A police officer tasked with helping a vulnerable pensioner who had $14,000 stolen from her bank cards went on to steal a further $68,000 from her.

In offending described as “extraordinary”, the Waikato officer, who was on duty and in police uniform at the time, had the woman drive to her local bank branch to make cash withdrawals as he followed her in a patrol car and waited in the carpark.

It was two months before the victim, in her 70s, discovered what he’d done and reported him to her bank. The bank reported it to police.

The same officer, who would later reveal he’d been gambling online since he was 18, then went back to her house twice.

The frightened woman was too scared to open the door and cowered and hid.

The now former officer recently appeared for sentencing in the Hamilton District Court on representative charges of accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose and obtaining by deception.

While he avoided a jail term, he lost a bid for permanent name suppression.

However, he was given a week to lodge an appeal, which the High Court at Hamilton has since confirmed has been filed.

That meant he could not be identified, nor could certain facts surrounding the case. The victim also has suppression.

The case was deemed so unusual that at the man’s sentencing, Crown solicitor Jacinda Hamilton said she, fortunately, couldn’t find any other case as serious as his.

Meanwhile, the victim, through her stepdaughter, told Judge Stephen Clark how the former officer’s offending had a “profound effect” on the woman and she’d lost trust in the police.

Waikato police Superintendent Scott Gemmell told NZME he was “extremely disappointed” in the man’s actions.

Within 24 hours of being alerted, police had launched a criminal investigation, laid charges and had the former officer in court.

“The public deserves to have trust in us,” he said.

Victim told to contact police

In July last year, the then-officer was stationed in a small Waikato town as its community liaison officer.

He focused on crime prevention and connecting people in need with appropriate support services.

The officer was often assigned matters involving vulnerable victims, including the elderly.

The victim lived alone and was vulnerable not just because of her age and isolation, but because of ongoing medical and mental health issues.

On 24 July, the victim visited her local ANZ branch to report suspicious bank account activity, claiming people had stolen her bank cards.

A staff member discovered there had been a $4000 withdrawal, and Prezzy cards totalling $10,059.50 had been bought at Pak’nSave Highland Park in Auckland.

The victim was distraught and the staff member advised her to contact the police.

Officer claimed his dog needed surgery

The officer was designated the woman’s file on 19 August and received the relevant CCTV footage from an Auckland ATM and the Pak’nSave.

His supervisor suggested he visit the victim for a “prevention and reassurance visit”.

He went to her house the same day and learned she had CCTV footage of her home. The pair reviewed the footage but were unable to identify those who stole her cards.

The officer said he’d return to review the footage more thoroughly and asked the victim for copies of her bank statements to help in his inquiry.

He visited on several occasions, and at least once, was accompanied by a colleague who found the victim to be easily confused, had a poor memory and struggled to articulate her thoughts.

During a visit on 21 August, the officer discovered she had money in her other accounts and told her that his dog was unwell and required surgery.

But that was a lie.

However, the victim agreed to help him and drove to her ANZ branch to withdraw $8000 while the officer followed in his patrol car.

She then handed him the cash as he sat in the police car.

Later that day, he made two cash deposits of $4000 into his personal bank account.

On 27 August, he asked the victim to make another withdrawal from her bank.

She again drove to her branch while he followed in his patrol car.

The woman tried to withdraw $4000 but was declined by bank staff.

The officer then told her to follow him to another branch, where the withdrawal was successful.

He then deposited it into his personal bank account.

The officer went to the woman’s house eight more times, and, without her knowledge, used her mobile phone to access her online banking.

Between 8 September and 17 October, he transferred $56,000 over eight transactions, ranging from $4000 to $9500.

He coded the transactions with “wedding gift”, “early Christmas present”, and “loan payment”, while others had just the victim’s name.

On 20 October, the victim went to her bank in a distressed state, advising that a substantial sum had gone from her account.

Bank staff identified the numerous transfers into the officer’s account.

A review of bank records found the officer had previously contacted the bank, advising that the fraud inquiry had been allocated to him.

Bank staff froze the victim’s account and contacted police.

The next day, the officer went to the victim’s house twice.

She was home, but was too frightened to open the door and instead hid from him.

A review found the officer stole $68,000 – $12,000 in cash withdrawals and $56,000 in bank transfers.

ANZ has refunded the victim the full amount.

‘I feel deeply betrayed’

The victim said she expected police to help her, but was instead “immediately deceived”.

“At the time of this, I was already vulnerable,” she said in her victim impact statement read to the court by her stepdaughter.

“I was not expecting to be harmed again. The offender in this case, being a police officer, was someone in a position of public trust.

“He presented himself as someone who was there to help me in the wake of my earlier fraud.

“I trusted that.”

She now lived with “constant anxiety and a sense of mistrust that I did not have before”.

“My mind goes over and over what happened, and I find myself asking ‘why me?’

She said the process was made much harder because the offender was a police officer.

“Someone whose role exists to protect people, uphold the law, and prevent harm.

“He was someone I should have been able to trust without hesitation. I feel deeply betrayed.”

Instead of being protected, she was exploited, she said.

“The offending was manipulative and intentional.

“That betrayal has shaken my trust not only in individuals but in authority and systems I once believed were there to keep individuals safe, to keep me safe.”

Offending ‘motivated by gambling addiction’

The former officer’s counsel, Russell Boot, urged Judge Clark to hand down a home detention sentence.

His client should also get a good character discount and didn’t have any previous convictions, Boot submitted.

“He has taken significant steps at rehabilitation, and that should give you some confidence.”

He also had $30,000 to immediately pay in reparation, which Boot described as a lot, given he was a father and no longer employed.

Hamilton suggested of the officer’s $30,000 reparation, $5000 should be given to the victim.

While Boot submitted the offending was motivated by the former officer’s gambling addiction, Hamilton said there had not been any evidence provided to confirm this.

“The reference to a gambling addiction may put it into context, but there is little evidence about that,” she said.

‘Quite extraordinary’ circumstances

Judge Clark told the officer that his actions were a clear breach of trust.

“She clearly trusted you to do the best by her.”

He allowed 40 percent in discounts; 25 percent for his guilty plea, 5 percent for providing the reparation, 5 percent for his gambling addiction and 5 percent for his previous good character.

From a starting point of three years’ imprisonment, Judge Clark reduced the sentence to 22 months.

That was then converted to 11 months’ home detention.

“I have to say [former officer], it’s a really close run thing… the circumstances are quite extraordinary,” the judge said.

“Perhaps what sways it for me is the steps that you have taken, belatedly, what is clearly a gambling addiction and the offer of reparation.”

Judge Clark ordered the man to pay the full $68,000 in reparations, with $5000 to go to the victim.

‘Extremely disappointed’

Gemmell said the former officer’s actions “fall far below the standard expected of our staff”.

“We are extremely disappointed in the actions of this former officer,” he told NZME.

“It is particularly egregious that this person targeted a vulnerable older person who rightly trusted them in their capacity as an officer.”

Police understood the incident was “deeply traumatic” for the victim and her family, and had maintained contact throughout the process and would continue to support them, he said.

“The public deserves to have trust in us, and police will not hesitate to take action any time offending like this is detected.

“The community can be assured that a full investigation was undertaken and there is no further evidence to indicate any wider offending has been undertaken by this person.”

Source: New Zealand Herald & RNZ