FINANCE ACT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24412, 25 September 1940, Page 6

FINANCE ACT

BREACH OF REGULATIONS A DEAL THAT FAILED TWO WELLINGTON MEN FINED (Per United Press Association) WELLINGTON, Sept. 24. Holding that a breach of the Finance Emergency Regulations, 1940, had been committed. Mr A M. Goulding, S.M., in a reserved judgment delivered in the Magistrate's ■ Court to-day convicted two Wellington men. Robert lan Malcolm Sutherland, a solicitor, and Norman John Suckling, a manufacturers' representative. They were jointly charged that, without lawfui excuse and without permit from the Minister of Finance, they made a payment in New Zealand in consideration for receiving a payment outside New Zealand. On this charge each defen dant .was fined £lO, with costs. The defendants were also jointly charged with being parties to a transaction involving the conversion of New Zealand money into sterling currency at a rate of exchange other than the current rale, and with dealing with money payable outside New Zealand as a'consideration for receiving payment in New Zealand. On these charges they were convicted and ordered to pay costs. A further charge, preferred against Suckling alone, of sending money out of New Zealand without the permission of the Minister of Finance, was dismissed. After reviewing the evidence and the legal submissions of counsel, the magistrate held that the prosecution had proved that a breach of the regulations had been committed. A defence of ignorance of the regulations, he added, was no defence. It had been submitted that a Mr Haydon had a permit to send money out of the country, and that the bank had assured Sutherland it was permitted to send money in sterling, though the permit was for dollar exchange, and that Suckling accepted the assurances of Sutherland on these matters. "I do not think that carries the defence far enough," said the magistrate. " Suckling had not a permit and could not be a party to any transaction which would ultimately end in his becoming possessed of money to send abroad through Haydon's permit. Suckling knew the regulations. He bought the exchange and knew that it became his property. Nor do I think Sutherland's reliance on any assurance from the bank that the transactions were not a breach of the regulations is of any avail. He was well aware of the regulations. I think these men allowed themselves to be parties to .a transaction which they, like Mr Micawber, hoped would turn out for the best. Their hopes have not been fulfilled and the veil of innocence under which they now seek cover appears to have no more substance than that which covered the charming Mr Skimpole. . . ' ~. „ "As to the charge against Suckling alone of sending money out of New Zealand, I agree with counsel. The evidence does not go far enough to establish the charge laid. The rjrosecution does not press for heavy penalties. Nevertheless, the offences cannot be regarded lightly and more than a nominal penalty must be imposed.