CURRENCY CONVERSION

Evening Star, Issue 23681, 14 September 1940, Page 6

CURRENCY CONVERSION

ALLEGED BREACHES OF REGULATIONS IMPORTANT TEST CASE [Pee United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, September 13. Breaches of the Finance Emergency Regulations are alleged against Robert lan Malcolm Sutherland, a solicitor, and Norman John Suckling, a manufacturer’s representative, who were jointly charged in court to-day with, being parties to a transaction involving the conversion of New Zealand currency into sterling currency at a rate of exchange other than the current rate, with making _ payment in New Zealand as a consideration for receiving payment outside New Zealand, and with dealing with money payable outside New Zealand as a consideration for receiving payment in New Zealand. Suckling was also charged alone with sending money outof New Zealand without the permission of the Minister of Finance. _ Both pleaded not guilty. Part of their defence was that the informations do not disclose any statutory offence. The . charges were heard together. It was stated for the Crown that the facts were that a Mr S. J. Haydon, who went to live in California because of his wife’s health, was given perxnission by the Reserve IBank to transmit to San Francisco £I,OOO in February; and six amounts of £IOO each in April, June, August, October, November, and December. Sutherland was attorney in New Zealand for Haydon, and, on April 30, he was informed by the Union Bank that it was the last day on which the April permit was available. Having no funds available in Haydon’s account, he _ arranged _ an illegal, transaction with Suckling, whereby Suckling paid £IOB for the £IOO, which was the quivalent of £BO sterling. Sutherland banked the £IOB to Haydon’s credit and endorsed the draft with the signature of Haydon, and it was despatched by Suckling to his principals in Yorkshire, Suckling asking that £BO sterling be placed to his credit in England. „ Giving evidence, Sutherland said Haydon mentioned leaving New Zealand that he had a friend in Suckling’s office, and he would be pleased to meet as the latter’s principals overseas might be useful to him in his. endeavours to begin business in America on his own account. Sutherland said ho hanked the £lO3 given him by Suckling to Havdon s credit in a trust account. He endorsed the draft and gave it to Suckling. He did not know the terms of the arrangement between Haydon and Suckling’s office about the money. His principal concern on April 30, when all the transactions except the handing - over of the draft took place, was that he might miss collecting the April permit on his client’s behalf. '. . Answering counsel for the Crown,Sutherland said that on April 30 he did not hold enough money of Haydon’s to pay for the April permit. In participating in this transaction, he assumed that-. some arrangement had been made between Haydon and Suckling and Firths (Suckling’s .Yorkshire principals) by which Firths might be taking the money: on Haydon’s behalf, acting..perhaps as his bankers. He thought the draft was going to England for Haydon for his benefit. _ .. . Suckling, in evidence, said he was aware that outgoing letters were dealt with by the censor. The draft was sent out in the mail in the ordinary straightforward way, and he was greatly surprised when he was informed that it had been held up. „ • To counsel for the Crown, Suckling said he realised that the regulations of April 10 would stop his buying of sterling. He mentioned the regulations to ; Sutherland, whose reply was that he was getting a draft from a trading bank, and it, obviously, must have the authority of the Reserve Bank. Suck-, ling said he did not then know that Haydon’s permit had been issued months previously. Replying to. his own counsel, Suckling said he understood that any arrangements made before the April regulations oould legally be completed. After evidence and legal argument had been submitted, ■ the Magistrate said he considered that cases of this nature were of considerable importance and interest to the commercial, community and the public generally. _ He, therefore, proposed to reserve his de- • cision.

Mr H. R. Biss, who conducted tha case for the Crown, said near the end of the hearing that the police understood this to be the first prosecution of its kind in New Zealand, and had brought the case. for the purpose of making tho regulations more public. The police were npt pressing for a heavy penalty, but wanted it to ba brought before the public and understood that breaches of the regulation* were regarded seriously.