Kiwi accused fights to hold case in China

Photo / Thninkstock

US employer seeks $2m NZ house.

A Kiwi accused of embezzling US$10 million from his American employer is making another attempt to keep the case out of the New Zealand courts.

New Zealander Jason Dean worked for Californian-headquartered Americhip in China for nine years.

The global marketing and advertising company alleges that while Dean worked for it, he and his partner defrauded it of about US$10 million.

Dean is accused of returning to New Zealand last year with his family and purchasing a $2 million house in the Auckland suburb of Mairangi Bay with the allegedly stolen funds.

The company accused Dean of submitting false or inflated invoices from suppliers to commit the fraud and launched action against him in the New Zealand High Court to recover its claimed losses.

Americhip wants a declaration that Dean was holding the Auckland property on trust for the firm and an order vesting its legal title in the company.

Dean, who denies the allegations against him, last December applied to dismiss the action, claiming local courts did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case.

Although the litigation was dismissed on this basis by the High Court earlier this year, Americhip was successful in challenging the decision at the Court of Appeal.

Dean now lives in China and yesterday his Queen's Counsel, David Jones, applied to stay the action on the grounds New Zealand was not the appropriate place to determine the alleged fraud.

Jones told Justice Sarah Katz that a Chinese court could hear the case and that Dean was submitting himself to that country's jurisdiction.

While Dean accepts he received certain payments, Jones submitted there was evidence his client was entitled to do so under Chinese law.

If the fraud was proven against Dean in China Jones said Americhip could then enforce the judgment here in its claim over the house.

But Americhip's lawyer, Liesle Theron, opposed the stay and said Dean hadn't proven that China was the appropriate place for the litigation.

It was also in the interests of justice to keep the action in this country because of the claim over the house and the possibility a second trial in New Zealand could still be needed if the case was heard in China.

Moving the case to China would also be costly and cause delays, she told the judge.

Justice Katz reserved her decision.