Ludlow banned from consumer finance industry for life
Convicted fraudster Trevor Allan Ludlow has been banned indefinitely from working in the consumer finance industry.
Serving six years in jail for fraud, the former National Finance 2000 director has now received the first banning order issued under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act.
It means the 52-year-old can no longer set up, operate or work in the consumer finance industry.
The banning order was made in the North Shore District Court as part of a case taken by the Commerce Commission against Ludlow company Takarunga Management (Trading as Mortgage Rescue).
Justice Hinton said Ludlow “lacked the sills to be in the industry” and did not display the appropriate integrity and fair dealing.
Ludlow’s response to borrowers cancelling their contracts or disagreeing with him was “clearly unlawful and in the circumstances, outrageous” Justice Hinton said.
Mortgage Rescue offered homeowners in financial strife temporary finance to stave off mortgagee sales. They were encouraged to borrow more than was required to pay back their debt, so they could carry out renovations on their homes.
Commerce Commission competition manager Graham Gill said homeowners who had fallen on hard times and needed to refinance or face mortgagee sale were particularly vulnerable and had the right to full protection of the law.
The Commission prosecuted Mortgage Rescue and Ludlow under the Credit Contract and Consumer Finance Act and the Fair Trading Act in relation to consumer credit contracts entered into with two families.
Justice Hinton imposed fines of $29,000 on Mortgage Rescue and $1000 on Ludlow – reflecting the fact he was unable to earn income during his prison sentence.
Both parties were ordered to pay close to $24,000 in reparation to the borrowers.
Ludlow was the director and sole shareholder of National Finance, which owed investors more than $21 million when it collapsed in 2006.
He was found guilty of seven charges under the Crimes Act in July following an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, and sentenced to six years in prison in the Auckland District Court in October.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions10
Another over the top response to a man who faults are largely mismanagement, neglengence, and breaches of contractual requirements. These type of wrongs should be left to civil sanctions.
Banning people for life from a fairly broad area of commerce is a grossly disproportionate response to the irregularities mentioned.
This guy has been targeted by:
SFO
Securities Commission/FMA
Companies Office
Commerce Commission
He has also been subject to trial without legal aid and without proper legal defence and his convictions are, in my opinion, unsafe. His sentence was also over the top compared to others whose wrongs were more blameworthy than Mr Ludlow's, and whose convictions were more well founded.
Justice Hinton's outrage threshold is fairly low. His judgement documents 2 cases of incorrect claims for fees and costs in consumer loans. As with the fraud, theft and false accounting convictions the courts infer from an irregularity or breach that the person has is as fully blameworthy as a person who, say, embezzled a large sum of money from their employer through repeated thefts.
Perhaps an analogy: The government passes a new section of the Crimes Act 'Murder as a Truck Driver' which provides that any person who, while driving a truck, a) fails to ensure that its tyres are fully and properly inflated and b) crashes into another vehicle, commits Murder as a Truck Driver. When a truck crashes, the police check the tyre pressure, photograph the wreckage and charge the driver with murder if they aren't properly inflated. As a result, truck drivers are jailed and labeled murderers when a) they didn't intend to kill anyone and b) no one died. The courts then pontificate about those convicted, saying how terrible people they are, and a danger to society, and so they can get banned from driving for life under other laws that cover death caused by a driver who has been convicted of a serious driving offence involving death or serious injury.
Surely in these cases one would expect the courts to have a sense of perspective about the true nature and effect of such statutes, instead of just playing along with their butchering of the English language and of English common law?
Gee David, I see you don't give a rats for the poor buggers who there retirement savings went up in smoke cos' of this shyster. He broke the law & is paying a price - and that means he cannot be trusted with other peoples money - its a damn good decision (& the 1st of many more like it hope)
Caring about one person doesn't mean not caring about the others.
How much will these poor buggers get back as a result of jailing Mr Ludlow?
David are you Ludlow's brother-in law?
no relation
Nothing except a bit of satisfaction that a least he's paying his debt to society. If he doesn't pay for his crimes they don't even get that.
He is not paying any debt at all - he will be housed and fed by the tax payer. These sort should all be shipped off to an island somewhere - close to Antarctic. Its not just about his sentence but also sends out a deterrent to others.
Thanks for hazarding a response.
There are some major differences between collecting debts and intentionally causing harm to someone as a means of attaining some other interest of 'society' or some members of society. Collecting debts means taking or using the assets of a person to pay what they owe to a creditor. It provides those resources (less collection costs) to the creditor, while obviously depriving the debtor of those resources. The harm to the debtor is not the purpose of the remedy, instead the purpose is to recover value for the creditor.
Putting someone in jail is very different. It harms the person but does not restore to anyone what they have lost (typically it reduces their capacity to pay their debts).
The impulse to harm people as a punishment is dangerous even if the people whose harm is intended are guilty of some wrongdoing. The dangers include prosecutorial error and abuse, and judicial errors resulting in harming the innocent along with the guilty. Such dangers call for better safeguards than Mr Ludlow was provided with, as well as giving good reason for reducing (or eliminating) the use of punishment as a means to address various social and commercial problems.
he did seem to get a rough sentence , probably deserved , the worst of all of these characters is John Hotchin re Nathans , lost more than most , potted his mates who are now in jail and he is already on day release from the ankle bracelet adjusting back into society , he has been seen ofter in town trying to do business, this is the biggest joke.
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below