The Crown argues Bridgecorp used Barcroft as its "treasury or piggybank" and said the companies were closely linked through former director Gary Urwin.
Despite the alleged ties, Barcroft was listed as an unrelated company in one of Bridgecorp's prospectus.
Financial Markets Authority lawyer Brian Dickey alleged this morning that a purpose of the transaction was to hide that the loans were impaired and could not be paid back when due or soon after they were due.
"The position we end up with, Bridgecorp has related-party loans which can't be paid...to recognise that true position would have to impair these loans in Bridgecorp's financial statements for 2006," Dickey said.
"I disagree," Roest replied.
"Bridgecorp could't afford to impair these loans...[it] would have wiped out out Bridgecorp's profits," Dickey said.
Roest repeatedly denied the loans were impaired.
Dickey then put to the witness that he and Gary Urwin, in substance, "ran Barcroft".
"You controlled its money at Bridgecorp, you controlled its accounts at Bridgecorp," Dickey said.
Roest denied the allegation and said the two companies had an "administration agreement".
The trial continues this afternoon.