CAPTION SHEET
Serious Fraud Office v

Te Rangihiroa Whakaruru aka Rangi Wallace Address:
509 River Road, Fairfield, Hamilton
D.O.B:

14 August 1963

Occupation: Administrator

Charges:

Offence:

Obtaining by Deception (x5)

Act:

Crimes Act 1961, section 240(1)(a)

Penalty:

7 years’ imprisonment

Offence:

Supplying False and Misleading Information
to the Serious Fraud Office

Act:

Serious Fraud Office Act 1990, sections
45(a) and (e)

Penalty:

12 months’ imprisonment or a fine
not exceeding $15,000

 SUMMARY OF FACTS
Introduction
1.

The charges against the defendant arise in relation to his role as the “Principal
Private Secretary” to Kiingi Tūheitia (the Māori King). The defendant also
occupied the roles of General Manager and/or Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
of Ururangi Trust.

2.

The defendant has held one or more of these positions since March 2008.

Ururangi Trust
3.

The Ururangi Trust was set up to provide financial support to the office of
the Māori King (Te Tari o te Kiingitanga). It was registered as a charitable
trust under the Charities Act 2005 between 4 September 2008 and 1 June
2018.

4.

The charitable purposes of the Ururangi Trust were set out in its
Declaration of Charitable Trust.

5.

Due to the Ururangi Trust’s registration as a charitable trust, the funds it
received were tax free when spent in accordance with its charitable
purposes.

6.

Ururangi Limited is the corporate Trustee of the Ururangi Trust.

7.

The Ururangi Trust employed the accountancy firm Staples Rodway to manage
its financial accounts.

The Waikato Tainui Iwi
8.

The Waikato‐Tainui iwi (Waikato-Tainui) is the kaitiaki (guardian) of the
Kiingitanga (Māori King movement).

9.

The governing body of Waikato‐Tainui is Te Whakakitenga O Waikato
Incorporated (Te Whakakitenga).

 10.

It is made up of approximately 52,000 members affiliated with 68 marae
from 33 hapu.

Te Whakakitenga
11.

Te Whakakitenga is an incorporated society with 136 elected officials.

12.

It was previously known as “Waikato‐Tainui Te Kauhanganui Incorporated”
until it changed its name on 24 March 2016.

13.

Te Whakakitenga represents the statutory rights and interests of Waikato‐
Tainui and ensures that the benefits of its treaty settlement grows for future
generations.

14.

It is accountable to the tribal members of Waikato‐Tainui.
Te Arataura

15.

The executive committee of Te Whakakitenga is Te Arataura.

16.

Te Arataura has a small group of representatives elected by Te Whakakitenga
and one individual appointed by the Māori King (the Kaahui Ariki
Representative).

17.

Te Arataura oversees Te Whakakitenga’s day‐to‐day activities.
Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust

18.

Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust has been registered as a charitable trust
under the Charities Act 2005 since 30 June 2008.

19.

The CEO of the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust executed decisions on behalf of
Te Arataura.

 20.

The sole trustee of the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust is Te Whakakitenga.
Tainui Group Holdings Limited

21.

Tainui Group Holdings Limited is the commercial arm of Waikato‐Tainui,
being responsible for holding and investing assets of the iwi.

22.

The sole shareholder of Tainui Group Holdings Limited is Te Whakakitenga.

Funding from Waikato-Tainui
23.

Between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2018, Kiingi Tūheitia received financial
support from Waikato‐Tainui, through a Deed of Funding dated 30 April 2015
(Deed of Funding).

24.

The parties to the Deed of Funding were Waikato‐Tainui Te Kauhanganui
Incorporated (as trustee of the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust) and Ururangi
Limited (as corporate trustee for Ururangi Trust).

25.

In accordance with the Deed of Funding, Ururangi Trust received an annual
budget to carry out a number of charitable objectives, including providing
operational, management, administrative, secretarial and financial support to
Kiingi Tūheitia (Budgeted Funds).

26.

The Budgeted Funds are paid to Ururangi Trust by Tainui Group Holdings
Limited on a quarterly basis.

27.

When funds were required in addition to the Budgeted Funds, the Deed of
Funding provided that Ururangi Trust could apply for funding for an un‐
budgeted purpose and/or amount (Additional Funds).

28.

Te Arataura was responsible for approving or declining applications for
Additional Funds.

29.

If a proposal for Additional Funds was approved, before any payment could
be made, the CEO of the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust was responsible for
receiving

 any invoices from Ururangi Trust and assessing whether they were consistent
with the purpose and/or amount approved by Te Arataura.
30.

If the CEO of the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust approved the invoices for
payment of Additional Funds, she would send to Tainui Group Holdings
Limited:
•

Copy of invoice generated by Staples Rodway on “Te
Tari o te Kiingitanga” letterhead;

•

Copy of Te Arataura’s resolution that the Additional Funds had
been approved (if not already received and on the TGH file);
and

•

The CEO’s email approval of the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust
that the payment could be made.

31.

Tainui Group Holdings Limited would only pay out Additional Funds to
Ururangi Trust upon receipt of these documents.

Charge 1: Obtaining by Deception - The Trailer Invoice
32.

The first charge faced by the defendant is a charge of Obtaining by
Deception pursuant to s 240(1)(a) Crimes Act 1961 (Crimes Act).

33.

The charge arises in relation to the purchase of a trailer in 2015. The
funds involved were Budgeted Funds.

34.

On 17 December 2015 the defendant bought a trailer on behalf of the
Ururangi Trust.

35.

At 9.46am on the same day, the defendant sent an email to Mr Barrett of
Staples Rodway, the accountants of Ururangi Trust, and asked if he could pay
the vendor of the trailer directly and be reimbursed later. He told Staples
Rodway that the total cost was $11,255.00. This included an awning for the
trailer, and $180.00 petrol for the delivery of the trailer from Dargaville.

 36.

Mr Barrett replied by email at 10.39am, stating he was happy for the defendant
to pay for the trailer, awning and the petrol for delivery, and that he could
reimburse him later.

37.

The defendant received an email from the vendor attaching the invoice for
the trailer and awning (the original 2015 invoice) at 11.21am on 17 December
2015.

38.

The original invoice was from Searle Forestry Contractors Limited and was for
$8,200.00 inclusive of GST.

39.

Another invoice was created (the amended 2015 invoice), and at 12.45pm
on 17 December 2015, the defendant sent an email to Mr Barrett attaching
the amended 2015 invoice. The email stated:
This is the invoice I paid for the trailer.

40.

The amended 2015 invoice had the same company name as the invoice
the defendant received from the vendor. It also had the same address,
date, GST number and invoice number. However, the amount due in the
amended 2015 invoice was $11,075 instead of $8,200.

41.

As a result of receiving the amended 2015 invoice, Mr Barrett arranged for a
total of $11,255 to be paid into the defendant’s bank account. This was
$11,075 for the trailer and awning, as well as $180 petrol money, which was
paid into the defendant’s bank account on 17 December 2015.

42.

When paying for the trailer and awning, the defendant paid the vendor the
amount in the original 2015 invoice, that is $8,200, but received from the
Ururangi Trust the amount in the amended 2015 invoice, that is $11,255
(which included $180 for reimbursement of petrol money).

43.

The amended 2015 invoice contained false or misleading information
because:
(a) it was for the amount of $11,255 when it should have been $8,200; and
(b) it was purported to be made and/or issued by Searle Forestry
Contractors Limited, when in fact, it was not.

44.

The defendant knew at all times that the amended invoice contained false or
misleading information as it was made under his instruction.

 45.

The defendant intended to deceive Mr Barrett about the amended 2015
invoice so that he could obtain $2,875.00 that he was not entitled to.

Charge 2: Obtaining by Deception - The Gastric Bypass Invoice
46.

The second charge faced by the defendant is a charge of Obtaining by
Deception pursuant to s 240(1)(a) Crimes Act.

47.

The charge arises in relation to the defendant’s gastric bypass surgery. The
funds involved were Additional Funds.

48.

On 11 May 2016, the defendant was admitted to Mercy Hospital, Epsom
(Mercy Ascot), for a "Laparoscopic Removal of Gastric Band and Gastric
Bypass" (Gastric Bypass) procedure. He was discharged on 16 May 2016.

49.

The cost of the defendant’s procedure was $27,650.

50.

The defendant’s executive assistant booked many of the appointments at Mercy
Ascot for the defendant to attend in the lead up to the surgery.

51.

The defendant told her the reason for him going to hospital was because
something was wrong with him, and that they thought it was cancer of the
stomach.

52.

Just prior to his surgery, the defendant prepared a Confidential Internal
Memorandum (the May Memorandum) seeking Additional Funds of $200,000
for the Ururangi Trust. The May Memorandum stated that the additional funds
were required to cover the forecasted medical treatments and costs of Kiingi
Tūheitia.

53.

The May Memorandum was dated 5 May 2016, and was addressed and
submitted to the Chair of Te Arataura, CEO of Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust,
and the Kaahui Ariki Representative of Te Arataura.

54.

In the May Memorandum, the defendant stated that the King’s “Primary
Advisors & Medical Team” included the CEO of Mercy Hospital Group, even
though (and unbeknownst to the members of Te Arataura) neither the CEO nor
any of the hospitals in the Mercy Group, were involved in medical treatment for
the Māori King at that time.

55.

The members of Te Arataura agreed that additional funds would be paid to

 the Ururangi Trust for the Māori King’s medical costs, and on 27 May 2016
resolved to:
Approve up to $200,000 from Distributions to meet the health costs of the Head
of the Kaahui Ariki through to 31 March 2017 and that payment is contingent
upon invoices being received.

56.

The defendant was advised about this decision, including the fact that
invoices were required before payment would be made.

57.

The defendant received the invoice for his procedure at Mercy Ascot on 23
May 2016 (the original 2016 invoice). The original 2016 invoice was dated 20
May 2016 and had the following details:
Tax Invoice No: IN452535 A
Name: Te Rangihiroa Whakaruru
Admitted: 11 May 2016
Discharged: 16 May 2016
Procedure: Laparoscopic Removal of Gastric Band and Gastric Bypass.
Amount due: $27,650

58.

The defendant asked the CEO of Mercy Hospital Group to change the
details of the original 2016 invoice so that his name and the details of his
procedure did not appear on it.

 59.

This led to Mercy Ascot issuing an amended invoice (the amended 2016
invoice). The amended 2016 invoice was dated 15 June 2016 and had the
following details:
Invoice No IN248299 / M
Name: Ururangi Trust
Product: OTHER ‐ Medical services and Treatments: King Tuheitia Fund Refno
9000022127
Amount due: $27,650

60.

As was intended by the defendant, the amended 2016 invoice did not
contain details about his name, or the type of procedure that the invoice
related to.

61.

The defendant then asked his executive assistant to draft a purchase Order for
Mercy Ascot purportedly giving a breakdown of costs of the Māori King’s Health
and Medical for April, May and June. The total was $27,650, and it included the
following details:
(a) Vascular Therapy
(b) Vascular Consultation
(c) Ultrasound
(d) Radiology Ultrasound
(e) Radiology CT Scan
(f) Urinary Tract Monitoring
(g) Peripheral Angioplasty

62.

On 24 June 2016, the defendant’s executive assistant sent the purchase
order and the amended 2016 invoice from Mercy Ascot to Staples
Rodway. This was again done upon instruction from the defendant.

63.

Staples Rodway created an invoice dated 1 July 2016 on the letterhead of Te
Tari o te Kiingitanga for a total of $48,447.09. This invoice was said to relate
to the Health Costs – Head of the Kaahui Ariki and was labelled
“Reimbursement Invoice 2”. However, it included the $27,650 from the
amended 2016 invoice (as well as legitimate costs relating to the Māori King’s
health care).

64.

On 4 July 2016, the defendant’s executive assistant sent the CEO and Chair of
Te Arataura an email with documents attached and stated:

 Attached please find Ururangi’s progress invoice for King’s medical.
Please let me know if you need further information or clarification.

65.

The email attached a number of documents including:
(a) A copy of Reimbursement Invoice 2 for $48,447.09;
(b) A schedule of Medical and Health Reimbursements for the Head of Kaahui
Ariki;
(c) A copy of the amended 2016 invoice for $27,650 (among other
legitimate medical invoices); and
(d) A copy of the Purchase Order for $27,650.

66.

This was done upon instruction from the defendant, as he knew that the CEO
was responsible for approving individual invoices on behalf of Te Arataura before
payment could be made.

67.

In arranging for the documents to be sent to the CEO, the defendant intended
to deceive her about the details of the medical procedure at Mercy Ascot in
May 2016. Specifically, the defendant intended for her to believe that the
amended 2016 invoice related to the Māori King’s medical services and
treatments at Mercy Ascot, even though the defendant knew that it related to
his own Gastric Bypass procedure.

68.

Upon review of the documents the CEO concluded that the amended 2016
invoice was consistent with the purpose for which the Additional Funds were
approved by Te Arataura on or about 27 May 2016.

69.

The CEO therefore approved the amended 2016 invoice for payment
(together with other legitimate invoices totalling $48,447.09) and sent the
invoices and approval from Te Arataura to Tainui Group Holdings Limited for
payment.

70.

On 7 July 2016, $48,447.09 was paid into the Ururangi Trust bank account.
The money was paid as part of the Additional Funds approved by Te
Arataura on or about 27 May 2016.

 71.

On 20 July 2016, the Ururangi Trust paid $27,650.00 to Mercy Ascot in
accordance with the amended 2016 invoice.

Charges 3, 4 & 5: Obtaining by Deception - Further Medical Invoices
72.

The final three charges faced by the defendant are for Obtaining by
Deception pursuant to s240(1)(a) of the Crimes Act.

73.

The charges arise in relation to three invoices for the Māori King’s health
and medical costs, purportedly at Mercy Ascot. The funds involved were
Additional Funds.

74.

On 28 November 2016 Kiingi Tūheitia and a family member were admitted
into Auckland Hospital for a medical procedures.

75.

The procedures were performed as part of the public health system and no
costs were incurred by the Ururangi Trust for the operation, theatre,
anaesthesiologist or high dependency unit (HDU) or intensive care unit (ICU).

76.

Shortly before the operation, on or about 24 November 2016, the
defendant prepared and submitted a Confidential Internal Memorandum (the
November Memorandum) requesting Additional Funds of $81,000 by
way of a special distribution from Waikato Tainui for the Head of the
Kaahui Ariki.

77.

The November Memorandum was addressed to the Chairman, CEO and
Kaahui Ariki Representative of Te Arataura, and stated, “Proof of expenditure
shall be provided to the Chairman of Te Arataura and the Acting CEO and is
subject to the strictest confidentiality and for “Their Eyes Only””.

78.

In the November Memorandum, the defendant stated the disbursement of
the budget “shall give consideration to and be focussed on” the King’s
[medical procedures], lead up treatments and pre‐operative
arrangements,

 specialist costs, post‐operative medication and treatments, household facilities and
services, caregiving, transport and attendances in Auckland for up to 16 weeks.
79.

In the November Memorandum, the defendant stated that the King’s
“Primary Specialists, Advisors & Medical Team” included the CEO Mercy
Hospital Group, even though (and unbeknownst to the members of Te
Arataura):
(a) neither the CEO nor any of the hospitals in the Mercy Group, were
involved in medical treatment for the Māori King at that time; and
(b) None of the hospitals in the Mercy Hospital Group offered the particular
medical service that the King and [a family member] had received at
Auckland Hospital in November 2016.

80.

Having received and considered the November Memorandum, the members of
Te Arataura agreed that additional funds would be paid to the Ururangi Trust
to support on‐going medical costs of the King, and on or about 25 November
2016, resolved that up to $140,000 would be available.

81.

On 29 November 2016, the defendant was advised by email that Te
Arataura had approved the funds and that payment would be contingent
upon invoices being received.

82.

On or about 7 December 2016, the defendant asked his executive
assistant to send him a copy of the amended 2016 invoice from Mercy
Ascot. She did so.

83.

Between 11 December 2016 and 16 December 2016, the defendant
attempted to create invoice(s) purportedly from Mercy Ascot for the King’s
medical procedures. He was unable to do so himself, and so, he instructed
Jason Marshall, an employee at the Ururangi Trust, to do it for him.

84.

The defendant’s executive assistant created a single invoice as instructed
and sent it to the defendant on 16 December 2016.

85.

The single invoice was on Mercy Ascot letterhead and was addressed to
Ururangi Limited. It was dated 20 December 2016 and the total payable was
$80,263.10 (including GST of $10,469.10), which was made up of three
entries:

 Product: Other – Pre‐Op. Description: [King and family member].
Schedule Price: $15,175.00

−

…

Product: TRN/M. Description: [King’s medical procedures].
Schedule Price: $41,739.13

−

…

Product: TRN/KP. Description: [King’s family member’s related medical procedures]
Schedule Price: $12,880.00

−
86.

…

The invoices contained details of the medical procedures including specialist
consultants, theatre, anaesthesiologists and HDC/ICU.

87.

Two minutes after receiving the single invoice, the defendant sent an email
back to his executive assistant stating, “Excellent. Print two copies and please
keep this strictly to yourself and I as I cannot compromise anyone else other
than the hospital and I.”

88.

On 21 December 2016, the defendant sent an email to the acting CEO and
asked her if the three invoices that had been hand‐delivered to her office
could be paid before the close of business for Christmas. He told her that two
of the three invoices had already been paid by the King, and that the other
(larger) one was overdue.

89.

The defendant knew that the acting CEO was responsible for approving
individual invoices on behalf of Te Arataura before payment could be
made.

 90.

The same day, the defendant arranged for a copy of the three invoices to be
emailed to the acting CEO and one of her colleagues.

91.

The three invoices were on Mercy Ascot letterhead and were dated 8
December 2016 (collectively to be referred to as the three medical
invoices). The three medical invoices contained the same details as the
single invoice created under the defendant’s instruction.

92.

The first medical invoice had an invoice number of IN539427 / MTRN written
at the top. The details were as follows:
Product: Other – Pre‐Op.
Description: [King and family member]
−

…

Schedule Price: $15,175.00 exclusive of GST, and $17,451.25 inclusive of GST.
93.

At the top of the first medical invoice there is a “Received” stamp. In the
received stamp, the defendant has written the date “9.12.16” and has
initialled it.

94.

The defendant has also written on the bottom of the invoice the following:
Paid chq No 020316‐039420
16/12/16

95.

This number is not a legitimate cheque number or bank account number as it
does not have the correct number of digits for either.

96.

The second medical invoice had an invoice number of IN539428 / MTRN
written at the top. The details were:

 Product: TRN/M.
Description: [King’s medical procedures].
−

…

Schedule Price: $41,739.13 exclusive of GST, and $48,000.00 inclusive of
GST.
97.

At the top of the second invoice there is a “Received” stamp. In the
received stamp, the defendant has written the date “9.12.16” and has
initialled it.

98.

The third medical invoice had an invoice number of IN539429 / MTRN written
at the top. The details were:
Product: TRN/KP.
Description: [King’s family member’s related medical procedures].
−

…

Schedule Price: $12,880.00 exclusive of GST, and $14,812.00 inclusive of
GST.
99.

At the top of the third invoice there is a “Received” stamp. In the received
stamp, the defendant has written the date “9.12.16” and has initialled it.

100.

The defendant has also written on the bottom of the invoice the following:
Paid chq No 020316‐
039XXXX 16/12/16

101.

This is not a legitimate cheque number, however, it is the bank account
number of the Māori King’s bank account (of which he is a joint signatory).
The defendant wrote a cheque for $14,812 using the Māori King’s cheque
book and signed it (using his own signature), on or about 20 December 2016.
The cheque was made out to “cash”.

 102.

The cash cheque was deposited into the defendant’s personal account the
same day it was written. The defendant then transferred
$14,800 from his personal account back into the Māori King’s account.

103.

On 20 December 2016, the acting CEO also received from the defendant a
single invoice on the Te Tari o te Kiingitanga letterhead.

104.

The invoice was for a total of $80,263.10 (including GST of $10,469.10) and
was made up of the same three amounts and treatments in the three false
invoices as well as the invoice drafted on the defendant’s instruction.

105.

On or about 21 December 2016, the acting CEO reviewed the documents
and concluded that the three medical invoices were consistent with the
purpose for which the Additional Funds were approved by Te Arataura on or
about 25 November 2016.

106.

The acting CEO therefore approved the three transplant invoices and
arranged for the invoice on the Te Tari o te Kiingitanga letterhead and a copy
of the approval from Te Arataura to be sent to Tainui Group Holdings Limited
for payment.

107.

On 22 December 2016, Tainui Group Holdings Limited made a payment of
$495,425.23 from the Waikato Raupatu Land Trust’s bank account to
Ururangi Trust’s bank account. This amount was made up of:
(a) $17,451.25 ‐ for the first medical invoice; and
(b) $48,000.00 ‐ for the second medical invoice; and
(c) $14,812.00 ‐ for the third medical invoice; and
(d) $XXXX ‐ the quarterly payment of Budgeted Funds;
(e) $161.98 ‐ other expenses.

108.

The money for the three medical invoices was paid as part of the
Additional Funds that were approved by Te Arataura on or about 25
November 2016.

 109.

The defendant used the three medical invoices to obtain money into the
Ururangi Trust bank account purportedly to pay for Kiingi Tūheitia’s medical
procedures. However, the medical procedures were done at Auckland
Hospital under New Zealand’s public health system and the Ururangi Trust did
not incur any charges.

110.

The three medical invoices contained false or misleading information
because they purported to be for medical procedures performed on the
King at Mercy Ascot hospital, when in fact, Mercy Ascot did not
undertake any of the services referred to in the three medical invoices.

111.

Mercy Ascot did not render any invoices for these services.

112.

The defendant knew at all times that the three medical invoices were not
from Mercy Ascot and that the Ururangi Trust did not incur any costs at
Mercy Ascot hospital.

113.

In arranging for the three medical invoices to be sent to the acting CEO,
the defendant intended to deceive her about the King’s medical
procedure at Auckland Hospital. Specifically, the defendant intended for
her to believe that the King’s medical procedure in November 2016 had
been done at Mercy Ascot hospital and required additional funding,
even though the defendant knew that it had been done under the public
system at Auckland Hospital and that no such funding was required.

114.

On 23 December 2016, the date after monies were paid into the Ururangi
Trust bank account, the defendant arranged transfers of $14,812.00 and
$17,451.25 (a total of $32,263.25) from the Ururangi Trust bank account to the
Māori King’s bank account.

115.

On 28 December 2016, five days after the above payments were made
into the Māori King’s bank account from the Ururangi Trust, the defendant
transferred
$30,000 from the Māori King’s bank account into his personal account.

Charge 6: Supplying false information to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
116.

The defendant was compelled to attend three interviews under section 9 of
the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990 (s 9 interview) on 22 August 2019, 25
September 2019 and 26 September 2019.

117.

During these s 9 interviews, the defendant was lawfully obliged to answer

 the questions of the SFO investigators, and in answering those questions,
was not to provide any answers that were known to him to be false or
misleading.
118.

During the first s 9 interview on 22 August 2019, the defendant told SFO investigators
that payments had been made from one of his personal bank accounts into the bank
account of Ururangi Trust, for the purpose of covering the cost of his Gastric Bypass
procedure at Mercy Ascot in May 2016.

119.

The defendant advised:
(a) His assistant received all his invoices and had worked out that he needed to transfer
$30,000 to cover the cost of the Gastric Bypass procedure.
(b) He authorised his assistant to transfer $30,000 from his account to the Ururangi
Trust bank account prior to the Gastric Bypass procedure.
(c) The transfer had been done in two payments of $15,000 each within weeks of the
procedure.

120.

The information supplied by the defendant to the SFO on 22 August 2019 was false and
misleading because:
(a) The defendant did not instruct his assistant to make payments from any of his bank
accounts to cover the cost of the Gastric Bypass procedure, either before or after the
Gastric Bypass procedure.
(b) None of the payments made from the defendant’s personal account into the Ururangi
Trust account were made for the purpose of covering the cost of the Gastric Bypass
procedure.

121.

At the end of the interview on 22 August 2019, the SFO investigators advised the
defendant that he would be required to attend another interview. They invited him to
bring documentation to the subsequent interview to prove that payments had been
made from his personal bank account into the bank account of Ururangi Trust to cover
the cost of his Gastric Bypass procedure, in accordance with his claim.

 122.

On 25 September 2019, the defendant attended the SFO office for a second s 9
interview. The defendant did not provide any material to the SFO to support his assertion
of transferring personal funds into the Ururangi Trust account to cover his personal
Gastric Bypass procedure.

123.

This is because the assertion was false and was intended to mislead the SFO
investigation team. Instead of telling the truth, the defendant again lied in his second
interview in order to mislead the SFO investigators.

124.

During this second interview, when asked by the SFO investigators about the
purported transfer of his personal funds into the Ururangi Trust bank account to cover
his Gastric Bypass procedure, he stated again that his personal assistant had made
payments from his bank accounts into the bank account of Ururangi Trust.

125.

The defendant advised that payments had been made from a number of his personal
bank accounts, including four $5,000 payments from his ANZ account.

126.

The information supplied by the defendant to the SFO on 25 September 2019 was
false and misleading because:
(a) The defendant did not instruct his personal assistant to make payments from any of his
bank accounts to cover the cost of the Gastric Bypass procedure.
(b) None of the payments made from the defendant’s personal account into the Ururangi
Trust account were made for the purpose of covering the cost of the Gastric Bypass
procedure.
History
127.

The defendant has not appeared before the Courts previously.