Is trying to recover the Versalko prostitute money a good idea for ASB?

12:52 PM Tuesday Jun 8, 2010

Stephen Versalko. Photo / Bradley Ambrose

ASB has entered a High Court settlement negotiation with a prostitute to get back some of the money stolen by a former financial advisor.

Stephen Versalko stole $17.8 million over nine years before he was discovered and prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office. ASB alleges that a prostitute was paid up to $2.55 million and the bank is now trying to recover the money.

Is trying to recover the Versalko prostitute money a good idea for ASB? Here is the latest selection of Your Views:

Bart (New Zealand) | 03:15PM Tuesday, 08 Jun 2010

Yes, so long as they get more money back than they spend trying to get it.

Yeah Yeah (North Shore) | 03:15PM Tuesday, 08 Jun 2010

What a joke. The ASB should have had checks in place to stop it's own staff ripping off clients.

They didn't, so suck it up and take your medicine boys. You look like a bunch of losers crying over spilt milk, and who is to say the prostitute did not earn the money. It is not her job to ask if the money was stolen or even where it came from.

mchaggis (Auckland Region) | 03:15PM Tuesday, 08 Jun 2010

I take it as a client of the prostitute, Versalko paid this money out for services rendered to him. It would have been part of the contractual conditions of business in this case.

The prostitute concerned was probably not interested in how or where Versalko obtained the money paid to her over a period of time, so accepted it in good faith for the service given to him, as is part of her job.

If this was the case, then I don't see why the prostitute involved should have to pay any money back to the ASB, which as the employer, should have been more vigilant of the work their employee Versalko was doing in the first place!

The ASB employed Versalko, so they get back the stolen money from him and not any third party involved, who more than likely was totally ignorant of the origin of Versalko's cash.

While on the subject of this topic, that being stealing money from trusting clients, why doesn't the same law which applied to Versalko, also apply to Watson, Hotchin and Bryers?

They are all guilty of misappropriation of clients' funds after all, so why does one get banged up, while the other three financial fiddlers walk away from their crimes and continue to enjoy the good life?