Accused fighting for secrecy

Interim name suppression was granted in case involving more than $40m of mortgage finance

Four people charged in an alleged mortgage fraud case involving more than $40 million of loans and accusations of kickbacks to bank staff are fighting to keep their names secret.

The four face charges of obtaining by deception over information provided to secure more than $40m of mortgage finance on dozens of Auckland and Hamilton properties.

They were granted interim name suppression when they first appeared in the Auckland District Court last month and fought to keep it in place yesterday before Judge Philippa Cunningham.

Three of the quartet have also been charged with breaching the little-used Secret Commissions Act. Those charges allege that payments, ranging from $5000 to more than $30,000, were paid by and to bank staff in return for approving suspect mortgage applications.

The Serious Fraud Office alleges total kickbacks exceeded $500,000, with one accused lawyer alleged to have paid a bank staff member $253,303 over an eight-month period.

Court documents describe the four’s occupations as a manager, a banker, a lawyer and a director.

The accused lawyer argued that naming him would identify the firm where he worked until recently.

That firm, which also has name suppression, is concerned about the damage to its reputation if it is identified, the court heard.

Another of the accused, a manager at a property development company, argued that naming her would have a devastating impact on the business.

Subcontractors would stop providing work on credit, she said through an interpreter. The woman’s lawyer said that if the business became insolvent because it was identified that could hurt those subcontractors.

The woman also said that if name suppression was lifted it would have a negative effect on her parents and parents-in-law, who were in their seventies and had health issues.

But SFO prosecutor Todd Simmonds said the woman’s parents were well enough to serve as the directors and shareholders of companies associated with her business.

Cunningham indicated during the hearing that she didn’t believe arguments about the woman’s parents’ health would meet the required threshold for suppression.

However the hearing, which was partly argued yesterday, has been put off to finish next week. Their names remain suppressed at least until then.