judiciary must be expected to consider matters from a perspective of what roles finance company trustees have (or had), and aside from some wording anomalies,where did such huge amounts as $400 million-plus actually go to?
So, is the judiciary really that (personally) unbiased, and also are they so capable in their analysis and final "solution?"
Michael Donovan