Carol Braithwaite guilty – majority verdict
UPDATE:
The guilty verdict against National Finance 2000 director Carol Anne Braithwaite is a warning to company directors not to rely on anyone's judgment but their own, says the Institute of Directors.
Braithwaite was found guilty by a majority jury verdict in the Auckland High Court this morning on one charge of signing the failed finance company's 2005 prospectus containing an untrue statement.
10.15am:
In a majority verdict just returned this morning, an Auckland High Court jury has found National Finance 2000 director Carol Braithwaite guilty, on one charge of signing a prospectus containing an untrue statement.
The ex-wife of jailed fellow National Finance boss Allan Ludlow, Braithwaite is the only person in a series of recent finance company director trials to have a jury trial.
She will be sentenced on September 18.
Justice Pamela Andrews decided it was appropriate to grant Braithwaite bail to her Devonport, Auckland home, after listening to arguments from her lawyer Quentin Duff.
Braithwate was a first-time offender and her offence was not in the same category of seriousness as that of Ludlow, said Mr Duff.
Her risk of reoffending was low and her personal circumstances also supported bail: Braithwate is a single mother and sole caregiver for children aged 13 and 11.
Justice Andrews said her decision to grant bail was not indication of the sentence to come.
Mr Duff said while imprisonment could not completely be excluded, a sentence of home detention was more appropriate.
The Crown argued imprisonment was at least possible for Braithwate.
Although it was accepted Ludlow's offending was in a different category to Braithwaite, Crown lawyer John Dixon noted the starting point for Ludlow's sentencing was four-years imprisonment.
One of Braithwaite's worst breaches was linked to related party lending involving the purchase of Fiji apartments, "of which she was well aware", Mr Dixon said.
Speaking outside the court, Mr Duff - who pushed for a jury trial - said the jury had been very thoughtful over the two-week trial.
"This was always going to be a difficult case to win," he said.
UPDATE / July 24, 4pm:
Carol Braithwaite was shocked National Finance collapsed – she thought everything at the vehicle finance company was “going great”, a court heard this afternoon.
Under cross-examination by the Crown’s lawyer John Dixon, Ms Braithwaite told the court she and her co-directors would sit and listen to the company’s boss – her former husband Allan Ludlow – tell them everything was going well with the finance company.
“When we talked at meetings, everything seemed to be OK,” she said.
It was largely her husband’s assurance that gave her confidence to sign the 2005 prospectus for National Finance 2000.
Ms Braithwaite is now defending one charge of making untrue statements in that document.
Her two-week, jury trial at Auckland High Court continued today.
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.
Ms Braithwaite’s confidence in Ludlow’s blanket assurance in the company, placed in receivership in 2009 owing investors $21 million, was in spite of the fact he already had one company failure under his belt, the Crown reminded her.
That was the original National Finance, which went broke owing about $600,000 in the late 1990s.
Ms Braithwaite said the difference was that that National Finance 2000 had an in-house accountant.
“Having that [accountant] to me, ensured everything would be OK,” she said.
Ms Braithwaite said she became a director largely because she was Ludlow’s partner and was investing money in the company.
Although she had no previous experience as a director, she said she tried to bring independence of mind to the directorship, but effectively followed the other directors.
Her co-directors told her financial information in the 2005 prospectus was full, correct and above board and she did not have reason to believe anything otherwise.
She did not know controls such as audit committees or credit control committees should have been insisted upon, she told the court.
And she was surprised to learn when she read the financial statements; she was getting $79,000-a-year in director’s fees, because she didn’t think she had been making anything from the company
She thought the $26,000 Ludlow was direct crediting into her bank account that year was for household expenses and was from him, not the company, she said.
She was equally surprised to learn she was making $100,000 in remuneration and other benefits a year earlier – which meant the couple were earning $225,000 between them.
“I can’t explain it,” she told Mr Dixon. “It was probably Allan working out his income. It looks to me like he was dividing his income up.”
She told the court she did not know money spent on a Fiji apartment was a related party transaction. “I thought it was a dividend,” she said.
She was also unaware of National’s related party lending to Universal Marketing – run by Michael Pearce – the boyfriend of her then 18-year-old daughter.
Ludlow’s charge of theft by a person in a special relationship related to him breaching National’s trust deed with a $125,000 loan to Universal Marketing, which was incorrectly recorded as a dealer loan.
Ludlow told NBR ONLINE last year: “My step-daughter and her boyfriend are nothing short of little ****s I tried to help.”
The trial, before Justice Pamela Andrews and jury, is proceeding
This morning:
National Finance 2000 director Carol Braithwaite says her now-jailed ex-husband kept affairs of the troubled vehicle finance company hidden from her.
In "pillow talk", Allan Ludlow – National's managing director and sole shareholder – told Ms Braithwaite he was excited about the company and everything was going well, she told her lawyer, Quentin Duff, at Auckland High Court today.
Ludlow was sentenced to six years and four months in jail in October last year after being found guilty for his part the finance company's May 2006 collapse, which left some 2020 investors $25.5 million out of pocket.
Now Ms Braithwaite is defending one charge of making untrue statements in the financier's 2005 prospectus.
The charge, brought by the Financial Markets Authority, carries a maximum penalty on conviction of five years' imprisonment or a fine of up to $300,000.
Ms Braithwaite's is the first prosecution of a finance company director to be heard by a jury.
She told the court today she was more interested in being a homemaker and looking after her children than being a director of her husband's company.
But she accepted the directorship, which paid her fees of $79,000 annually, when the company needed a third director.
She told the court she certainly didn't want to be a director at the time she signed National's 2005 prospectus.
"Because the empire of Alan's was getting so big and I felt I was getting left behind a bit."
She was not involved with the "day-to-day stuff" at National Finance and had very little communication with its staff, she said.
Ms Braithwaite said nothing caused her to be concerned about the company before signing the prospectus in 2005 and she believed its contents to be true.
That was because her husband was "delighted" with the document and the accountant was also happy with it and had invested his own money in the business.
"Allan Ludllow assured me it was all OK," she said. "I thought this is all going great, the prospectus is correct."
Ms Braithwait read the prospectus before signing but did not discuss it with the company's auditor or trustee before she put her signature on the document.
"I didn't think that was what I was supposed to do."
Ms Braithwaite did not think her fellow directors would lie in prospectus statements.
She told the court she now knows she was wrong.
Ms Braithwaite is the last of four National Finance directors to face prosecution.
Director Anthony Banbrook, who was to be tried alongside Ms Braithwaite, entered a last-minute guilty plea to the charge last month. He will be sentenced next month.
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.
Ludlow was jailed after being found guilty of false accounting and theft by a person in a special relationship.
Ms Braithwaite and Mr Ludlow separated in 2008.






















Comments and questions30
Fascinating case. Yet again - don't become a director unless you know what you are doing and are prepared to face the consequences.
Another case of STD : sexually transmitted debt...
whats the point in prosecuting this woman? , obviously didnt seem to benefit.We as taxpayers will just end up supporting her children while shes in jail and paying the legal aid bill
Wow! Just like in chess, Carol's gambit is the "Petricevic- Roest" defence; using the pawn instead of the Queen.
She claims that the Prospectus states her salary was $79,000 but yet this wasn't true. Given she signed the Prospectus, isn't this another case of 'making a mis-leading statement'?
Although having said that, I don't see the public interest in pursuing her, just a waste of taxpayers money. Why not just ban her as a director and move on at minimal cost?
to be fair she would be in the same position as the majority of wives that get roped in to being directors of their husbands companies - wouldn't have the slightest idea about what was going on, other than what their spouse tells them... a complete waste of time prosecuting this woman.
Oh dear oh dear, the FMA is obviously desperate to be seen to be doing something. What's the bet old cunning Sean Hughes is prosecuting this woman (should not have been a director) to avoid being criticised for chasing trophy directors. But then again, why worry prosecuting people when it's the tax payer funding Hughes' cases.
Have the bankrupted these people and taken their assets.
Provided they have been swiftly moved from Parnell to South Auckland, there is no benefit here...
Perhaps someone should have reminded her of the "F" word - Fiduciary. She is pulling the classic Barclays defence....I hope she gets nailed to a wall as a message to everyone who wants the title of Director but none of the responsibility/liability.
Oh poor is me! Another wife/partner happy to take/enjoy the spoils of illgotten gains while they last and then cry wolf that she knew nothing. . Give me a break ! So many directors are negligent in their duties in this country tho', so catching a few out is tip of the iceberg really. Most caught survive to live another day ..and often reinvent themselves to fleece more naive people, the IRD etc and retain their status at the golf club or wherever. How fickle we are
Agreed - do statutes such as Companies and Securities Act not apply to some purely because they are ignorant / naïve?
Since clueless women are obviously more influenced by money than the criminal law why not just take this one to the cleaners -- it would teach her and those like her more than a conviction and a minor criminal penalty!
Lets hope the jury see through her defence, andsend her to join her ex hubby.
OMG, what a brilliant defense, next we will have a hen pecked hubby telling us "my wife made me do it".
Any director, any gender, any sexual persuasion, and level of NCEA, deserves what is coming if they sign documents without exercising their fiduciary duty to the company, shareholders, and in this case investors.
Re lumps of money appearing in my account, "I thought it was from my hubby, not the company". While you are doing porridge, call up the TUI ad agency, they would love to use it in their yeah right campaign.
she was more than happy to enjoy the money and all those holidays overseas, never questioned where the money had come from when she was living in the laps of the gods, she signed the documents and clearly knew more about things than what she is letting on
Seems like a very convinent memory loss, how come she never asked he hubby how they managed to spend so much or does she plan to pay back the money she owes us?
Silly woman was obviously brought in as a patsy. Nevertheless, she enabled and was the beneficiary of criminal behaviour. Glad I'm not on the jury.
Aside from the negative comments above (there but for the grace of god....) I do think there should be more education & perhaps a certificate, around directorships. Every SME has at least one or two, and I bet almost none of them have a clear understanding of ALL they must obey. Company law is very complex, so a clear list of duties would be invaluable to prospective directors.
This 'list' is called the Companies Act...
Educate people how be directors? whatever next....
Should this education be required before becoming a director? Would this have prevented what happened here and at other finance companies.
The people who should be educated are the foolish investors who invested their money at rates barely above term deposit rates and lost it with the finance companies.
The Companies Act is not complex. The only prerequisite is basic literacy.
She knows how to crochet?
Macrame, for hanging pot plants.
I don't understand why the trustee, Covenant Trustee Company, aren't on the stand also. At least if they are found guilty then the Court can impose a significant fine.
Not if you are John Banks - She should have used his alibi - I don't remember.
She should have to sell her house and property that she gained by illegal means so that she could make some effort to repay the lenders to National Finance 2000. Braithwaite was well aware that the original National Finance her husband ran had just gone belly up due to bad management over the years. Then she promptly started another similar company with her defacto to rip off more suckers.
I believe the story notes indirectly that she owned the house prior to meeting Ludlow.
My point re education was a suggestion that if an intending new director, ie new to company directorship, as many SME's are would benefit from a short course in the finer points of the Companies Act and their duties, with a certificate of understanding, so that the excuses we hear are no longer relevant.
I also agree with the above that a deeper understanding of financial risk is lacking in our NZ investors. Maybe they/we should take a seminar in financial literacy and risk management before our money is accepted.
My own position is these things happen, "Cavaet Emptor" "Buyer Beware".
Buyer Beware? Okay, fair enough, but when a finance company's prospectus contains outright lies, investors have no hope of knowing what the risk is. Criminal misrepresentation has been a theme of the last 4-5 years' global financial failures and investor losses.
Carol Braithwaite deserved to be before the Courts and found guilty. Criminal behaviour should never be excused "as I didn't understand" when a Directorship and salary is undertaken and deposited. On her comments that she only received $26,000 per year for househouse expenses - $500 week (how many children did Ludlow and Braithwaite have together? 5 or 6) how does anyone expect to fly to Fiji for Apartment purchases? What cost does this relate to on the scale of yearly household expenses? things don't add up here. Braithwaite had a duty to be aware and has through deceit let down innocent investors. Shame on her and her excuses - All assets including houses need to be sold to go some way in repaying her dishonestly. I do not feel this was a waste of tax payers money - the question should be how much mud has been dodged by this woman and her ex-husand before finally something stuck? National Finance to National Finance 2000 surely no one forgot to ask "why the name change" Braithwaite even had the excuse to add "Darling" to the end of her enquiry. Guilty was the perfect outcome - time is on her side now to dwell on the answers investors have been left to seek based on her neglect and deceit - what does the future hold at my age?
Most finance company failures appear to be formed and run by incompetent idiots who could not run any business sucessfully.They revert to lying after they have been found out ripping off investors. .Carol Braithwaite lied from the start and with her de facto both were well aware of the failure of the first National Finance company that she was involved with being unable to pay back its investors.
Then she and her de facto started to rip off investors right from the start by lying and stealing in the second company National Finance 2000. I believe the maximum jail sentence and $300000 fine is warranted also full repayment to investors until amount owed is repaid in full.i hope she looses sleep like all the poor investors.