A convicted fraudster, whose victims included Jonah Lomu, is coming up with more reasons to be released early from prison.

Loizos Michaels was convicted of 24 counts of causing loss by deception and six of obtaining by deception in 2012.

He was sentenced to six-and-a-half years in prison for the first set of charges with a non-parole period of three years and nine months.

He was sentenced to 18 months in prison for the second set of charges.

Advertisement

The Auckland District Court heard how he convinced casino executives, moteliers and All Black great Jonah Lomu that he was a wealthy businessman backed by overseas interests.

The court heard how Michaels convinced Jonah Lomu that he was a wealthy businessman backed by overseas interests. Photo / Andrew Cornaga/photosport.co.nz
The court heard how Michaels convinced Jonah Lomu that he was a wealthy businessman backed by overseas interests. Photo / Andrew Cornaga/photosport.co.nz

In 2014 Michaels went to the Court of Appeal to have his conviction for more than $3 million of fraud overturned, or the length of his sentence reduced.

The appeal was dismissed.

Now Michaels brought a new argument before the Court of Appeal in Wellington yesterday about the non-parole period attached to his 18-month sentence.

Defence lawyer Chris Tennet said Michaels should be released from prison six months early because the parole period of that sentence was missed.

"He would be six months further towards the next parole date right now because he missed out on the six months at the start.

Tennet said the minimum non-parole period was calculated as being one third of the sentence but the judge missed that six months in sentencing.

"The courts got it wrong and some remedy needs to be given."

Advertisement

Crown lawyer Peter Marshall said the case was one of the most serious frauds in New
Zealand.

He said there was no logic in bringing forward Michaels' release date when the error being claimed was about losing the opportunity to be considered for parole.

Marshall said Michaels had already been denied parole three times and questioned whether being eligible six months earlier would have changed his situation.

"It's speculative to suggest that would've had any substantive advantage to him."

He said Michaels' complaint was really about the way the Department of Corrections was administering the sentence and decisions made by the parole board.

The decision on the appeal is reserved.