6.00PM: As the Auckland Pride Centre fraud trial draws to a close the Crown prosecutor has directly accused an alleged fraudster of lying to cover his misuse of cheques and documents. Martin van der Reit is charged with seventeen counts of fraud and one of perverting the course of justice following revelations of the financial collapse of his employer, the Auckland Pride Centre, in early 2004. The prosecution this afternoon highlighted several direct debit authorisation forms which all carried the same September 15 2003 date but which were lodged at the Centre's bank several months later to authorise payments from the Pride Centre to van der Reit's own company, Pride Holdings. How, asked the prosecutor, could the earlier date be on those forms if, as van der Reit has stated several times, he was never given pre-signed blank cheques or forms by Bennett or fellow trustee Joel Stutter. Why, wondered the prosecutor, were those forms effectively pre-dated if Bennett worked so closely with van der Reit? Van der Reit responded that it was known as early as September that the Gay Guide project, which he was overseeing through his Pride Holdings, was going over budget, and that it was agreed that the Pride Centre would provide funds but not immediately. "We decided to wait and see," he said. To the repeated suggestion that Bennett may have pre-signed forms and cheques and left van der Reit to his own devices, van der Reit stated firmly: "No, Edward and I worked on these things together." "That's a lie isn't it," accused the prosecutor. "No. Absolutely not." The Crown prosecutor also referred to evidence presented earlier by Stutter, Bennett and fellow trustee Susanne Paul, pointing the finger at van der Reit as a rogue employee who had taken advantage of lax oversight. "I don't know what [Paul] was privy to but Stutter and Bennett have it wrong," was the response. The prosecutor highlighted the reluctance of Pride Trust board members to become involved in the Gay Guide project. "Were you surprised when the board members wanted no financial involvement in the Guide?," he asked. "No, they told me that from the start." "So why," continued the prosecutor, "if the Pride Centre wanted no financial involvement, did they apparently invest $36,000 in the Guide?" Van der Reit merely reiterated that the Gay Guide was his own project, separate from the Pride Centre. Questioning the $36,000 budgeted costs associated with the project, the prosecutor asked van der Reit how much of that money was intended for himself. "There was no discussion of that." Asked what he had used the Gay Guide money for, van der Reit replied that he had spent it on "travel, research, socialising, living expenses," plus printing and production of the guide. Asked additionally why Pride Centre cheques were written out to Pride Holdings at the same time as automatic payments were transferring money from the Centre to the company, van der Reit responded: "because we went over budget and I needed more money." Indications are that the defense and prosecution lawyers may now sum up as early as tomorrow morning and that the jury may retire to consider its verdict in the afternoon. GayNZ.com will continue to file live reports from the Aucland District Court until a verdict is reached.
Credit: GayNZ.com News Staff
First published: Wednesday, 14th November 2007 - 6:10pm