Woman dodges conviction for doctored bank statements in Nelson Family Court case

First published on

A woman doctored bank statements to hide her true financial position during proceedings over the division of relationship property.

Those altered statements were then presented as evidence in court, a move that has been described by a judge as "serious, serious offending" that "struck at the heart of justice".

According to a police summary of facts, the woman, who has permanent name suppression, was acting out of fear because she did not want her ex-partner to know about her financial situation.

She also claimed her actions were the result of ongoing trauma from the "physical, emotional and financial abuse" she suffered during and after her relationship with the man.

"The type of offending involved was inherently serious in that it involved deception but it was a very low-end matter of its type," Judge Tony Snell said while sentencing the woman in the Nelson District Court.

While the offending could have led to a term of imprisonment, Judge Snell ended up granting her a discharge without conviction on charges of forgery and altering a document with intent, which she admitted earlier this year.

'Amateurish attempt'

The pair had been in a long-term relationship and became entangled in judicial proceedings over the division of relationship property.

The Family Court directed the woman to disclose bank statements stretching over nearly two years.

Before disclosing them she altered three statements by cutting and removing several transactions, then photocopied the altered statements to make them look like "full genuine statements".

She then created a fictitious email address to make it look like it had been sent to her by a bank employee, informing her of the date her account had been closed with a balance of just over $100.

The police said the email was "deliberately created" by the woman to support the closing date and balance of her bank statement she had "doctored".

The Crown said altering the statements was an "amateurish attempt" that was immediately picked up.

The woman said later that she did not intend to mislead the Family Court but was acting out of fear.

She then supplied the correct details.

'Struck at the heart of justice'

The woman's defence lawyer said that despite support from the woman's employer after she had disclosed what happened, she risked losing her high-level job if a conviction was entered. Her prospects elsewhere "would be stuffed".

"Her future would be permanently blighted by a conviction."

He added no actual loss or financial gain had been incurred as a result of the offending.

Judge Snell said the offending had been "utterly out of character", and the woman's remorse was genuine but he doubted her claim the offending was linked to trauma in the relationship when what she had done was to deceive.

"The court does not have to determine what the reason was," Judge Snell said.

He said aggravating features included that the offending was deliberate and premeditated and that the documents had been filed in a court proceeding, accompanied by a sworn affidavit they were correct.

He said the woman's actions "struck at the heart of justice".

"The court relies on the integrity and honesty of documents and this offending is inherently serious," Judge Snell said.

"What you did was deceive the court and opposing parties, but what I accept is what the Crown accepts in that it was an amateurish effort that was always destined to be found out."

Judge Snell did, however, accept details contained in a report that pointed to the state of the woman's mental health at the time.

He noted the woman's job had been a major stabiliser in her life, along with the social support it offered.

He said the woman had since been respectful of the court process, and realised there was no excuse for what she had done, but it was "highly out of character" and her risk of reoffending was low.

"A conviction would have a devastating impact on her career, or her existence in Nelson."

He was satisfied "by some margin" that a conviction would have consequences out of proportion to the gravity of the offending.

"That is not to lessen the fact this was serious, serious offending that the court condemns," Judge Snell said in granting her discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression.

* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.