Disabled clients fraud ‘victims’

Disabled residents were left in wet nappies all day while the couple looking after them took exotic holidays and bought diamonds.

Cecilia Ann Ellenbroek, 62, and Alfonsus Jozef Maria Ellenbroek, 64, who ran Christchurch’s Alpha Support Centre for severely disabled adults, were sentenced by the Christchurch District Court yesterday on charges of false accounting and theft as a servant between 2010 and 2015.

Prosecutor Anne Toohey said the victims of the near $500,000 fraud were the clients of the Alpha Trust.

The victim impact statements by the centre’s residents and their families made ‘‘disturbing reading’’, she said.

Some had been left in wet nappies all day because of the lack of staff, and had activities reduced. The amount stolen over a period of years might have been enough to pay for three more staff.

Cecilia Ellenbroek admitted six charges of false accounting and six charges of theft by a person in a special relationship, amounting to $494,544.

Alfonsus Ellenbroek admitted six charges of theft by a person in a special relationship, totalling $71,080. That amount was included in the total attributed to his wife.

The Ellenbroeks were the trustees. Alfonsus Ellenbroek was the chairman and the operations manager. He oversaw the payroll. Cecilia Ellenbroek was the effective chief executive officer responsible for the day-today management.

Cecilia Ellenbroek’s offending enabled her and her family to live in a way that was well beyond the reach of most New Zealanders.

Full reparation is being paid to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development. About $20,000 still owing would be paid by the end of the year when Alfonsus Ellenbroek accessed superannuation funds, but it would not ‘‘remedy the wrong’’ that had been done to the residents, Toohey said.

Defence counsel for Cecilia Ellenbroek, James Rapley, said the Ministry of Health had provided the centre with $1 million funding a year and had never conducted a single audit.

The Ministry of Social Development had conducted a quality control audit every year or 18 months.

He said the couple had genuinely sought to help people in need and the fraud had been a ‘‘secondary companion’’, which grew out of control.

Rapley said a jail term would be disproportionately severe for Cecilia Ellenbroek because she took care of her disabled son.

Judge David Saunders imposed 12 months’ home detention and 300 hours of community work on Cecilia Ellenbroek, and six months of community detention – a curfew nightly and at the weekends – on Alfonsus Ellenbroek, as well as 200 hours of community work.

The mother of one of the Ellenbroeks’ victims, a now29-year-old autistic man, said she was disappointed by the sentence and felt the judge ‘‘only took into account the fraud side of it’’.

Those most affected by the couple’s actions were ‘‘the most vulnerable people in society’’.

‘‘I think [Cecilia Ellenbroek] having a miserable existence behind bars for a period of time would’ve been more fair,’’ said the woman, who is unable to be named for legal reasons.

The Ellenbroeks’ actions affected her ability to trust any of her son’s care providers. She often arrived early now to make sure he was being treated well.

‘‘Neither of [the Ellenbroeks] have actually apologised. While she might’ve admitted she did it and it was wrong . . . neither of them have actually said they’re sorry. They’re sorry they got caught.’’

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) accepted a communitybased sentence was appropriate for Alfonsus Ellenbroek but argued against home detention for Cecilia Ellenbroek.

It may consider lodging a solicitor-general’s appeal.

SFO director Julie Read said Cecilia Ellenbroek’s sentencing was ‘‘manifestly inadequate’’.