Carol Braithwaite sentenced
"Weak sentencing. Another example that Anthony Malloy has unearthed a very serious problem with incompetence in the New Zealand judiciary."
Featured commentNational Finance 2000 director Carol Anne Braithwaite will be punished at home for her part in the collapse of ex-husband Trevor Ludlow’s vehicle finance company.
Justice Pamela Andrews sentenced Braithwaite to 10 months' home detention and ordered her to do 300 hours of community work in a penalty handed down at Auckland High Court.
Braithwaite was found guilty by a majority jury verdict on July 27 on one charge of signing the failed finance company's 2005 prospectus containing an untrue statement.
The charge was brought by the Financial Markets Authority and she was the only person in the series of recent finance company director trials to have a jury trial.
Braithwaite, in her fifties, faced a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $300,000.
She was instructed to return to her home on Queens Parade, Devonport immediately and await arrival of the electronic monitoring unit.
Justice Andrews told her she was to abstain from use of alcohol or drugs througout the duration of the sentence and attend counselling as directed by the probation officer.
The judge had set a starting point for sentencing of two years', eight months imprisonment.
She took into account Braithwaite's family circumstances, that she is sole caregiver for her autistic child, in awarding an eight-month discount on that term.
She also accepted Braithwaite could not make any payment in reparation because she had no money, dependent children, and receives a welfare benefit.
Braithwaite has been on bail at her Devonport home awaiting sentencing and is the last of four National Finance directors to face prosecution.
Her defence was she didn't know anything about managing investor funds and relied on the knowledge of other directors, including her former husband Ludlow, when she signed the 2005 prospectus for National Finance. The couple separated in 2008.
Braithwaite's lawyer Arlin Arman said an appropriate starting point for sentence was 2 to 2.5 years' imprisonment, causing it to be a case where home detention was suitable.
He said Braithwaite's offending fell into the lower-end of the spectrum – a crime of ignorance and not one of intent.
"It would be a stretch to hold her equally culpable as some other finance company directors when she comes from a background when not even aware of the standards.
"Gross negligence requires extra element of knowing better."
But the Crown argued Braithwaite's offending did amount to gross negligence and sought a starting point of three years' imprisonment.
Crown lawyer Stephen Symon said it was possible Braithwaite would not be facing sentencing today if the prospectus had made clear she did not know how to do the job.
Braithwaite was described in the prospectus as having a wide range of skills that equipped her to be a director, and her marriage to Ludlow was not disclosed.
"The investors that lost money didn't know that she didn't know how to do the job," Mr Symon said.
Money Braithwaite and Ludlow had used to buy luxury apartments in Fiji was obviously related party lending, and certainly not a loan to a motor vehicle dealer, he said.
Ludlow is serving a six-year, four-month jail sentence after being found guilty in October of false accounting and theft by a person in a special relationship.
Director Anthony Banbrook, who was to be tried alongside Braithwaite, entered a last-minute guilty plea to the charge. His sentencing was delayed last month because he disputed facts in the summary of facts before Justice Tim Brewer.
The matter is now likely to be explored during a disputed facts hearing.
National's accountant, John Gray, pleaded guilty to theft by a person in a special relationship and one charge of false accounting in November 2010 and was sentenced to a term of 18 months' imprisonment, later reduced after an appeal to nine months' home detention.
National Finance invested deposits received from the public into car loans through dealers or the related Payless Cars business. It went into receivership in May 2006 owing $24.8 million to about 2000 investors.
gbond@nbr.co.nz






















Comments and questions22
Weak sentencing. Another example that Anthony Malloy has unearthed a very serious problem with incompetence in the New Zealand judiciary.
spot on anon - another weak sentence totally out of sync with what is needed
So Directors are ultimately responsible even if advised by others. Similar to signing a tax declaration your accountant has prepared.
So what I would like to know is, why this does not apply to signing disclosure statements for political donations, Mr Banks?
"FMA head of enforcement Belinda Moffatt said the sentence highlighted the fact that directors are accountable for disclosure obligations and that they cannot rely on what others tell them."
Well Mr key and his party conned you. All they did was tamper with the bail and parole sentences are as weak and pathetic as ever. New Zealand has the weakest weakest punishments for law breaking in the world. And the government lied to you and took you for a ride on this issue.
This type of weak attitude towards white collar crime will corrupt our next generation. With the allure of high cash rewards and minimal punishment people will be more likely to go down the fraudster route.
Unbelievable sentence. This woman stole, yes stole millions and she gets ten months home detention. Would someone who stole the equivalent in cars or tvs get the same sentence? no. Her sentence in neither a punishment or detterent... Pathetic
My bother lost is farm to these low life people
Was she really guilty of ingorance or was it negligence?
What a wonderful precedent set for all NZ directors that they can now defend their actions by saying, "Oh I thought my fellow directors knew what they were doing so I wasn't fraudulent or negligent because I folowed them like a highly paid sheep".
The punishment does not fit the crime . . . these criminals should be made to sell all their assets & have nothing just like there victims.
Where does it say she stole anything? I very much doubt she is at risk of re-offending, so I personally prefer we don't waste any more taxpayer dollars on putting her in prison
If you read the article she is already wasting taxpayers money (she is on welfare). So putting her in prison is hardly going to be more of a drain and it might actually serve to deter others.
Actually white collar criminals often re-offend. Just look at the number of disqualified directors who pop up again 5 years later and ruin more people's lives.
Time to get hard on these people.
She was the wife of the founder, and my comments pertain (quite clearly i thought) to her specifically not 'white collar criminals' in general. So you can step down from that high horse now.
In case you have not noticed yet - she is now a fully paid up member of the 'white collar criminal' clan.
Given that she hasn't shown much remorse that I can see your attempts to minimise her offending is laughable.
Justice system her must be running out of wet bus tickets by now.Are the jails so full,that there is no room left for these crims.Or are the judges woefully out of touch with real sentencing or do the crime do the time,even people who have had a difficult childhood,it was not my fault brigade.etc.
Taking her away from an autistic child would be absolute hell for the child, hell for the person having to look after the child, and would result in the taxpayer paying for her imprisonment, and paying for the childs care, which would be the equivalent of 4 FTE carers.
Okay so anyone in NZ with a family member who has some kind of disability is sentenced on a different basis.
Does that mean the families who lost their life savings or valued less than the disabled family member of the perpetrator?
I'd doubt her child is autistic. Having an autistic child these days almost seems to be the "in" thing, like Labradoodles. Call me a cinic but really would you believe this woman.
Difficult children yes,but are there so many autistic children.
lovely homes in Devo!
Indeed. Nothing ike getting a bottle of Sav from Woolworths home delivery to sup away your sentence watching the yachts pass by. That'll teach her!
I can understand the sentence: sisters in solidarity.
Lessons to our future leaders from the judiciary. Steal millions and live for years on the hard won savings of others: Reward:1 0 months' home detention and 300 hours of community work. Anyone care to calculate the rate per hour she's earned in advance for the 300 hrs of legitimate work she 'may' do. Chardonay and caviour for some.
How come a DPB can afford to live in a waterfront home at Devonport. The rent alone would be several multiples of the DPB. Could it be........ no it couldnt be that a family trust owns the house and is charging a pepper corn rental to her. Plus paying for the car kids private school fees etc etc etc.
Time we had some Trust Busting laws that were applied by our servants the Judicary.