(file image)
Photograph: 123rf

A woman doctored her bank statements to hide her true financial situation during trials over the division of relationship property.

These amended statements were later presented as evidence in court; it was an act described by one judge as a “serious, serious crime” that “strikes at the heart of justice”.

According to the police summary, the woman, whose permanent name is withheld, acted out of fear because she did not want her ex-partner to know about her financial situation.

She also claimed that her actions were the result of ongoing trauma from the “physical, emotional and financial abuse” she experienced during and after her relationship with the man.

Sentencing the woman, Judge Tony Snell said: “The type of offense in question was serious in nature as it involved deception, but it was a very low-level matter of its kind.” Nelson District Court.

Although the crime could have led to a period of imprisonment, Judge Snell ordered his release without conviction on charges of forgery and intentional alteration of a document, which he admitted earlier this year.

‘An amateurish attempt’

The couple was in a long-term relationship and became embroiled in legal proceedings due to property division in the relationship.

The Family Court ordered the woman to disclose her bank account statements spanning nearly two years.

Before revealing them, he altered three statements by cutting and removing several transactions, then photocopied the altered statements to make them appear to be “entirely factual statements.”

He then created a fictitious email address to make it look like it had been sent to him by a bank employee and stated the date his account was closed and that the balance was just over $100.

Police said the email was “deliberately created” by the woman to corroborate the closing date and balance of the bank statement she had “edited”.

The Crown said the change of wording was an “amateurish attempt” and was quickly noticed.

The woman later said she had no intention of misleading the Family Court but had acted out of fear.

He then provided the correct details.

‘I was shot at the heart of justice’

The woman’s defense lawyer said despite the woman’s support from her employer after she disclosed the incident, she would risk losing her senior job if convicted. His hopes elsewhere would be “filled”.

“His future would be permanently ruined by a conviction.”

He added that there was no real loss or financial gain as a result of the crime.

Judge Snell said the attack was “completely out of character” and the woman’s remorse was genuine, but he was skeptical of the claim that the attack was linked to trauma in the relationship when what she did was cheating.

“There is no need for the court to determine what the justification is,” Judge Snell said.

He said aggravating features included that the crime was deliberate and pre-planned and that the documents were presented to the court along with a sworn statement that they were accurate.

He said the woman’s actions “strike a blow to the heart of justice.”

“The court has confidence in the integrity and honesty of the documents and this offense is serious in nature,” Judge Snell said. he said.

“What you did was to deceive the court and the opposing parties, but what I accept is what the Crown accepts, which is that this was an amateurish effort that should always have been exposed.”

However, Judge Snell accepted details contained in a report pointing to the woman’s mental health condition at the time.

He stated that a woman’s job, in addition to the social support it offers, is a great stabilizer in her life.

He said the woman had since been respectful of the court process and recognized there was no excuse for what she had done, but said it was “extremely out of character” and the risk of re-offending was low.

“A conviction would have a devastating impact on his career or his presence in Nelson.”

He was “somewhat” satisfied that a conviction would have consequences disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

“This does not diminish the fact that this is a serious, serious crime that the court condemns,” Judge Snell said in ordering that he be released without conviction and that his name be permanently suppressed. he said.

*This story was first published New Zealand Herald.