20 March 2012
Tax agent receives additional sentence for SFO fraud charges
Ian Victor Petersen, a 62 year-old man from Waikanae, has appeared in the Wellington District Court and was sentenced to
an additional six months imprisonment for failing to pay reparation of $110,000 to the victims of his fraud as had been
ordered when he was sentenced in March 2011.
Petersen was previously sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment. He had previously pled guilty to 13 counts of
theft by a person required to account, 19 counts of theft by person in special relationship, one count of using a
document with intent to defraud and one count of dishonestly using a document, laid by the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”).
SFO Chief Executive, Adam Feeley, said “It is imperative that the plight of victims is at the heart of everything the
SFO does, and reparations can be a very effective form of redress to victims of serious financial crime. We hope that
the additional sentence in this serves to deter persons from failing to pay their dues, and provides some alternative
redress to the victims of Mr Petersen.”
The charges relate to the misuse of approximately $2M of client funds over a 13 year period. Several of the victims made
complaints to the Kapiti Police who undertook initial investigations before referring the matter to the SFO.
Summary of facts
Ian Victor Petersen acted as an accountant, tax agent and investment advisor for a number of clients between 1993 and
2009. Mr Petersen operated under the name Sorrel Financial Services offering accounting and financial services to
members of the public.
Mr Petersen held himself out, on occasion, to be a member of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants
(‘NZICA’) and holding a Bachelor of Business Studies. Enquiries have confirmed that Mr Petersen does not hold a Bachelor
of Business Studies nor is he a member of the NZICA.
Payment of Tax/ACC/Forestry Management fees
Between April 2000 and June 2009, Mr Petersen obtained a total of $986,737.30 from 15 clients for the stated purpose of
making tax, ACC and/or Forestry Management fees on behalf of the clients. Financial analysis shows that Mr Petersen
either made minimal or no payments to the IRD, ACC, or Forestry Management companies on behalf of his clients.
In 2001, Mr Petersen, acting as tax agent for a client, filed an IR315 Business Cessation form with the IRD for that
client. The IRD wrote to Mr Petersen’s client in August 2002 via Mr Petersen stating that the outstanding tax liability
was $133,629.50. The cause of the tax liability was Mr Petersen’s failure to properly act as a tax agent as instructed.
By November 2006 Mr Petersen’s client’s outstanding tax debt totaled $308,749.86. The IRD accepted a proposal advanced
by Mr Petersen to pay $120,15000 in full and final settlement of the debt, the balance of $188,599.86 being written off.
Between October 2001 and June 2008 Mr Petersen received $74,667.45 from the IRD as tax refunds for three clients where
he acted as their tax agent. The clients either did not know they were receiving a refund or had instructed Mr Petersen
to use the refund to settle an ACC debt. In all three cases, the refunds were either not passed on to the client or was
not used to settle the ACC debt as instructed.
Two clients paid Mr Petersen a total of $603,302.36 for the purpose of investing the funds on their behalf. Both clients
believed they were to receive a return of between 9.4% and 10.0% per annum. Both clients received regular monthly
“interest” payments equating approximately to the amount of their supposed investment. It appears on analysis that the
“interest” payments were made by either using these particular clients’ own funds, or fraudulent use of other clients’
funds. Financial analysis shows that no investments were made on behalf of these clients by Mr Petersen.
Another client paid Mr Petersen $75,000.00 for the purpose of purchasing an investment property in May 2006. In February
2008 Mr Petersen advised his client in February 2008 that a house had been purchased in Levin and tenants installed.
Land Information New Zealand searches confirm that no property had been purchased in the name of Mr Petersen’s client
during the relevant time period. Financial analysis shows that the $75,000.00 was spent on travel, cash withdrawals,
motor vehicle purchases, personal debt, entertainment expenses and “interest” payments.
Between April 2002 and October 2008 Mr Petersen received funds totaling $71,986.00 from two clients for the purpose of
making fee payments to a forestry management company.
Mr Petersen advised the clients the amounts required, however, the amounts advised were far in excess of the true
amounts, of which Mr Petersen did make some payments. On occasion, Mr Petersen did not pass on correspondence from the
forestry management company to the clients which included correspondence advising that particular invoices were not
required to be paid as pruning plans had been abandoned.
Role of the SFO
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was established in 1990 under the Serious Fraud Act in response to the collapse of
financial markets in New Zealand at that time.
The SFO operates three investigative teams:
• Fraud Detection & Intelligence;
• Financial Markets & Corporate Fraud; and
• Fraud & Corruption.
The SFO operates under two sets of investigative powers.
Part 1 of the SFO Act provides that it may act where the Director “has reason to suspect that an investigation into the
affairs of any person may disclose serious or complex fraud.”
Part 2 of the SFO Act provides the SFO with more extensive powers where: “…the Director has reasonable grounds to
believe that an offence involving serious or complex fraud may have been committed…”
The SFO’s Statement of Intent 2010-2012 sets out the SFO’s three year strategic goals and performance standards. It is
available online at: www.sfo.govt.nz