CONVERSION OF N.Z. CURRENCY

Southland Times, Issue 24231, 14 September 1940, Page 6

CONVERSION OF N.Z. CURRENCY

CHARGES AGAINST TWO MEN BREACHES OF FINANCE REGULATIONS (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, September 13. Breaches of the Finance Emergency Regulations were alleged against Robert lan Malcolm Sutherland, a solicitor, and Norman John Suckling, manufacturer’s representative, who were jpintly charged in the Magistrate’s Court today 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 witri money payable outside New Zealand as a consideration for receiving payment in New Zealand. Suckling was charged alone with sending money out of New Zealand without the permission of the Minister of Finance. Both pleaded not guilty. Part of their defence was that the informations did 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 permission by the Reserve Bank to transmit to San Francisco £lOOO in February and six amounts of £lOO each, in April, June, August, October, November and December. Sutherland was attorney in New Zealand for Haydon and on April 30 was informed by the Union Banki 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 £lOB for the £lOO which was equivalent to £BO sterling. Sutherland banked £lOB to Haydon’s credit and endorsed the draft with the signature of Haydon. It was despatched by Suckling to his principals in Yorkshire, Suckling asking for £BO sterling to be placed to his credit in England. CONNECTION WITH SUCKLING

Sutherland said that Haydon had mentioned to him before leaving New Zealand that he had a friend in Suckling’s office and he .was pleased to have a connection with Suckling,, as the latter’s principals overseas might’ rie useful to him in his endeavours to begin business in America on his own account. Sutherland said he banked the £lOB given him , by Suckling to Haydon’s credit in the trust account and endorsed the draft ' arid 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 trie handing over of the draft took’place, was that he might miss collecting trie

April permit on his client’s behalf. Answering Mr H. R. Biss, 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, Suckling and Firths, Suckling’s Yorkshire, principals, whereby 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 informed that it had been held up. To Mr Biss, Suckling said he spoke of 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. Suckling said he did not then know that Haydon’s permit had been issued months previously.

To Mr Pope, who appeared for Suckling himself, Suckling said that he understood that any arrangements made before the April regulations could legally be completed. After evidence and legal argument had been submitted, the Magistrate said he considered cases of this nature of considerable importance and interest to the commercial community and the public generally. He therefore proposed to reserve his decision. Mr Biss 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 the regulations more public. The police were not pressing for a heavy penalty, but wanted it to be brought before the public and understood that breaches of these regulations were regarded seriously.