Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The New Zealand Police- do it yourself guide investigating fraud

  1. #1

    The New Zealand Police- do it yourself guide to fraud

    Having problems finding a policeman to investigate fraud in New Zealand?... then don't be surprised by the way the police turn a blind eye to evidence of fraud in Porirua,

    This concerns an account that was inflated by $1000, so that a person holding an enduring power of attorney for my mother (near dead in Te Hopai Hospice) could extract more money from her estate.

    The enduring power is below
    Power of Attorney.jpg

    The note advising the account would be padded
    Pad da bill.jpg

    The actual bill presented by convicted fraudster, Ross Mainland, while on parolePadded bill.jpg


    The note advising the account would be padded was found in 2002 by my son and I after we searched through rubbish that had been put out for collection by one of the executors of my mothers estate. It was shown to Steve Sargent of the Porirua Police, who contacted the person holding the enduring power of attorney.

    The explanation given to the police at the time, was that the account had nothing whatsoever to do with my mother and was a personal matter between the executors of her estate. This explanation was conveyed to me by Sgt Sargent and I was advised the matter would not be investigated.

    However, in 2003, after my mother passed away, I found the actual account which clearly shows the bill made out to her and I gave this evidence to Sgt Sargent, which confirms the Police had been lied to about the person responsible for payment of the account.

    Again, No action was taken depite the evidence suggesting the Police had been misled.Today the Police advised that they received a credible explanation at the time that resolved the matter. Only one problem, to date, is that no one has provided me with that credible explanation....

    All I see is the evidence of how its possible in New Zealand for someone acting with an enduring power of attorney to get away with cooking the books for an incapacitated person in their care.

    To be continued..
    Last edited by beefhooked; 16-07-2012 at 04:25 PM.

  2. #2
    img017.jpg



    TO:-SARGENT, Stephen Stephen.Sargent@police.govt.nz

    Hi Steve,

    I've located the attached letter from you in 2003.

    I will be discussing the matter with the Ombudsman today in respect of my right to have "Official Misinformation" corrected, as you have pointed out,you have 21 days to provide the rest of the file.

    You have incorrectly stated that the complaint of false pretences was made against Janine Creser while she was acting as my mothers executor.

    If you check your records, you will discover that at the time, Janine Creser and Ross Mainlaind conspired to produce this account while my mother was still alive in 2002.

    Clearly the complaint involved an offense that by a person in a special relationship, ie: that of someone holding her enduring power of attorney, which is somewhat different from your description of the matter as a "minor fraud".

    Do you have any comment to make before I publish an article and request the ombudsman to investigate this component of my complaint?

    Te Reply
    SARGENT, Stephen Stephen.Sargent@police.govt.nz


    1:41 PM (19 hours ago)



    Your request for information is being processed. The other matter, will not be re-visited. it is now 10 years old.


    Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2012 10:41
    To: SARGENT, Stephen
    Cc: OXNAM, Michael
    Subject: Official Informaton Act-Correction
    Last edited by beefhooked; 19-07-2012 at 11:10 AM.

  3. #3
    Administrator admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Dargaville
    Posts
    448
    Blog Entries
    8
    This calls for a note to the top of the food chain...


    The New Zealand Justice Forum to;
    Minister for Police, Anne Tolley

    19 July 2012

    Hello Anne,

    I am an administrator at nzjustice.com, I discussed this matter with your Police secretary this morning which concerns an example of lax enforcement of the law regarding fiduciaries holding an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPOA). I am seeking your comment on the issues raised in a thread posted by a member of the New Zealand Justice Forum. It can be found at this location-

    https://newzealandjustice.com/showth...tigating-fraud


    Briefly, the documents indicate;

    1) The Police found that prima facie evidence of a $1000 fraud by a person holding an EPOA was deemed minor and not worthy of investigation.

    2) The Police did not act upon new evidence which confirmed that a credible explanation given by the holder of the EPOA to the Police was false.

    3) The Police did not consider the offence as one by a person exercising an EPOA

    Could you please advise me if you agree that as a matter of public policy, fraud of this nature should be considered minor and, whether or not as a matter of public interest it should be investigated.

    Kind regards

    MC

  4. #4
    Here the the Police confirm that if you hold an enduring power of attorney and rip off $1000, as long as you can avoid being prosecuted fro ten years the Crown will take no action.

    From;
    SARGENT, Stephen Stephen.Sargent@police.govt.nz

    Jul 18 (8 days ago)

    As I said, the 'fraud' matter involving Mr Mainland and your sister is now 10 years old, involved about $1000. Under the Crown Laws Guidleines it would not be in the public interest to take a prosecution, therefore it will not be revisited or investigated.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hi Steve,

    Thanks for that, but I remind you that the request was to you for oral information given to you personally to explain the account. As far as I'm aware there is nothing in writing from either Janine or Marion Creser to explain their actions, which you said were satisfactorily resolved after a phone call to Marion.

    Please respond to this question directly-what did Janine and/or Marion say to you personally to explain the fraudulent account after I produced the evidence confirming the account was made out to my mother before she died?

    I understand that it may not have bothered you that their explanation was false, and you did nothing. As you are the only person able to explain this situation, please respond with out further obfuscation.

    Cheers

    JC

  5. #5
    SARGENT, Stephen Stephen.Sargent@police.govt.nz

    To me :

    The official information Act does not cover oral information, I can hardly be expected to remember what was said to me about 10 years ago. if I wrote it down or made a tape of it then you would be entitled to that, but not what is in my head; therefore I am unable to reply to your request.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Hi Steve,

    You have advised me that the Police have received a credible explanation for the account. I'm simply trying to ascertain whether or not you made any further inquiry after being lied to by Janne & Marion Creser. Did you?

    You have already confirmed the Police did not proceed on the basis that it was theft by a person in a special relationship, ie that of the holder of a financial enduring power of an attorney.

    Therefore I'm still seeking a credible explanation for this transaction, however it seems that you have no such explanation. UnfortunatelyI've noticed a distinct pattern of avoidance when dealing with your dept, complaints are simply not investigated and put on hold, for as long as possible, until you are able to state that its too far in the past for you to pursue.

    As for your comments that its not in the public interest to pursue, I'm curious about your definition of Public Interest, which has yet to be made clear to me. If you factor in the direct & indirect costs (1.5m) to the public purse & my pocket resulting from of your failure to prosecute this fraud, I would suggest this would indicate that this matter is of significant public concern.

    As I've said before, the file should be sent to the Crown law office for a proper opinion that precludes the possibility of Hamish Woods having anything further to do with this matter.



    Thanks
    Last edited by beefhooked; 26-07-2012 at 12:44 PM.

  6. #6
    Administrator admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Dargaville
    Posts
    448
    Blog Entries
    8
    See: response from Minister for Police attached below.




    Christopher Johnston
    Administrative Assistant (Police) | Office of the Hon Anne Tolley MP | Minister of Police

    Christopher.Johnston@parliament.govt.nz
    Parliament Buildings I Private Bag 18041 I Wellington 6160

    Dear Mr Johnston,


    Thank you for your reply to my request to Hon Anne Tolley. Ref Min 12/P/683

    To clarify, I am not asking the Minister to take any action other than answer the two questions concerning her view expressed as a matter of public policy and public interest. Either yes,no,or I don't have an opinion either way, are acceptable answers.

    You have misconstrued my request as one that seeks the Minister to instruct the Police in an operational matter. Please advise her of my concerns and refer this back to her for consideration.

    By all means refer this request to the Commissioner of Police for his opinion as well. I remind you that Parliament & the Police ultimately answer to the people of New Zealand . This is a matter of policy and public interest, and if defective, political parties can be lobbied to make laws that strengthen protections for the most vulnerable in our society, children & the elderly.

    As I've said, this is not a matter of instructing the Police to do anything but rather a request to an elected representative to comment on a matter of public policy before the electorate.


    Yours sincerely,


    Mike Colgan
    New Zealand Justice Forum
    Attached Files Attached Files

  7. #7
    FROM:
    SARGENT, Stephen Stephen.Sargent@police.govt.nz

    Jul 25 (2 days ago)

    Your request for information has been passed on. I will have no further involvement in this matter and I wouldn't recommend sending any further e-mails to your sister who has the protection order out against you.




    To Steve Sargent
    Porirua Police

    27/7/2012

    Hi Steve,

    Thanks for your advice re disclosure, sorry to hear about your amnesia in this matter.

    The complaint regarding the protection order has been referred to Judge Boshier, and the complete file will be posted online. I note the Police have declined to consider the evidence that the protection order was obtained fraudulently.

    https://newzealandjustice.com/showth...run-the-asylum

    Likewise, the the New Zealand Police have declined to investigate my complaint that Janine Creser became my trustee fraudulently after signing affidavits claiming the ability to act impartially as trustee on my behalf.

    Any correspondence to her, as previously advised, falls within the context of her relationship as my trustee for my family.If this is upsetting for her, she could abide by the undertaking her solicitor Jack Hodder gave over two years to place the estate in the hands of the Public Trust.

    If this is unsettling for you, the police could always apply the law to protect me from my trustee and Wellington lawyer Roger Chapman, who is the real villain behind this tragedy.


    Cheers

  8. #8
    Two and a half years after promising the High Court to hand over the estate to the Public Trust;

    From the Trustee
    Estate of J J Creser

    31/July 2012

    John,



    The trustees have been in negotiation with the Public Trust for some years now about taking over from us.


    They have repeatedly expressed disinterest in the past, but are currently agreeable to the proposal provided their conditions are met.


    The first of these is that a deed of agreement will be drawnup for the handover and is to be signed by Janine,John, Peter and Marion Creser.


    You will be contacted in due course.

    Marion

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To:Public Trust
    John Murfitt
    William Robertson

    2 August 20012


    Hello John & William,

    The reason this is now before you is the result of my concerns about the trustees of the estate applying pressure on my brother & I to induce us to consent to the sale of the estates remaining asset, a property in Paekakariki. My brother is schizophrenic and has recently separated from his wife & would have been left without a home if the trustees had succeeded in their last application to sell the property.

    To confirm the discussion I had with John Murfitt today, I would request that your legal department consider your obligation, if any, to seek reparation from the outgoing trustees for my bankruptcy and other actions contrary to the express purpose of the trust. Please note, all documents and correspondence relating to this matter are now being posted online at www.nzjustce.com and articles based upon those documents will be published on www.kiwisfirst.com.

    The last decision of the court regarding the will is posted here http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1803...0-pm-777k?da=y

    In the above decision, the Court found that my mother had breached her moral duty to me after being persuaded to change her will after being admitted to a rest home. Her lawyer Penelope Stevenson confirmed that she had done so because she had been persuaded that I was "surrounded by creditors" who would immediately pounce on any bequest left to me directly. The Court also found that rather than being a discretionary beneficiary as the trustees had maintained, ( in order to deny financial disclosure) I was in fact a beneficiary of a protective trust, that the Court backdated to the date of the will. As you are aware the protective trust was designed to insulate my mothers money from the effects of any bankruptcy action.

    Under the Set-Off Act this should not be possible- http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/imp.../DLM11176.html

    However the trustees took the very action that was the antithesis of the trusts purpose, and used funds belonging to the trust itself to fund their legal action against me to recover a relatively minor debt.

    The Court action for disclosure and my subsequent bankruptcy were the result of the issues discussed on this thread-

    https://newzealandjustice.com/showth...tigating-fraud

    The bankruptcy is referred to here & the complete file has been posted to the forum.

    https://newzealandjustice.com/showth...&p=325#post325

    Please understand that I consider Roger Chapman primarily responsible for this mess & if you refer this to your legal team, I would rather have his actions reviewed than punish my family. Having said that, I intend to recoup what has been illegitimately charged to the estate either way...even if I have to resort to satire!

    http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Gendall

    Kind Regards


    John

  9. #9
    Thanks to the wesite FYI I've Have just had an update from Public Trust, who have refused to take over my mothers estate unless I sign a waiver that will prevent them from taking legal action against the previous trustees Janine and Marion Creser for criminal breach of trust. Another option would be to take legal action against their Wellington lawyer Roger Chapman who used funds taken by deduction to fund litigation against me ...using my mothers money to effectively sue herself.



    From: Dan O'Dea
    Public Trust

    8 October 2012


    I will need to see the original email

    This might be one John Murfitt was dealing with a few years ago.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: INFO [mailto:[email address]]
    Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012 15:32
    To: Dan O'Dea
    Subject: RE: Internal review of Official Information Act request - Trustee
    correspondence re estate of J J Creser [#44A56Q]


    Hi Dan O'Dea.

    The following e-mail was received by the Contact Centre.

    I forwarded to yourself as it was th only information on the file found:
    Customer number 7146833.

    Regards

    Tasha Brown
    [1]Public Trust
    Customer Services
    Representative





    Dear Dan O'Dea,

    I would like to request that the complete file on this estate and myself be released to me under the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act.

    I have been informed by the Public Trust that it not concerned about possible breaches of trust and criminal offending by my mothers executor "Janine Michelle Creser", who as you are aware took me bankrupt over a small debt to the estate, after claiming to hold no assett on my behalf.

    In effect she used the funds from a "protective trust" that existed at the time, to fund an action against itself that cost my mothers estate and my self in excess of $300k

    Given that the Public Trust apparently has no interest in ensuring that the current trustees have complied with the law and repaid costs owing to the estate, I have taken the matter back before the Courts.

    I intend submitting the Public Trust's file on the estate of Jesse Joy Creser as evidence of the need for the court to intervene and remove the trustees.


    Yours sincerely,

    John Creser

  10. #10
    The problems here are simple to understand;

    Chapman is involved, his reputation as a white collar low life precedes him.

    The Family Court is involved - enough said really, how can this endear confidence ?

    Lawyer Peter Harrison of Harrison law Porirua is involved (appointed by the family court) Harrison is capable of manufacturing evidence, back door processes and substandard work.

    The nz police is involved " Sargent Sweep it under Sargent" don't like JC - do your job properly I hear you say but to the police - they are doing their jobs. Their sense of values, morals, and who they are there to serve have been surpassed by their own arrogance, justice by process, police self preservation and bigotry.

    The law society have been involved - while spoil a good Rort, cock up and cover up with an adverse outcome for some of their own members who in turn will provide work and income for other members in the same way in the future. Logic here will determine that the law society wont raise the protest flag here.

    So we see self interest is paramount for all parties yet we once had a global reputation as straight shooters, straight talkers and your word and a handshake ment something in New Zealand. Blokes like Colin Meades, our soldiers in two world wars helped to fashion that reputation, what must they think of what we have become.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •