Bridgecorp's Gary Urwin jailed for two years

At Urwin's sentencing, Mr Dickey presented a case which set Urwin apart from his fellow convicted directors  - Rod Petricevic, Peter Steigrad, Rob  Roest and Bruce Nelson Davidson - saying he was guilty of reckless conduct in respect of Barcroft, a recipient of Bridgecorp's single largest loan and in which Urwin had a 50% shareholding.

Bridgecorp's description of the loan as an unrelated party was found by Justice Geoff Venning, in his judgment on the Bridgecorp trial, to be one of the key lies in Bridgecorp's prospectus and investment statements.

"Mr Urwin was influential in misleading investors to prop up his own personal economic interests," Mr Dickey said.

Urwin earlier pleaded guilty to ten Securities Act charges relating to untrue statements in Bridgecorp's investment statements.

"He had a primary role in affairs in Australia and Fiji which were bound up in the Barcroft transaction - the transactions which was found by Justice Venning to be the transactions that ultimately bought Bridgecorp down."

Mr Dickey described Urwin as a "half-interest beneficiary" when the Crown cut through to the substance fo the Barcroft deals.

"He is 25% of Bridgecorp and, effectively, 50% of Barcroft.

"And it is Barcroft and its non-disclosure as a related party that is a key lie in the offer documents.

"The reason it is a related party is particularly because of Mr Urwin," Mr Dickey said.

"He of all persons at Bridgecorp knew best that Barcroft was a related party and had exposed the lie that was made in the offer documents. This places him in the top-tier of the non-disclosure case [of the Securities Act charges]."

It also placed Mr Urwin in a quite different position to Petricevic, Roest and Steigrad.

Mr Dickey said Uwin should receive a harsher sentence to co-accused Bruce Davidson, who also pleaded guilty ahead of trial and was sentenced to home detention.

Urwin was more culpable than Davidson, because of his link to Barcroft.

And unlike Davidson, Urwin had shown no deep remorse for the loss to investors, said Mr Dickey.

"Davidson showed sincere and deep remorse. Mr Urwin simply has not."

While Davidson had provided $500,000 in compensation, which considerably reduced his asset base, Uwin has offered no financial compensation.

Mr Dickey said Davidson had shown genuine cooperation with authoriities, whereas Urwin still contests the Crown's case against him.

Lawyer says Urwin was no ogre

Urwin's lawyer, David Reece, said Mr Dickey was making Urwin out to be an ogre, "and effectively blaming him along with Mr Petricevic for the failure of Bridgecorp".

Mr Reece said Urwin deserved a credit for his guilty plea that was significantly larger than the 10% discount suggested by the Crown.

Although Urwin was an accountant, he was not a practicing accountant at the time of his involvement with Bridgecorp and lent on the advice of staff, such as internal auditor Indra Kumar.

Barcroft was not a mischief and was not a facade but a "warranted commercial transaction" - evidenced by the fact receivers, upon Bridgecorp's receivership, adopted Barcroft.

The description of Urwin as the ogre of Barcroft, "raining down destruction upon Bridgecorp because of his own monetary ends", fell flat, Mr Reece said.

He described Urwin as having no previous convictions and a good standing in the business community who had lost everything in the Bridgecorp collapse.

"So if he could he would offer any amount to underline his genuine remorse in this position.

"The wheels fell off [Bridgecorp], he accepts he didn't do enough, especially in relation to liquidity. He should have done more and he sincerely regrets it to the court."