About Good Returns  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  RSS Feeds Other Sites:   tmmonline.nz  |   landlords.co.nz
Last Article Uploaded: Monday, November 18th, 7:42PM
Latest Headlines

Former Five Star Finance directors could face 7 years in SFO charges

The Serious Fraud Office has laid more than 100 charges against four former directors of failed lender Five Star Finance carrying a maximum penalty of seven years apiece.

Thursday, August 26th 2010, 6:55AM 1 Comment

The charges relate to loans worth some $50 million, a large proportion of which the SFO says is irrecoverable, and concern related party lending between 2003 and 2007. The white collar crime investigator alleges the defendants intentionally applied funds in breach of the company's obligation under its trust deed, and dishonestly used documents to obtain a benefit.

"For investors to have confidence in the financial markets they need to know there will be quick and effective intervention by a law enforcement agency with the powers and resources to deal with serious and complex fraud," said director Adam Feeley in a statement. "Investigations of the scale and complexity of Five Star Finance require detailed forensic accounting analysis which inevitably takes time."

Five Star Finance and Five Star Consumer Finance called in the receivers in 2007 owing some $77 million to secured debenture holders. The SFO estimates the losses to investors and creditors of the Five Star Group to exceed $85 million.

The four accused, Nicholas Kirk, Marcus MacDonald, Anthony Bowden and Neill Williams, already face charges from the Companies Office over alleged breaches of securities law, while Five Star Consumer Finance's receiver has lodged a civil suit against the board for failing its duty to the company.

« SCF doubts it will meet NBDT requirementsS&P finally delivers some good news »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 26 August 2010 at 1:57 pm Michael Donovan said:
I have to say I struggle with the message in this article, in relation to it's message to the struggling financial profession in NZ?

Adam Feeley claims "that it takes a long time to do the necessary forensic analysis of unacceptable things like related-party-lending," and there can be no doubts that he is correct.

Why then, did I hear earlier this week that the director of another 'group' of finance companies, Doug Somers Edgar (of the old Money Managers, First step and others)was not charged for allegedly doing the same thing, except that the amounts involved were said to be at least 4 or even 5 times larger?

Is it possible that any amounts of stealing clients money above say $90 million are exempt from any further action because it is just too large for the abilities of the relevant SFO or Commerce Commission?

Is there anyone out there who may have a better knowledge of such things able to help explain it a bit better than I?
Michael Donovan (old Money Manager)
Commenting is closed



Printable version  


Email to a friend
Today's Best Bank Rates
Rabobank 1.75  
Based on a $50,000 deposit
More Rates »
News Bites
Latest Comments
  • When is a client really a client?
    “And this subtle upgrade to the understanding of a complaint. Which changes the ISO definition from an expression of dissatisfaction...”
    13 hours ago by JPHale
  • When is a client really a client?
    “Just released additional standards from the FMA. Record keeping potentially until 7 years after the death of the life...”
    13 hours ago by JPHale
  • When is a client really a client?
    “@ReganT interesting that the two life advisers involved with the code working group discussion are the ones being argued...”
    18 hours ago by JPHale
  • When is a client really a client?
    “In a previous reply I responded to the concept of payment as a trigger. I actually agree it’s not. While we don’t often...”
    2 days ago by regant
  • When is a client really a client?
    “Tash are you being deliberately obtuse? I didnt say you have to keep sending/giving disclosure every year, I said you have...”
    2 days ago by regant
Subscribe Now

Deposit Rates newsletter

Previous News


Most Commented On
News Quiz

The maximum remuneration model for Australian life insurance advisers is to be set at what?

Upfront 40% + trail 20%

Upfront 50% + trail 10%

Upfront 50% + trail 20%

Upfront 60% + trail 10%

Upfront 60% + trail 20%


About Us  |  Advertise  |  Contact Us  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy  |  RSS Feeds  |  Letters  |  Archive  |  Toolbox
Site by Web Developer and eyelovedesign.com