Created fake invoices

A109 Light Utility Helicopter flight with mayor Gisborne City from the air in November 2023.

Another woman has admitted generating some of the fake invoices John Bracken is accused of using in a $17.4 million GST refund scam.

A former ANZ bank teller, now a self-employed financial adviser, told the High Court on Friday how Bracken befriended her at Auckland branches of the bank where she worked, then paid her $200-to $300 monthly to do his “invoicing” in her spare time.

She did it for about a year up until April 2016, then passed it on to a second woman — one who claimed in evidence earlier last week to be Bracken’s former lover and who ultimately blew the whistle on his alleged offending when she called the Serious Fraud Office in 2017.

The former bank teller’s evidence confirmed the other woman’s testimony about the invoices but quashed her suspicion Bracken was intimately involved with both of them.

Bracken, 54, faces 39 charges of dishonestly using a document — GST returns — for financial gain, specifically refunds to which he was not entitled during four years up to June 2018.

A judge-alone trial in which Bracken is representing himself began last Monday in Gisborne.

Justice Graham Lang is presiding.

Bracken is representing himself.

If found guilty, he is likely to face about 10 years in prison.

The IRD alleges the offending relates to a merchandising and export business arm of Bracken Enterprises Limited (BEL) — not its Matawai farming operation — and that contributing financial activities were solely undertaken by Bracken and all away from Gisborne.

Friday’s witness said Bracken made numerous visits, sometimes two to three a week, to the Manukau and later Takanini branches of the ANZ where she worked.

He was “friendly”, “conversational” and “very likeable”, she said.

She understood his business involved buying large quantities of building materials and water for on-selling and transporting to the Pacific Islands.

Eventually she gave him personal contact details and agreed to do some invoicing for him.

“So because of the numerous transactions John would do, my understanding of the role, I suppose you could call it, was . . . I received invoices that had been given to him by these businesses and he needed invoices created that matched the transactions in his bank account, so I would be given bank statements, and I took copies of those invoices and made editable versions of them (in Microsoft Word), so the dates and amounts matched the transactions in his bank account.”

She thought she created invoices for about three companies but could only recall a water and timber supplier.

The invoices evolved to have less and less detail.

She made a template on which she only needed to change the date and invoice numbers, which she sometimes simply made up. They were often for the same sum and had no product descriptions.

Bracken gave her the information he required on them, along with bank statements. He collected the finished products from her at various places, including the bank.

She did the work every month or so for about a year until about April 2016 when she handed it on.

The $200-to-$300 Bracken paid each time supplemented her part-time bank work, the witness said.

She was naïve and did not understand the implications of the invoices until later becoming self-employed.

The former bank teller said the laptop she used broke down during 2016. She had not kept copies of any invoices she created but the templates she used were transferred over with other data to her new computer.

She supplied those when contacted by an IRD investigator.

Asked about Bracken’s banking activities, the witness said he visited the bank so frequently (two or three times a week), most staff knew who he was.

There was “definitely a wee bit of a pattern” to his banking, which predominantly involved deposits and withdrawals of cash and bank cheques, usually in the tens-of-thousands-of-dollars, matching the sums for which she did invoices, the witness said.

His banking transactions were sometimes confusing and, on a few occasions, caused errors that resulted in the branch books not balancing at the end of the day, the witness said.

Under cross-examination by Bracken, the witness confirmed deposits and withdrawals were normal banking transactions but said it was frequency of his that made them unique.

She raised it with senior staff after the errors occurred to see if the bank could assist Bracken with a more streamlined approach.

Given his transactions were all going in and out of the same account (BEL) there was no need for him to visit branches, the witness said.

She thought it was an unusually time-consuming way for a business to operate.

She said the bank encouraged but could not compel him to make his deposits like other businesspeople by dropping a “mother bag” into a secure holding safe to be dealt with later by certain staff behind the scenes.

Regarding the invoices, the witness confirmed for Bracken she would have told him if she knew creating them was wrong.

In other evidence heard on Friday, a lawyer for the ANZ confirmed deeper-level banking records sourced by an IRD investigator were necessary to show a circular nature to Bracken’s transactions.

It would not be apparent from non-chronological bank statements accountants relied on to prepare GST returns.

The lawyer was referred to an array of banking records for April 20, 2015, and agreed with the IRD’s analysis it demonstrated how Bracken (identified by his driver’s licence), circulated $89,900 through his Bracken Enterprises Ltd (BEL) account within 10 minutes, and was typical of many other transactions (about 750, the IRD claims).

At 2.24pm Bracken was issued a bank cheque for $32,500, asking for a reference of “water” to be entered, which would appear on his monthly bank statement.

At 2.26pm he used a swipe card to withdraw $4734.84 cash.

At 2.29pm he withdrew cash totalling $1400.

At 2.29pm he deposited $33,900, ascribed with the reference Ezi World, made up of a $32,500 bank cheque and $1400 cash.

At 2.32pm he was issued a bank cheque for $54,567.50 coded with a timber company name.

At 2.34pm he deposited $56,000, coded Fiji, made up of a cheque for $54,567.50 and cash.

Proceeding