ACCforum: No prosecution action for alleged ACC fraud - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

No prosecution action for alleged ACC fraud

#1 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:59 PM

We feel this deserves a thread of it's own as it is a significant breakthrough we have reason to believe has come about from years of http://www.acc.co.nz not having complied with the Law relating to allegations of fraud.

Well done to those whom have helped ensure positive change to how alleged fraud is addressed.

We would however like to know:

How many of these people were in alternative to pre accident employment?

How many of these people are still receiving Abated Earnings Related Compensation (ERC) as they are more than likely to be, based on the balance of probabilities, entitled to it?

Who decided not to pursue this to prosecution stage?

Was it an ACC Legal decision or that of Crown Prosecutions?

Did these cases not go to Prosecution stage because of ACC staff not having complied with there own obligations under the State Services Commission Code of Conduct and that of http://www.acc.co.nz Code of Conduct, which includes complying with the Law?

How many cases that did go through to prosecutions were in the process of been before the Criminal Courts prior to 2011?

What type of occupations were those who are alleged to have committed the more than $3 million of fraud?
Were they ACC staff? Treatment Providers? Physios? Doctors? or general claimants?

How many people were there?

Is the amount of $3 million related to overpaid earnings under the http://acc.co.nz Act or that of Fraud under the Crimes Act?

What was the amount involved for each individual as this will put things in to perspective and be more transparent as the information provided to Imran Ali, the journalist who wrote this article should have had made available to him.

A victory for the little fellas & well done to those hard working souls who helped bring http://www.acc.co.nz back into line.


http://www.ssc.govt....s-organisations

http://www.ssc.govt....t-April2010.pdf

http://accforum.org/...laimants-rights


A firm reminder to Imran Ali and others whom write articles of this nature, please ensure you include the words "allegedly".
It has not been proven that those involved have either knowingly or intentionally committed offences as is required under Law.

It is refreshing to see http://www.acc.co.nz wake up and realise that it is, based on the balance of probablilities, more than likely not Criminal offences of fraud that have occured, but http://www.acc.co.nz own Administrative Failures of Professional Standards that these situations arise in the first place.

It will only be a matter of time before there is a legal challenge as to what constitutes a relationship in the nature of marriage or that which fits into the definition of a close personal relationship.

A bouquet to the person/s whom ensured these cases were not placed before the Criminal Courts.

Interelated threads include:


Otago Daily Times Call for big changes to ACC Fraud Unit

http://accforum.org/...-acc-fraud-unit

Administrative Failures of Professional Standards & Services Duty of Care

http://accforum.org/...ndards-services

http://www.northerna...ystem1/1274147/

Northlanders rip off ACC
Imran Ali | Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:02

Related
Widow: ACC stalled while husband died
ACC to review rejection of woman's surgery claim
Fighting ACC for shoulder surgery
ACC complaint to higher body

Northlanders cheated the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) of nearly $500,000 last year with widows the latest to enter the fraudster halls of shame.

A Northland woman fraudulently collected $110,000, effectively a widow's benefit, which she was not entitled to.

She had been financially dependent on her husband when he died in an accident and had been entitled to the benefit then. However, she was not supposed to claim it after she began living with her new partner.

The woman's $109,931 was the highest single amount fraudulently claimed among the $444,674.16 lost by the Government organisation in Northland.

More than $3 million was fraudulently obtained from ACC throughout the country, with Northland's contribution making up 14 per cent.

ACC spokesman Glenn Donovan
said there were 21 cases in Northland in 2011. None of the cases ended up in court, he said.

Prosecution of the widow was considered but not pursued.

"The client acknowledged the need to pay the money back to ACC," Mr Donovan said.

Fraud against ACC was fraud against all New Zealanders and the cost of fraudulent claims impacted on the levies everyone paid, Mr Donovan said.

"By reducing instances of fraud against ACC, we can ensure that levies are funding help for those who genuinely need it, so they can receive the help they're entitled to."

He pleaded for public support in identifying people who were defrauding ACC.

If anyone suspects a person or a treatment provider of acting fraudulently, they can phone 0508 222 37283 (ACCFRAUD) toll free or complete a fraud reporting form at www.acc.co.nz.

Information can be submitted anonymously.

hukildaspida says: If you are reporting http://www.acc.co.nz staff member or associates 'fraud and dishonesty" report it to either http://www.police.govt.nz or http://www.sfo.govt.nz

1

#2 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 19 February 2012 - 04:40 PM

Were any of these cases of alleged fraud handled by now former http://www.acc.co.nz Whangarei Branch staff whom themselves were involved in internal scams and dishonest behaviour that had been going on for a considerable number of years without intervention by ACC's own Fraud Investigative Unit?

Would someone please reliably inform the general public either yes or no, and if they were, how many files were effected.

What steps have also been taken to inform others who are effected and to right the wrongdoings of the staff concerned?

What steps have been taken to prosecute the staff involved in this dishonest behaviour?

0

#3 User is offline   Southernman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 01-July 09

Posted 19 February 2012 - 06:32 PM

As one of those accused by ACC of committing "Fraud" by the Whangarei Branch, I was told I would be "let off" with a warning, but would be prosecuted if I came to their attention again in the future!
I demanded that if I was to be accused of committing fraud that I must be charged and the matter be determined by the Court. To reinforce this demand I made a point of coming to their attention again, again and again. I am sure Tony Lahman is now heartily sick of me. Meantime, two members of the fraud unit and two members of the ACC Whangarei staff involved in my case have had their employment with ACC terminated. Another very senior member of ACC has taken early retirement.
So - my case still remains unresolved. I am still claiming my entitlements. If ACC wish to make allegations of fraud then they must be prepared to back this up by placing the allegation before the District Court.
I suspect that in most of these cases, as in my case, the alleged evidence gathered was "hearsay", and would be inadmissible under the Evidence Act in the District Court.
Unfortunately few claimants have the balls to stand up to this sort of bullying by ACC.
2

#4 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 19 February 2012 - 07:01 PM

bloody brilliant, way to go southernman!

mmm i seem to have rakked up The honourable ms collins for using the words...systemic corporate fraud!

i am NOT flavour of the month!
0

#5 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1196
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 19 February 2012 - 09:53 PM

I also received a similar warning letter, yet clearly the accusation in this warning letter is totally false. I suppose they have to do something in their attempt to justify their costly investigation which which went pear shaped for them lol.

Be assured by the time I am finished there will be no warning letter no more.

One good thing, ACC has agreed to destroy all fraud investigation files from 1995, 1997, and the 1999 investigation. Currently they are secured and sealed in a room that only one person can access.
0

#6 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1704
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 19 February 2012 - 10:56 PM

I have this letter stating an offence had occurred

Quote

2 April 1992

I refer to my letter of 11 February 1992, a copy of which I enclose.

As you have not attempted to provide us with the details of your current employment and your ability to earn is no longer reduced as a result of your injury, the Corporation will cease payment of earnings related compensation as of 29 March 1992.

This letter is sent in terms of Section 119 of the Accident Compensation Act 1982.

Don Millis
DM:VAM:649


ACC documents show ACC had received the earnings details, obtained a medical examination confirming the injury was correctly accepted by a reviewer,

They are still claiming the injury is not covered and did not receive the earning details.

I keep complaining about the ACC dishonesty to the NZ Police but no action yet.
0

#7 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 04 March 2012 - 10:21 PM

Interesting when you read through this earlier case where a woman who is a widow was jailed for fraud.

Has there been a Miscarriage of Justice in the Glennis Yates case and other cases?

The use of the word "spouse" changed to include "or partner" in the Accident Compensation Act in April 2005

Maybe a good legal expert should look through these ACC "widows" cases with a fine tooth comb to ensure that there has been total transparency and application of various laws and in the way the various http://www.acc.co.nz Acts have been applied.


http://accforum.org/...-for-acc-fraud/

Widows ripping off ACC benefits


http://www.nzherald....jectid=10780484

The http://www.acc.co.nz Act states:


http://www.legislati....html#DLM105430

http://www.legislati....html#DLM335973

Accident Compensation Act 2001 No 49 (as at 13 February 2012), Public Act

Act by section

Schedule 1 Entitlements
› Part 4 Entitlements arising from fatal injuries

66 Weekly compensation for surviving spouse or partner


(1) The Corporation is liable to pay weekly compensation to a surviving spouse or partner of a deceased claimant.

(2) Weekly compensation payable under this clause is payable from the date of the claimant's death at the rate of 60% of—

(a) the weekly compensation for loss of earnings to which the claimant would have been entitled at the end of 5 weeks of incapacity, had he or she lived but been totally incapacitated; or

(B) the weekly compensation for loss of potential earning capacity to which the claimant would have been entitled at the end of 6 months of incapacity, had he or she lived but been totally incapacitated.

(3) Subclause (2) is subject to clause 74.

(4) The Corporation must not cancel or suspend the surviving spouse's or partner's weekly compensation—

(a) because the spouse or partner marries, enters into a civil union, or enters into a de facto relationship; or

(B) [Repealed]

© because of the age that the claimant would have reached if he or she had not died.

(5) The surviving spouse or partner ceases to be entitled to weekly compensation on the latest of—

(a) the end of 5 consecutive years from the date on which it first became payable:

(B) the surviving spouse or partner ceasing to have the care of all of the children who are under the age of 18 years:

© the youngest of the children of the deceased who is in the care of the surviving spouse or partner turning 18 years:

(d) the surviving spouse or partner ceasing to have the care of all other dependants of the deceased claimant who were in the surviving spouse's or partner's care.

Compare: 1998 No 114 Schedule 1 cl 67

Schedule 1 clause 66 heading: amended, on 26 April 2005, by section 8(1) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 12).

Schedule 1 clause 66(1): amended, on 26 April 2005, by section 8(1) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 12).

Schedule 1 clause 66(4): amended, on 26 April 2005, by section 8(3) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 12).

Schedule 1 clause 66(4)(a): substituted, on 26 April 2005, by section 7 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 12).

Schedule 1 clause 66(4)(B): repealed, on 26 April 2005, by section 7 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 12).

Schedule 1 clause 66(5): amended, on 26 April 2005, by section 8(1) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 12).

Schedule 1 clause 66(5)(B): amended, on 26 April 2005, by section 8(1) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 12).

Schedule 1 clause 66(5)©: amended, on 1 August 2008, by section 33(1) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act 2008 (2008 No 46).

Schedule 1 clause 66(5)©: amended, on 26 April 2005, by section 8(1) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 12).

Schedule 1 clause 66(5)(d): amended, on 26 April 2005, by section 8(1) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 12).

Schedule 1 clause 66(5)(d): amended, on 26 April 2005, by section 8(3) of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Act 2005 (2005 No 12).
0

#8 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1704
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:39 PM

The person in the first story was under the 1972 Act which is simular to that of the 1982 Act

65. Earnings related compensation payable to surviving dependent spouses, children, and other dependants---
(1) For the purposes of this section and sections 66 (2), 82, 85 and 91 of this Act, the expression
``spouse'' means either of a man or woman who---
(a) Are married to each other; or
(B) Not being married to each other, have cohabited immediately
preceding the date of death of the deceased person, and, in the
opinion of the Corporation, have entered into a relationship in
the nature of marriage.

(2) Subject to this Act, where an earner dies as a result of personal
injury by accident in respect of which the earner had cover, the
Corporation shall pay earnings related compensation---
(a) To the deceased person's spouse, if she or he was dependent on the
deceased person immediately before the time of the accident
until the date on which earnings related compensation ceases
under section 66 (2) of this Act to be payable to the spouse on
account of age or until her or his sooner death, marriage, or
remarriage,---

(i) While she or he would, in the opinion of the Corporation,
have been totally dependent on the deceased person if that
person were living, at the rate of three-fifths of the earnings
related compensation that would for the time being have been
payable to the deceased person under section 60 of this Act had
the deceased person remained alive but suffered a permanent
total loss of earning capacity:
(ii) While she or he would, in the opinion of the Corporation,
have been partially dependent on the deceased person if that
person were living, at such lesser rate as the Corporation
thinks proper having regard to the degree to which, in the
opinion of the Corporation, the spouse would be so dependent:
(B) To each child of the deceased person while the child remains a
minor,---
(i) While the child would, in the opinion of the Corporation,
have been totally dependent on the deceased person if that
person were living, at the rate of one-fifth of the earnings
related compensation that would for the time being have been
payable to the deceased person under section 60 of this Act had
the deceased person remained alive but suffered a permanent
total loss of earning capacity:
Provided that, after both parents of the child have died,
earnings related compensation under this subparagraph shall be
payable to the child at the rate fixed by subsection (4) of this
section:
(ii) While the child would, in the opinion of the Corporation,
have been partially dependent on the deceased person if that
person were living, at such lesser rate as the Corporation
thinks proper having regard to the degree to which, in the
opinion of the Corporation, the child would have been so
dependent:
© To each other person, if any, who was totally or partially
dependent on the deceased person immediately before the time of
the accident, at such rate and for such period as the
Corporation thinks fit, having regard to---
(i) The extent to which the person would, in the opinion of
the Corporation, for the time being have been dependent on the
deceased person if the deceased person were living; and
(ii) The maximum rates of compensation payable to a spouse or
child of the deceased person, and the maximum periods for which
earnings related compensation is payable to those persons; and
(iii) All other relevant circumstances.

(3) Where a spouse of the deceased person was not dependent on the
deceased person at the time of the accident but became dependent on him
or her at any time thereafter before his or her death, the Corporation
may, if it thinks fit, and for such period as it thinks fit, treat that
spouse as having been dependent on the deceased person at the time of
the accident, and the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply
accordingly.

(4) The rate of earnings related compensation payable under this
section to a child of a deceased person after both of the child's
parents have died shall be two-fifths of the earnings related
compensation that would for the time being have been payable to the
deceased person under section 60 of this Act had he remained alive but
suffered a permanent total loss of earning capacity.

(5) Notwithstanding section 66 of this Act, where a surviving spouse
was born before her or his spouse and has remained entitled to earnings
related compensation until the date on which earnings related
compensation ceases under the said section 66 to be payable to her or
him on account of age, such compensation shall thereafter be paid to her
or him in accordance with subsection (2) of this section as if that date
did not occur until the date on which such compensation would have
ceased under section 66 of this Act to be payable to her or his spouse,
if that spouse had remained alive.

(6) The Corporation may, in its discretion,---
(a) Continue to pay earnings related compensation to any child of the
deceased person after the expiration of the period for which it
is payable under the foregoing provisions of this section; and
(B) Pay earnings related compensation to any child of the deceased
person who was not a minor at the time of the death of the
deceased person but was dependent on the deceased person
immediately before the death of the deceased person,---

if and to the extent that the Corporation considers that payments under
this subsection are needed for the education of that child or in special
circumstances for the maintenance of that child.

(7) Notwithstanding anything in this section, where the total amount
of earnings related compensation payable pursuant to this section
exceeds the maximum allowable amount, being the amount of the earnings
related compensation that would for the time being have been payable to
the deceased person under section 60 of this Act had he or she remained
alive but suffered a permanent total loss of earning capacity, the
Corporation shall pay compensation of that maximum allowable amount to
the members of the class comprising the persons eligible in that case
for compensation in accordance with subsection (2) of this section or to
some of the members of that class to the exclusion of the other or
others of them in such shares and proportions as the Corporation thinks
fit, having regard to the relative needs of the various members of the
class and all other relevant considerations:

Provided that no person shall receive more under this subsection than
he would be entitled to receive under subsection (2) of this section if
the compensation payable under that subsection to the members of that
class did not exceed that maximum allowable amount.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) of this section, in considering
questions relating to dependency and relative needs, the Corporation
shall have regard to all relevant factors, and may, whenever it
considers that it is just, take into account all or any of the
following:
(a) Any gain to any person that is consequent on the death of the
deceased person:
(B) Circumstances that have arisen after the date of the death of the
deceased person:
© The needs of each person concerned.

(9) Except as provided in section 63 of this Act, where a person dies
as a result of personal injury by accident in respect of which he has
cover, no earnings related compensation shall be payable under this
section unless, at the time of the accident, that person had cover as an
earner.

(10) This section shall apply from the date of the commencement of
this Act, whether the personal injury by accident occurred before or
after that date.
Cf. 1972, No. 43, s. 123; 1973, No. 113, s. 46

She did not remarry and as far as ACC was concerned she remained single.
0

#9 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 27 July 2012 - 02:59 PM

It would be interesting to see all this file to see if the Law has been applied correctly & if all documentation was provided before the courts.

Who was her lawyer?

Did she plead guilty because of the distress
http://www.acc.co.nz staff & contracted agents put her through?

It is observed this case would based on the balance of probabilities be Whangarei branch where Internal staff dishonesty has taken place over a large number of years.


http://www.acc.co.nz/news/WPC113002

Whangarei woman jailed for defrauding ACC

24 July 2012


A sentence of 16 months imprisonment has been handed down to Whangarei woman Sharon Rebecca Andrew, who defrauded ACC of nearly $150,000 by lying about her relationship status.

Ms Andrew, a 51-year-old beneficiary, was sentenced by Judge Harvey in the Whangarei District Court on Friday, 20 July 2012. She pleaded guilty to 25 charges under the Crimes Act, including 22 charges of dishonestly using a document and three charges of making a false statement or declaration.

The charges stemmed from Ms Andrew repeatedly misleading ACC about her relationship status so she could claim weekly compensation payments intended for the single surviving spouse of a person who died as a result of injury.

Ms Andrew began receiving the payments after her de facto partner died in an accident in 1983, but she subsequently entered into a marriage-like relationship with a new partner.

Despite having three children with her new partner and declaring themselves ‘husband and wife’ when buying property together, Ms Andrew supplied ongoing declarations to ACC stating that she wasn’t in a marriage-like relationship, and continued to claim ACC payments.

When confronted by ACC investigators Ms Andrew denied any wrong-doing, but admitted to all charges against her when she appeared in Court.

ACC’s General Manager of Claims Management, Denise Cosgrove, says "This case sends a strong message that the Courts won’t tolerate deliberate, calculated ACC fraud.

"ACC has a dedicated Investigations Unit which is committed to bringing people who abuse the Scheme to justice."

Ms Cosgrove adds that "ACC collects levies to help people with genuine injury-related needs. Offending such as this therefore amounts to theft from honest, hard-working New Zealanders."
0

#10 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 19 September 2012 - 03:22 PM

Read post #9

http://www.northerna...-fraud/1479078/


Beneficiary jailed for ACC fraud


Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:44

A woman who lied about her relationship status to get the ACC benefit has been jailed for 16 months.


A Whangarei woman who ripped off ACC of almost $150,000 by lying about the status of her relationship after her partner died has been jailed for 16 months.

Sharon Rebecca Andrew
, a 51-year-old beneficiary, appeared in Whangarei District Court last week for sentencing after she earlier pleaded guilty to 25 charges.

ACC has welcomed the sentence, saying it sends a strong message that fraud won't be tolerated.

Andrew earlier pleaded guilty to 25 charges laid under the Crimes Act, including 22 charges of dishonestly using a document and three charges of making a false statement or declaration.


The charges stemmed from Andrew repeatedly misleading ACC about her relationship status so she could claim weekly payments intended for the single surviving spouse of a person who died as a result of injury.

Andrew began receiving the payments after her partner died in an accident in 1983, but she subsequently entered into a marriage-like relationship with a new partner.

Despite having three children with her new partner and declaring themselves husband and wife when buying property together, Andrew supplied ongoing declarations to ACC stating that she wasn't in a marriage-like relationship, and continued to claim ACC payments.

When confronted by ACC investigators, Andrew denied any wrong-doing, but admitted to all charges when she appeared in court.

Judge Duncan Harvey ruled out home detention for Andrew and instead sent her to prison for the fraud.

ACC claims management general manager Denise Cosgrove
said the case sent a strong message that the courts would not tolerate deliberate, calculated ACC fraud.

"ACC collects levies to help people with genuine injury-related needs. Offending such as this therefore amounts to theft from honest, hard-working New Zealanders."

Northlanders cheated ACC of nearly $500,000 last year through false or fraudulent claims, the corporation said.
1

#11 User is offline   Southernman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 01-July 09

Posted 19 September 2012 - 07:55 PM

View Posthukildaspida, on 19 September 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Read post #9

http://www.northerna...-fraud/1479078/

Beneficiary jailed for ACC fraud


Wednesday, July 25, 2012 8:44
"Northlanders cheated ACC of nearly $500,000 last year through false or fraudulent claims", the corporation said.



Meantime, the ACC corporation has cheated Northlanders of $5,000,000 in systemic fraud in the handling of their claims, over the past year!


0

#12 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 25 May 2014 - 01:57 PM

We are scratching our heads over this latest case involving another widow been prosecuted by http://www.acc.co.nz Investigations unit in light of the stance taken in Northland in recent years.

By all accounts there is some "history" between Wendy Whitehead & her neighbor over mussel shells.

One has to question what role that issue had to play in this case.

It is observed that a Jury came to the decision it did.

Maybe it's overdue Juries were educated in Law surrounding ACC & General Laws.

We again would like to point out (as we did above) that ACC Legislation only changed in 2005 relating to the use of the word "Spouse" & the inclusion of the word "Partner".

This woman's husband was a farmer that was killed in accident in 1987 so she would have received cover & entitlement under the 1982 http://www.acc.co.nz Act.

It is not relevant that she may also have received a private insurance payment as that is her legal right to have also had that cover & entitlement.

Did Wendy Maree Whitehead & others actually benefit financially to the point of "make-up pay or Abated earnings" that a reasonable person would expect she would be entitled to to the point of her late husbands earning as a Farmer?

We would also like to raise the fact that many people that have a "spouse" that has died who was a "farmer" also has to take on the deceased's role immediately after their death as there is NO support given by http://www.acc.co.nz, or readily available elsewhere, (animals need to be milked, stock shifted etc) in the meantime well the surviving spouse is left to pick up the pieces.

Many farmers are in "partnerships" & for some people out there to be so blind about what the surviving spouse has to endure is pigheaded to say the least.

We would like to point out here that may also include the sale of the farm (i.e. where they gain their livelihood & income) that was once owned by the deceased & their spouse & family as the surviving spouse is not able to undertake the deceased spouse's duties.


Mortgage deal sees fraudster avoid jail
SASHA BORISSENKO
Last updated 12:58 13/05/2014

http://www.stuff.co....ster-avoid-jail

A woman who defrauded ACC out of $200,000 has avoided jail after mortgaging her house to pay reparation.

Self-employed website designer, Wendy Maree Whitehead, 56, was yesterday sentenced to 10 months home detention and 160 hours of community work on one charge of using a document for pecuniary advantage and seven charges of dishonestly using a document.


A jury found her guilty of the charges that related to her claiming ACC while living with a partner. Whitehead's husband, Ian James Whitehead, was killed in a farming accident in 1987.

Together they had two children, aged 18 months to 10 years at the time of the incident.

According to the prosecution summary of facts, Whitehead received weekly ACC payments. She was required to complete a "continuing dependency" declaration on an annual basis, which specified whether she had since married, remarried or entered into a de facto relationship.

In 1998, Mark Lowe moved into Whitehead's property and assisted her to set up an olive tree grove.

Within the next two years the pair formed a relationship.

Between 2003 until 2010 Whitehead completed the continuing dependency forms and explicitly failed to declare she had married or was in a defacto relationship,
the court was told.

ACC conducted an official investigation and found Whitehead was in a relationship from April 1, 2003. ACC weekly payments should have ceased in 2005.

In August 2010, Whitehead admitted she and Lowe lived together, holidayed together and had an ongoing intimate relationship , but she denied being in a de facto relationship. She was overpaid $213,398.

At the sentence indication hearing on April 1, crown prosecutor Sophie O'Donoghue said with tax payer funds, Whitehead was financially savvy which enabled her to live the life she wanted.

Defence counsel Steven Zindel
said his client had good attributes according to her supporters and she was assessed as being a low risk to the public.

It was Whitehead's first appearance before a court.

In yesterday's sentencing, Zindel told the court Whitehead had since transferred the total reparations sought of $213,398 into a trust account.

Whitehead was able to pay the reparation costs because she took out a mortgage on her property.


She was prepared to pay the reparations in full.

Judge Tony Zohrab said a suitable starting point was a two-and-a-half year prison sentence.

Because of the recovered reparation costs, Whitehead could avoid imprisonment. She was sentenced to 10 months home detention and 160 hours of community work.


At the sentence indication hearing Judge Zohrab said he agreed entirely with the jury and their decision to convict Whitehead.

"It is so easy for people to be dishonest."

Whitehead received almost double the amount she was entitled to and was to suffer the consequences. He decided against giving any credit for showing a sense of remorse given the premeditated nature and the duration of the offending.

- The Nelson Mail

Steven Zindell lawyer

http://www.zindels.c.../steven-zindel/


Crown Prosecution lawyer Sophie Katherine O'Donoghue

http://36lawyers.co....rine-o-donoghue



By way of Background


STUFF — THE NELSON MAIL — LOCAL NEWS — 3 FEB 2003
Resident kicks up stink over shells


By DAVE WILLIAMS

Ruby Bay's Barry Evans is kicking up a stink about rotting green mussel shells and wants the Tasman District Council to take action.


Mr Evans said up to five tonnes of rotting green mussel shells were spread as mulch at a neighbouring organic olive grove on Tuesday.


The uncleaned mussels attracted flies and were a health issue, he said.

He said he had earlier approached the neighbours and asked them to bury a smaller load of shells delivered six weeks ago, but they were left and the new load arrived this week.

"They should know better. It's away from their house. It attracts flies. I had my house fumigated because I thought it was the problem," he said.

His neighbour Wendy Whitehead declined to comment.

Mr Evans complained to the Tasman District Council and environment and planning manager Dennis Bush-King said a council officer had investigated the site.

Dumping shells did not require a resource consent but there were guidelines, Mr Bush-King said.

The shells did have a slight odour but council staff were satisfied that the smell would not last and after two days it would be gone.

"Staff have inspected the situation and are satisfied that if there are any problems it won't be a long standing matter."

But that answer only served to infuriate Mr Evans more. He was upset that council did not get back to him after he complained.

"I would like to see (Tasman Mayor) John Hurley standing alongside these mussels," he said.

Mr Evans speculated that if he went and left a bag of mussels in the council's foyer, it would have the police on to him.

It should be a warning to the people of Tarakohe as to what they could expect with a shellfish factory on their doorstep, he said.
© Independent Newspapers Limited 2003, All rights reserved.

Growing olives for the love of it

By Rick Coleman

http://www.sp.co.nz/...es/olives4.html
0

#13 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 05 June 2014 - 03:34 PM

Related topic


Widows rip off ACC for $763,000 Eleven clients supply false information

http://accforum.org/...acc-for-763000/
0

#14 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 18 August 2014 - 05:46 PM

A Judge that perhaps has seen some light of day & exercised some "commonsense" to this case.

Alas, why was it not addressed & resolved by http://www.acc.co.nz own Internal Administrative procedures in a civil manner as a reasonable person would expect?

We expect those at http://www.acc.co.nz that have been involved in this case to also be made accountable for there role in this case having escalated as far as it has, no doubt at great expense to all concerned.


No conviction for ACC fraud
Last updated 09:45 14/08/2014

http://www.stuff.co....n-for-ACC-fraud

A Blenheim woman has avoided a conviction after defrauding the Accident Compensation Corporation of $18,000 in false claims.

Catherine Smythe, 52, previously admitted the charge of dishonestly using a document, an ACC44 declaration form, following the death of her partner in 2010.

After Smythe admitted to the charge, an application was made for a discharge without conviction, to protect her employment prospects.

At the Blenheim District Court yesterday Judge Chris Tuohy said he had received documents which confirmed this was the case.

While Smythe was not in work, the time would come when she would seek a job as a cleaner.

Judge Tuohy was prepared to discharge her without conviction, but still imposed a punishment.

Smythe was ordered to pay back $5000 of the money in instalments of $20 per week, and was to do 100 hours' community work with a charity within six months.

Smythe was on a survivors benefit after her live-in partner Sean Mortensen died in a forestry accident on January 20, 2010.

After his death Smythe filled in an ACC declaration form, falsely claiming that her three children by another marriage were in the fulltime care of herself and Mortensen at the time of his death.

The ACC accepted the information given that the children were Mortensen's dependants.

Grant aid and weekly compensation payments were given.

An investigation was launched in January last year into Smythe's entitlements and uncovered an overpayment of $18,140.

Smythe's emotional state at the time could be taken into account as mitigating factors, the judge said. The fraud had involved one false claim, rather than multiple claims as was common, he said.


- The Marlborough Express
0

#15 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 03 September 2014 - 05:53 PM

An interesting update to post #12.

The Honorable Justice White is a very sensible man with a credible background that http://www.acc.co.nz should listen to very carefully and take note of his words.


Widow granted bail over $213,000 ACC fraud
6:01 PM Tuesday Sep 2, 2014

http://www.nzherald....jectid=11317956

A widow who was found guilty of defrauding the Accident Compensation Corporation of more than $200,000 has been granted bail while she waits for an appeal against her conviction and sentence.

Nelson woman Wendy Maree Whitehead was sentenced at the Nelson District Court in May to 10 months' home detention and 160 hours of community service after she wrongly received $213,397.87 in weekly compensation payments over a seven-year period.

She repaid the money before sentencing.

A Court of Appeal decision, released today, said Whitehead's appeal was set down for next month.

Justice Douglas White said there was no "compelling community interest reason" why the home detention sentence should continue to be served before the appeal was due to be heard.

"In the circumstances of this case I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it would be in the interests of justice to grant Mrs Whitehead bail pending the hearing of her appeal on 15 October 2014 and to make an order suspending her sentence of home detention."

In June 1987, Whitehead's husband died in a farming accident and she was paid weekly compensation by ACC based on her late husband's income.

This was to continue until she turned 65, remarried or entered into a de facto relationship.

An ACC investigation in 2010 found she had been in a de facto relationship with a man since 2003 and stopped her compensation payments, the ruling said.

- APNZ

----------------------

Woman's sentence for ACC fraud suspended
Last updated 12:58 03/09/2014
http://www.stuff.co....fraud-suspended

A Ngatimoti woman, convicted of defrauding ACC of $213,000, has had her home detention suspended until her appeal is heard.

Wendy Maree Whitehead's husband was killed while felling trees in 1987 on a neighbour's farm.

The fatal accident was covered by ACC and Wendy Whitehead, married for 12 years with three children, received weekly compensation.

Another man moved later into a housebus on her property and ACC investigated the relationship, deciding it was a de facto one which had begun in 2003.

ACC advised Whitehead she was not entitled to the weekly compensation from April 2005 because of her relationship and that she had been overpaid $213,397.

She lodged a review application against that decision and a hearing was scheduled for May 2011 but was adjourned because criminal charges might be laid.

She was convicted following a jury trial in Nelson District Court of defrauding ACC over seven years of $213,397, and sentenced by Judge Tony Zohrab in May to 10 months' home detention and 160 hours' community work and ordered to repay the money.

Whitehead, who has paid the reparation, has appealed against her conviction and sentence.

The Crown opposed her application for bail and suspension of the home detention pending the appeal, which is to be heard on October 15.

Whitehead's grounds for appeal include that the jury was misdirected as to what a de facto relationship was under the Accident Compensation Act, that it was an abuse of process to not require resolution of the ACC dispute prior to trial and that the Crown improperly obtained evidence at the trial that was not determined admissable.

Justice White in his judgment said the grounds of appeal raised an overarching issue about the propriety of proceeding with the criminal trial against her before the determination of her ACC application for review and that "the issue involved a real bona fide question of law".

He granted her bail application.

--------------------


23 December, 2011
New Court of Appeal Judge appointed

http://www.beehive.g...dge-appointed-0

The Honourable Justice Douglas White has been appointed a Judge of the Court of Appeal, Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson announced today.

Justice White, a graduate of Victoria University of Wellington, joined Young Bennett & Co after a stint working for the Law Commission in London. He later became a partner of that firm and then Young Swan Morison McKay (now Kensington Swan). He commenced practice as a barrister in 1986 and was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in 1988. He was appointed a Judge of the High Court, based in Auckland, in 2009.

As a barrister, Justice White’s principal area of practice was civil litigation with an emphasis on administrative, commercial and taxation law. He also conducted three Government inquiries and provided legal advice to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct.

The appointment will take effect from 1 February 2012.
0

#16 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 12 December 2014 - 02:00 PM

An interesting Report that quotes http://www.acc.co.nz

Children suffer: welfare's outdated ideas on relationships
Friday, 12 December 2014, 11:25 am
Press Release: Child Poverty Action Group

http://www.scoop.co....lationships.htm

UNDER EMBARGO until 11am, Friday December 12th 2014
Children suffer from outdated ideas on relationships in the welfare system

New Zealand's social security framework is based on outdated ideas of the nature of relationships and too often fails to protect the needs of children in the 21st century, says Child Poverty Action Group.


A CPAG report released today argues that the use of a 'couple' as the unit for determining welfare support is confusing and outdated, and can have serious harmful effects on children. The report has been written to raise awareness of these disturbing issues and to start a national conversation around making the welfare system fit for the 21st century.


Download the report here: The complexities of "relationship" in the welfare system and the consequences for children.
http://www.cpag.org....ed.TextMark.pdf


Economics spokesperson Associate Professor Susan St John
says, "We should be wrapping all the support we can around sole parents caring for children on their own. We know that a sole parent re-partnering well can be a good thing for all concerned. Current policy gives the impression that attempts to do this must be punished. Any relationships, even very unsatisfactory ones that hurt children, mean sole parents can lose their independent source of income."


There are major inconsistencies in the use of relationship in the welfare system. It is difficult to justify a policy that pays less to a couple than to two individuals who share accommodation and costs. A sole mother who flats with another person may be in a very similar financial situation to one who is living with someone, male or female, in a 'relationship'.

The report finds that tests for the degree of financial interdependence and emotional commitment, needed for the relationship to be treated as 'in the nature of marriage', are subjective and inconsistent. There is often a degree of surveillance that is far from open and transparent. Moreover the appeal processes for anyone accused of being in a relationship are very unsatisfactory. A sole parent may even be given a prison sentence with scant regard to the impact on her children.

Susan St John says, "it is worrying to see how often sole mothers face both imprisonment and a lifetime of repayments."

"Children and their needs do not feature adequately in the design of welfare benefits, or in the way policy is implemented around them, including the pursuit of their parent accused of relationship fraud. We believe there is NO benefit in imprisoning sole parents or setting excessive financial penalties from a punitive or deterrent point of view, especially once the cost and the impact on children is considered," says St John.

CPAG deplores fraud such as using multiple names to access benefits, or deliberately accessing a benefit while in full-time work. But in cases described as 'relationship fraud' the issues are far from clear cut and suggest that a complete overhaul in policy is required. One of the first steps is to put all standard welfare benefits on an individual basis so that having a partner is not penalised.

The report is being launched at the Mangere East Community Learning Centre at 11am on 12 December, 2014.

Child Poverty Action Group is grateful to the The Hostel of the Holy Name Trust for their support for this project.

- ENDS -

© Scoop Media
0

#17 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 12 December 2014 - 03:51 PM

Another busy day at the Public Library dragging up stuff to lace your crap comments in eh Spidielen?

dave
-1

#18 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 15 April 2016 - 05:26 PM

Marlborough widow to repay $373,000 after lying to ACC

Last updated 17:50, April 14 2016


http://www.stuff.co....er-lying-to-acc

http://www.stuff.co....60614640353.jpg

A Marlborough widow has 40 days to pay back $373,000 after lying to ACC about her new partner.

The woman illegally claimed benefits for close to a decade, saying she was not in a de facto relationship, despite living with her new boyfriend, building a house and having a child with him.

The woman, who cannot be named, was eligible for survivor's grants and weekly compensation from ACC after her husband died in an accident in the late 1980s.

She signed an ACC form every year until 2012 stating she was not married or in a de facto relationship.

READ MORE:
* Renwick couple convicted of benefit fraud
* ACC spots wheelchair user walking
* 21 years of fraudulent ACC back claims totalling $400,000
* Fraud Film Festival coming to New Zealand

However, an ACC investigation discovered her new partner moved into her home in 1992.

They had a child together later that year, and the man became joint owner of the property in 1996.

The couple acquired a further 10 properties over the years.

ACC's investigation in 2013 determined their relationship was "in the nature of marriage", and weekly compensation to the woman should have stopped in 2004.

Her payments stopped following the investigation.


She admitted in an interview with ACC that she lived with the man and that they had a child together.

But she denied their relationship was de facto or in the nature of marriage.

ACC calculated she was overpaid more than $373,000 between 2004 and 2013.

The woman was charged with two counts of using a document for pecuniary advantage, and seven counts of dishonestly using a document.

Judge David Ruth said during sentencing on Wednesday there were several aggravating factors, including the amount, the repeat offending and the breach of trust.

"This type of fraud is easy enough to perpetrate, and difficult enough to discover," he said.

"The system of social welfare relies very much on the honesty and integrity of recipients."

Despite maintaining her innocence, the woman had "paradoxically" offered to repay the full amount to ACC, Judge Ruth said.

Most of the money had been raised by her son, and there was $75,000 in a term deposit account that would become available in a month, he said.

She was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, which was converted to 12 months' home detention.

She was also sentenced to 150 hours' community work, and to repay $373,000 within 40 days.


If the woman had not paid the full amount by May 25, the court would apply to review the sentence and the only option would be prison, Judge Ruth said.

Her name was suppressed until that date.

Her lawyer said the woman was likely to appeal the decision.


MAJOR ACC FRAUDSTERS


​A Christchurch labourer who claimed $398,814 for a false back injury over 21 years was sentenced to four years' imprisonment in 2015.

Hastings man Mark Millin claimed $362,895 for a false injury at a fake job over 13 years and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and reparation in 2013.

Auckland woman Brenetta Hemi claimed $125,000 in widow's pensions after the death of her ex-boyfriend and was sentenced to seven-and-a-half months' home detention in 2013.

Christchurch mother Angela Martha Becker claimed $110,000 for fake caregivers and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in 2013.

- The Marlborough Express
0

#19 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3341
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 18 July 2016 - 03:57 PM

Woman convicted of defrauding ACC of $373,000 to be assessed by a psychiatrist

Last updated 10:53, July 7 2016


http://www.stuff.co....-a-psychiatrist

A woman convicted of defrauding ACC of $373,000 will be assessed by a psychiatrist.

The Marlborough widow denied nine charges but was found guilty and ordered to repay the money within 40 days or be imprisoned.

The woman maintained her innocence and appealed her conviction.

Her lawyer Rob Harrison said on Tuesday a psychiatric report was required before the appeal hearing so a date had not been set.

Judge David Ruth ruled her name suppression would continue until the report had been submitted.

READ MORE: Marlborough widow to repay $373,000
Ad Feedback

- The Marlborough Express
0

#20 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1704
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 21 July 2016 - 09:46 AM

Well I wonder if the ACC looked at the 1982 Act before making here decision.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users