No conviction for ‘senior leader’ prosecuted over $32K spend-up on ailing uncle’s account

Monday, 27 July 2026

A woman holding a senior leadership role at a government-owned entity has been prosecuted by the police for a $32,321.98 spending spree using money that belonged to her “mentally incapable” uncle.

In total, the woman - who cannot be named - made 200 transactions on a bank card that gave her access to her uncle’s account, using it for such things as air travel, Koru Club memberships, golf club fees, veterinary bills, women’s clothing, alcohol, cafe and entertainment and various household expenses.

Police were alerted to the situation following the uncle’s death by a law firm acting as the executors of his will, which identified numerous unexplained anomalies in his bank statements.

The 64-year-old Auckland woman has subsequently spent about five years going through the courts defending a representative charge of theft by a person in a special relationship - a battle that was meant to culminate in a jury trial beginning in the Hamilton District Court on Monday.

The trial never got started. Following some last-minute discussions between Crown prosecutor Russell Boot and defence counsel Harrison Smith, she pleaded guilty to a lesser representative charge of theft by failing to account.

It was a plea that was accepted by Judge Arthur Tompkins, who swiftly moved to bring the lengthy affair to a close by discharging the woman without conviction - as long as she immediately paid reparation to the tune of $21,000.

However, the woman, who holds a senior leadership role in a government-owned organisation, cannot be named. Nor can that organisation be named, or any of her identifying details revealed.

She was granted permanent name suppression by Judge Tompkins after Smith made an impromptu application on her behalf.

Smith had argued that media interest in the woman’s case was only because of the inclusion of the name of her lead counsel - Auckland lawyer Ron Mansfield KC - on the file.

Additionally, naming the woman would drag her family “through an ordeal greater than they should have to suffer”, he said.

Smith also told the court the woman had enjoyed “a distinguished career” and had “a wealth of people who can confirm her good character” and that she was “forever and always acting for the benefit of others”.

Much of the agreed summary of facts on the case cannot be reported without transgressing the suppression orders.

It can be revealed that the woman’s uncle, a Waikato man in his mid-70s, had appointed her and another person to be his attorneys in 2014, under the auspices of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act.

At that time she had signed a document acknowledging her obligations in that role - including a requirement to not use it to benefit herself or any other person other than the uncle.

She was subsequently issued with a bank debit card connected to her uncle’s account.

Some time later, a specialist at the Older Persons and Rehabilitation Service at Waikato Hospital had assessed the uncle and had declared him mentally incapable, thus fully invoking the Enduring Power of Attorney agreement - and giving her full access and control over his finances.

The uncle had died a few years later. It was only then that the woman’s spending during the time she had full financial control - mostly in the Auckland area and all without receipts - was revealed.

In his decision, Judge Tompkins noted there had been no rift between members of the woman’s family “as is often encountered in cases of this kind”.

Situations where people had taken on the burden of power of attorney - but not realising the need for meticulous accounting or record-keeping to justify any expenditure - came reasonably frequently before the courts, the judge said.

More awareness of their obligations and responsibilities was something that was needed generally, he said.