Disbarred lawyer Rohineet Sharma acquitted of money laundering in $600k scam case

However, handing down a reserved verdict yesterday after a judge-alone trial earlier this month, Judge Lance found Sharma not guilty on all charges.

While some elements of the case were “suspicious”, Judge Lance said there was no evidence to prove Sharma was in cahoots with the scammers or that he was a sophisticated businessman, as the prosecution alleged.

“I get the sense from his statements that, on the contrary, he’s a person who’s rather unsophisticated and trusting, potentially gullible.”

Sharma, 56, faced 10 counts of money laundering in alleged offending involving more than $600,000 relating to two separate victims.

Police said he received a $204,000 fraudulent payment into his ANZ account in September 2020 from a Gisborne forestry company after another firm’s email account was compromised by scammers.

He received another $400,000 payment into his Kiwibank account in February 2023 from luxury yacht skipper Tim Michalick, who had fallen victim to a complex investment scam.

Within days of Michalick’s money landing in his account, Sharma used it to pay for renovations on his luxury St Heliers home, private school fees at Diocesan School for Girls and other business expenses.

He was first charged with money laundering in 2021 and again in May 2023.

Sharma fought unsuccessfully for permanent suppression. He earlier indicated he would pay reparation to resolve the matter but ultimately pleaded not guilty and successfully defended the case at trial.

Sharma told police the initial $204,000 payment related to a failed property deal in Australia. He claimed a man named “Anthony” owed him money and he was expecting about $200,000 to arrive in his account.

“That’s not an explanation I can reject outright,” Judge Lance told the court yesterday in respect of what Sharma believed about the source of the stolen money.

He said “suspicion” was insufficient to find someone guilty of committing a crime. The prosecution was required to prove the necessary elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt, but had failed to do so in this case.

On the $400,000 Michalick payment, Sharma claimed it was a loan organised through offshore lenders. He said he’d been sent a loan agreement and copy of Michalick’s passport.

Sharma also told police the loan was subject to interest repayments and that he had paid a $7000 brokerage fee to secure the finance.

While prosecutors said the loan agreement contained “implausibly favourable terms”, the judge said it was possible the scammers were “trying to persuade Mr Sharma about the legitimacy of the loan and encourage him to pay the brokerage fee”.

While it was not disputed at trial that the money was scam proceeds, Judge Lance said there was no evidence that Sharma had communicated with the scammers, “concocted a plan” with the offshore criminals, or forwarded them any of the stolen funds as a “money mule”.

Instead, he made payments to a series of individuals and companies that could be easily traced through bank records.

“On its face”, the transactions seemed “relatively legitimate”, Judge Lance said.

“The spending is indicative of a person who has the belief they are entitled to spend the funds. There is no evidence on ‘muling’.”

The judge noted that “inferences” could be drawn about the fact scammers must have been aware of Sharma’s bank account details to carry out the frauds.

“That is suspicious in itself,” the judge said, “but suspicion is not enough.”

Prosecutors argued there were numerous red flags to put Sharma on notice that the funds landing in his account were likely to be the proceeds of crime.

But Judge Lance said the Crown had failed to provide evidence that proved Sharma had knowledge of the criminal scheme or that he had been reckless when dealing with those funds.

During the trial, a recorded video interview Sharma gave police on the day of his 2023 arrest was played to the court.

The police officer said she wanted to discuss the $400,000 deposit.

He told her he was chief executive of Green Solar 2024, which was raising funds to build solar power plants.

He outlined plans for a “billion-dollar”, 700-megawatt project involving Transpower that he hoped to build “within the decade”.

Sharma, who was struck off as a lawyer in 2019 for filing false mortgage documents, said he had been trying to raise capital for the project since 2016 but was repeatedly knocked back by New Zealand banks.

This meant he was now attempting to source funds from international lenders and “high wealth” foreign individuals.

Sharma said a business associate in India put him in touch with an offshore broker. In about December 2022, the broker told Sharma a lender was willing to provide $400,000, the court heard.

“I received the money, I used the money,” Sharma said.

“That money was a loan from a person called Tim Michalick.”

He said he never met Michalick but received a signed loan agreement through the broker and a copy of Michalick’s passport.

“It looked very nice and proper.”

Sharma claimed he paid the broker a $7000 commission to a Malaysian account.

However, things went south later that month when Kiwibank contacted Sharma to inform him his account had been frozen and a “fraud investigator” would be in touch.

Asked about the terms of the supposed loan, Sharma said the money was to be repaid over “five or six” years at an interest rate of “3 or 4%”.

No repayments were required for at least a year, Sharma told the officer, but he said this was not unusual. Money would be repaid through his business once the plants were built and started generating cash.

Sharma’s lawyer Fletcher Pilditch, KC, then made a “no case” submission, arguing there was insufficient evidence to prove his client’s guilt.

It was admitted that the money deposited into Sharma’s account in both cases was fraudulent and that Sharma had dealt with that money by making payments.

But the police position that Sharma had been reckless as to whether that money was the proceeds of criminal offending was not supported by evidence.

Pilditch said there was no suggestion Sharma was party to either scam and it was up to the prosecution to prove Sharma had acted unreasonably.

“Mr Sharma’s beliefs are his beliefs. We need to assess his conduct in light of the beliefs he had.”

However, prosecutor Mohammed Chiraagh questioned how the scammers came to have Sharma’s bank account details and why they sent him $600,000 in stolen money.

Sharma’s apparent naivety could perhaps be explained if he was a “regular dude”, Chiraagh said.

But by his own admission, Sharma was a “big man” involved in “big projects”.

His explanations didn’t add up, Chiraagh alleged.

Judge Lance reserved his verdict, which was delivered yesterday.

Lane Nichols is Auckland desk editor for the New Zealand Herald with more than 20 years’ experience in the industry.

Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.