Criminal Breach of Trust-Chapman/Creser
This post includes a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office & Wellington Police, dated 13 October 2006,that:"Roger Chapman of Johnston Lawrence and J M Creser commited a criminal breach of trust by using funds from the complainant's estate for personal reasons not authorised by the trust
email jcreser@gmail.com
30 October 2006
The Registrar
High Court
Wellington
MEMORANDUM FOR COSTS- CIV 2005 485-211157
Please place this before the presiding Judge. I note the court has refused to defer the matter of costs, the trustee’s indemnity for costs or recognise that funds claimed by the trustee’s to be held in trust for the beneficiaries, have in fact been spent.
Without disclosure it is impossible to enforce the trust. We have neither disclosure nor an audited account.
My mother was able to keep accurate records for her church group & herself even after suffering a stroke.
Could the Court please explain how 2 trustees, 3 accountants, the Audit Office, Official Assignee, 8 lawyers and at least 12 Judges are unable to provide an accurate account after four years?
I can’t explain it other than to suspect I’m being ripped off. Accordingly, the complaint (Police Ref: 050729/111775) of Criminal Breach of Trust under s229 of the Crimes Act 1961 has been laid with the Police. It is attached to this memorandum.
I note the Court referred to “new allegations” in the last memorandum, however it is clear from the ruling of the Court of Appeal that described several of the documents as evidence. Therefore, if a document is connected to material already described as evidence, then the Court must accept it as further new evidence, note it as such, and act accordingly.
The grounds for my objection to the Court’s ruling on costs is this new evidence that the proceedings were occasioned by the trustee’s breach of fiduciary duty, therefore the trustees & their solicitors should be liable for the costs.
The Court has assiduously avoided any discussion of the Set-Off Act of 1729 that apply in respect of the trustee’s claim to hold no security over my estate. The Court is requested to provide a clear ruling and a satisfactory explanation as to why the above Act gives me no protection from my trustee as creditor and why the lack of disclosure is permissible, please reconsider the following;
· The decision of the assignee to delay disclosure has meant that the Court is unable to ascertain the veracity of the trustee’s submissions in respect of the income account.
· The decision of the Court dated 11 May 2006, refers to a sum of $40,000 set aside from income for payment to the beneficiaries. In addition the Trustee has yet to return my coin collection or stamps, presently unvalued.
The Assignee accepts that I am technically solvent. If I am solvent, there must be sufficient funds to discharge the “debt”. However there is no money and I sincerely believe I’ve been subject to criminal behaviour that has gone unrecognized by the Court. This remains completely unacceptable to me and I believe naïve of the parties concerned, to hope that this ruling will resolve the outstanding systemic cause of this entire matter, bias and lack of transparency.
This is a matter of equity, and it is patently absurd that the trustee’s have been allowed to pursue the relatively insignificant debt that led to these proceedings, accordingly, the Court is advised the estates property Reg WN 73/75 is presently restrained from being sold by a caveat X 6546725-1 until a Court determines if the trustees actions could be considered a breach of fiduciary duty.
Yours impecuniously,
John Creser
cc Herb Romaniuk
Sudy Kay
Daryl Strachan
Peter Martin
Paul Chisnall
Filed by the complainant in person. 30 Oct 2006
“The beneficiaries right to an impartial trustee is paramount” –“yeah right”
“POLICE Ref: 050729/1775
Criminal Breach of Trust
Illegal Assistance With Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Allegation against-
Roger Chapman/Johnston Lawrence Solicitors
J M Creser/as trustee for deceased estate
Complainant:
John Creser
email jcreser@gmail.com
13 October 2006
Commissioner of Police
New Zealand Police
180 Molesworth Street
P.O Box 3017
Wellington
Ian Varley
Serious Fraud Office
P.O Box 7124
Wellesley St
Auckland
Dear Sir, REF 050729/1775 - Criminal Breach of Trust
I have been discussing various elements of the above with Supt Dave Trappit who has requested that I prepare a further written statement to support this complaint.
On May 17 2006, I requested a statement of account for the period of the trustee’s tenure between Dec 2001 & 2006. To date, the trustees have failed to sign off on accounts for this period nor provided vouchers and receipts to explain their personal expenditure.
This file is being forwarded to your office & Mr. Ian Varley of the Serious Fraud Office because of previously noted conflict of interest in the Wellington Police prosecutions office.
This involved a civilian employee Mr Hamish Woods, effectively deciding not to prosecute himself for failing to follow statutory procedure concerning the solicitor’s trust/income account referred to in this complaint.
The criminal acts of those named in this complaint have ensured that remedies otherwise available for breach of trust in a civil forum are unavailable. The offence complained of is disclosed by reference to s229 of the Crimes Act 1961:
“ Every one is guilty of a criminal breach of trust who, as a trustee of any trust, dishonestly and contrary to the terms of that trust, converts anything to any use not authorised by the trust.”
The Trust resulted from the will of my mother J J Creser.
The purpose of the Trust was found by the High Court on 11 May 2006 to be a protective trust designed to protect me from creditors.
The statutory authority for the trustees to act is proscribe by the Trustee Act 1956 and in a moral sense, the test would involve comparing the trustees actions to those that would have been taken by the testatrix in the same circumstance.
The trustees and their solicitors used funds belonging to the estate to avoid disclosure and pursue a bankruptcy claim against my share of the estate for the costs associated with the application for disclosure.
The trustee and their solicitors acknowledged they held security for the costs and were able to wait until after probate of the will to recover costs of approximately $6000.
The actions of the trustee & her solicitors were contrary to the intent of the trust. If there were numerous creditors, as my mother had been led to believe, the corpus of the trust would have been destroyed.
Funds were converted by the trustee’s and their solicitors by way of deductions made from the income account without consent of the beneficiaries for a purpose diametrically opposed to the spirit & intent of the trust.
Now, six moths after the High Court ruling, only $3000 of income due has been remitted to beneficiaries and a claimed $40,000 surplus (referred to in the judgment based on trustee submissions) is in fact a $21,000 residual from borrowings against the estate of $80,000.
It is estimated that the trustees have spent several hundred thousand dollars to avoid disclosure and pursue a claimed personal bankruptcy, whilst using funds belonging to the party they are suing.
The current state of the account is confirmed by the following statement from Peter Martin (trustee’s solicitor) to Mr. Paul Chisnall (solicitor for Assignee),
Dear Paul
I refer to your telephone call of this morning in which you requested in your capacity as solicitor acting for the Official Assignee details of the amount held in our trust account. I can advise that the amount held here through our trust account with the National Bank on IBD is just under $21,000.00. These funds are not available for distribution however as the trustees are mindful that there are considerable costs payable as minuted by Judge Miller in addition to which there is a contingent liability for unrendered fees from our firm. A total of all of the above of course exceed the amount which is currently held here.
For that reason the trustees have declined to make any further interim distribution to the beneficiaries and I would anticipate that it may not be until the Mt Victoria property is sold that further funds will be available for distribution.
Regards
Peter Martin
Friday, 6 October 2006 11:09 a.m.To: Paul ChisnallSubject: Estate Jessie Joy Cresser(sic)
11. The draft accounts show substantial income paid to Peter Creser that has not been passed on by the trustee. The trustees and their solicitors have an immediate duty to pay over income to Peter Creser and myself from 20 March 2003.
A timeline with evidential material & rulings of the Court is attached to this complaint to confirm details of this complaint. It is alleged in this document that others, in particular the Official Assignee, have acted inter-alia to provide to illegal assistance with breach of fiduciary duty.
It is not the intention of this complaint to address issues other than those described herein.
Signed____
Complainant
Witness___________________
posted by Beef-Hooked @ 5:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home