'The accused had no intention of paying them back'
Crown prosecutor Rebecca Mann told the jury in her closing statement this morning that the pair groomed and then set about defrauding the elderly complainants who had given evidence this week.
The accused had accepted that they got money from the complainants and she told the jury that meant they could focus on whether there were any "false representations made with an intention to deceive without any claim of right".
Mann told the jury the pair were working together to befriend the complainants before setting out to extract money from them.
"The evidence establishes that the money was not put to [use] for the purposes claimed.
"It was also clear that the way they spent the funds that they had no intention of paying them back."
Mann said evidence showed multiple withdrawals and spending at Sky City Casino.
Complainant, Mr A, an 84-year-old Waikato man, described the pair's behaviour as "psychological coercion", Mann told the jury.
He'd been told the eventual $20,000 he handed over would go towards Phonkoed's residency visa, rent, her sick father in a Bangkok hospital and lawyers.
However, Mann said it was a ruse as both women were already residents of New Zealand and no payment was ever made in the Hamilton Immigration NZ office.
The blackmail charge also related to Mr A when, after sex, he was asked for money but refused before Coxon started taking photos of him half naked.
Phonkoed then grabbed his arm to prevent him from getting hold of the phone.
"They were not photos to put in a frame.
"The two women were very obviously working together with all of this.
"This 'friendship' with [Mr A] was in truth not amicable at all and the power imbalance was obvious."
The accused met Mr A and 92-year-old Mr C through newspaper advertisements selling deep Thai massages and in Mr A's case, it stated, "with happy fingers".
Mr B, a man in his 60s who has since died, first met Phonkoed through a retail shop before he was introduced to Coxon and a third woman named "Joy".
Phonkoed told him that she was organising to get more "girls" sent over from Thailand to New Zealand and they asked for money to help them do that.
He agreed but was assured that he would be paid back, Mann said.
"[Mr B] provided the money on the understanding that as soon as women entered the country, they would repay him ... in no more than a week.
"Then they would say 'hang on, wait a few more days, it really is coming'."
In total, Mr B gave the defendants $13,900.
Mr C handed over $219,700 - his life savings - between December 4, 2017 and February 2018.
Mann said the bank account activity of both Coxon and Phonkoed proved that what they were doing was a joint enterprise.
Each was taking their cut because as soon as payments were made into one account, either Coxon or Phonkoed's, half would be transferred into the other's account.
Despite claims being made that they urgently needed money while in Thailand, some of the withdrawals were being made by either Phonkoed in Hamilton or Coxon in Auckland and ultimately spent gambling or in restaurants and bars.
'They were not deceived in any way'
Coxon's defence counsel Russell Boot told the jury the complainants "willingly" lent Coxon the money.
"They were not deceived in any way. They were benefiting from receiving the money.
"The only right and proper verdict for Ms Coxon are ones of not guilty."
Boot told the jury they had to be satisfied that the complainants were truthful and reliable witnesses, however he questioned how they could be sure of that given they were complete "stranger" to them and also their English language wasn't the best.
"English is not their best language ... are you sure that it's actually an accurate account of what took place?
"Obviously it could be lost in translation. In no circumstances could you be sure that what was said ... was exactly what was conveyed to you."
Boot said there was also no evidence that Coxon induced the complainants to pay money to her.
As for Mr C, who lost more than $200,000, "he was having a great time, he was enjoying their company .. he wasn't being induced .. because he was wanting a continuation of what was occurring".
Boot said it wasn't until Mr C's daughters found out about what was happening that it stopped.
As for the Crown finding money was spent by the pair at bars and casinos, Boot said it was simply a "red herring".
"Well that's a very nit-picked thing that's occurred here, isn't it?"
He said no one would like to have their bank accounts examined for all the times they had been to a bar or casino over the years and the case was no different here.
'It only stopped because family found out'
Phonkoed's counsel Rob Quin told the jury there was no deception, "they were, in their own words, 'stupid'.
"They knew what they were getting into, they didn't want it to end and were happy to keep paying for the companionship, services, and attention the defendants gave them.
"They didn't care what it was for. They would have given it to them anyway.
"It wasn't until their wives and daughters found out ... that it became an issue."
He said there simply wasn't any proof that the money wasn't used as they said it would be.
He said no inquiries were made with the immigration office about whether any payments were made to them.
As for Mr A, Quin said he even admitted how generous he was to the defendants, describing himself as "deranged and delirious".
"He referred to how generous he was .. it was clear that he was very generous when his wife was overseas ... and he was receiving sexual favours from them."
Quin said Mr A soon realised that his joint account was quickly becoming empty and his wife was due home imminently. It was then "he started panicking", he told the jury.
As for Mr C, his relationship "started with a massage and had a happy ending".
"It went on from there ... he told you in his own words it was wonderful and how he didn't want it to end."
There was no formal repayment agreement or repayment date.
"He didn't care what they were going to do with it ... it has to be proved that the reasons were material.
"He would have given them the money whatever it was for.
"The relationship was clearly beneficial to both parties. You could tell from his evidence that he was clearly enjoying it."
There were also no inquiries made in Thailand or checks of their passports about their travel movements, he said.
Quin was also critical of police evidence of Phonkoed's casino activity; a simple breakdown showing that over 21 years she had lost $21,000.
In Hamilton, she lost $600 and just over $5000 on gaming machines.
Quin said that proved his client wasn't spending large amounts of money as the Crown had claimed.
