Alan Victor Jones, pictured in 2006 at a sentencing hearing for previous offending, has had recent money laundering convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal. Photo / NZME
A jury found him guilty and a judge labelled him a “money mule”.
But now a financial professional caught up in a $400,000 money laundering scandal has been cleared after a miscarriage of justice was found.
Alan Victor Jones, 75, was convicted and sentenced to 10 months’ home detention after a jury trial last year on three charges of money laundering.
It was the second time he had been before the court on laundering charges since he had served six and a half years in prison for his involvement in a Ponzi scheme in 2006.
The total loss of that offending, which he committed with Roderick Bernard Harrison, was about $4.29 million to investors.
In his latest case, a jury heard that in 2019 he was the chief financial officer for investment company, Constance Capital Ltd (CCL), at which he worked alongside company director William Richard Hunter.
In September that year, a payment of $411,021.87 from Pan Pac Forest Products destined for the account of Renalls 2004 Ltd was diverted to the account of CCL.
CCL was alerted by Westpac’s fraud investigation team that funds had been suspiciously deposited into their account.
When the bank tried to reverse the transaction, almost $210,000 had already been dispersed into New Zealand and offshore accounts.
According to a recent Court of Appeal judgment, it was alleged that the money had been sent to CCL after bank account numbers were intentionally changed on invoices.
“Clearly, someone was aware of the invoices that had been generated by [Renalls] 2004 Limited to Pan Pac, the supplier, and persuaded someone at Pan Pac to change the bank account numbers, which were purportedly to be the new accounts for [Renalls] 2004 Limited but were, in fact, fraudulent accounts, and the monies were intercepted in that way.”
At trial, prosecutors argued Jones knowingly handled criminal proceeds by way of the multiple transactions, rejecting his explanation that the payments were legitimate business expenses.
Hunter was also charged but was acquitted at a judge-alone trial just days before Jones’ trial was due to start.
At Hunter’s hearing, the judge was satisfied Hunter was unaware fraud had been perpetrated on Pan Pac or that the proceeds were a result of an offence.
However, Jones’ outcome was different and at his sentencing, Judge Mary-Beth Sharp described him as the “money mule” recruited to transfer the proceeds of crime.
But Jones maintained he was acting under the instruction of Hunter.
Jones went on to appeal his conviction on the basis that errors made by his trial counsel had led to a miscarriage of justice.
His primary argument was that his lawyer failed to seek an adjournment after his co-accused Hunter was acquitted, failed to call him to give evidence and failed to cross-examine expert witnesses.
The gap between Hunter’s acquittal and the start of Jones’ trial was five days.
Jones argued that he should have been granted an adjournment to allow time to prepare and present the same critical evidence that was introduced in Hunter’s successful defence.
As a result, the jury never heard the context behind the transactions or Jones’ belief that the funds were legitimate investment capital.
In the recently released Court of Appeal judgment, the justices agreed.
“It is plainly evident, reinforced by the short time frame for trial preparation, that Mr Jones’ trial needed to be adjourned to enable Mr Hunter to give evidence and produce the documents in Exhibit A with a full explanation,” the ruling stated.
“Further, the absence of this evidence meant the focus of the Crown case against Mr Jones was that he was solely responsible for the receipt of the funds into his account rather than CCL’s account, and that he was acting alone.”
Jones had also expressed a desire to testify but his lawyer discouraged him without properly briefing him or preparing a written statement.
Jones also claimed jurors had been conducting their own research and were influenced by prior media coverage of his criminal offending.
He submitted to the Court of Appeal that multiple hits had been conducted on a web page recording his previous convictions around the same time as his trial, and although the judge advised the jurors of contempt of court, he did not advise them of the relevant sanctions.
“Those errors have led to a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected and the verdicts are unsafe. We are satisfied that a miscarriage of justice has occurred,” the Court of Appeal found.
As a result, Jones’ appeal was allowed and his convictions and sentence were quashed.
Given his age, that he has already served most of his home detention sentence and continued paying reparation, the senior court found a retrial would not be in the interests of justice.
Shannon Pitman is a Whangārei-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the Te Tai Tokerau region. She is of Ngāpuhi/ Ngāti Pūkenga descent and has worked in digital media for the past five years. She joined NZME in 2023.