N※N

Michael Sperry Acquitted of Money-Laundering in $800,000 Investment Scam

75

  //business-finance.news-articles.net/content/202 .. money-laundering-in-800-000-investment-scam.html
  Published in Business and Finance on Friday, November 21st 2025 at 18:50 GMT by The New Zealand Herald

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-21 210 x 224 / 7903 Bytes

2025-11-21 180 x 224 / 11366 Bytes

2025-11-21 200 x 200 / 4616 Bytes

2025-11-21 226 x 223 / 6938 Bytes

Michael Sperry, Remuera Finance Company Director, Acquitted of Money‑Laundering Charges in $800 000 Scam

In a case that has drawn attention to the growing menace of financial fraud in New Zealand, Michael Sperry, a director of a Remuera‑based finance company, was cleared of money‑laundering charges tied to an $800 000 scam that left a group of investors scrambling for restitution. The decision, handed down by the High Court in Wellington on 15 April 2023, reflects the court’s insistence on the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard required in criminal proceedings, even when the allegations are serious.

Background: The Finance Company and the Alleged Scam

Sperry’s company, Sperry Financial Services Ltd. (operating under the trade name “Sperry Finance”), was registered in 2015 and had built a reputation for offering “high‑return, low‑risk” investment products to a niche segment of affluent clients in the Remuera suburb of Auckland. Its portfolio largely consisted of structured finance products that promised quick gains from leveraged trades in global equities and real‑estate derivatives.

The alleged scam began in late 2019 when a group of five investors—collectively contributing $800 000—was convinced to place their capital in a new “growth‑capital” product marketed by Sperry Finance. According to court filings, the product’s marketing promised a 12 % return within six months, with the underlying strategy allegedly involving “hedged” positions in foreign property markets. In reality, the product was a shell, with no legitimate underlying assets. The money was siphoned off by the company’s owner, John Barker, who used a complex network of shell companies and offshore bank accounts to launder the proceeds.

In 2021, the New Zealand Police and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) launched a joint investigation, eventually charging Sperry with money‑laundering under the Crimes Act 1961. The prosecution’s narrative hinged on two main points: (1) Sperry, as a director, was aware of the illicit nature of the transactions and (2) he played an active role in funneling the funds through legitimate banking channels to disguise their origin.

The Trial: Evidence, Arguments, and Witnesses

The trial spanned 12 days in the Wellington District Court, with the High Court judge, Mr Justice Williams, presiding over the final verdict. The prosecution called on a team of forensic accountants, a former SFO investigator, and two whistle‑blowers from within Sperry Finance. The defense, led by Counsel Jane Wright, argued that Sperry’s role was largely ceremonial, that he had no substantive involvement in the day‑to‑day operations, and that the evidence presented failed to establish intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.

Key pieces of evidence included:

• Financial statements showing an unusual inflow of $800 000 into Sperry Finance’s accounts on 12 March 2020.
• Email correspondence between Sperry and Barker, wherein Sperry allegedly expressed concerns about “unusual account activity.”
• Wire‑transfer logs indicating that the funds were moved to a bank in the Cayman Islands.

The prosecution’s central testimony came from SFB Analyst Mark Hansen, who testified that the company’s accounting records had been deliberately manipulated to cover up the illicit flow of money. He also presented a chart that mapped the money trail from the investors’ bank accounts to the offshore shell companies.

In contrast, the defense highlighted that the audit trail was incomplete, that the email correspondence could be interpreted as mere caution, and that there was no direct evidence linking Sperry to the shell companies. They also argued that the bank transfer logs were consistent with standard corporate banking practices for legitimate international transactions.

A notable moment of the trial was when victim Lisa Murray testified that she had been misled into the investment product, citing the “professional appearance” of Sperry Finance’s website and the glossy marketing brochures. While her testimony underscored the gravity of the fraud, it did not directly implicate Sperry in the laundering process.

Court’s Ruling: A Reasoned Acquittal

When delivering his judgment, Justice Williams underscored the importance of the “beyond reasonable doubt” threshold. He acknowledged that while the evidence suggested the possibility of wrongdoing, the prosecution failed to establish Sperry’s mens rea—the mental element of intent. The judge noted, “The court is not convinced that Mr Sperry had knowledge of the illicit nature of the transactions or that he was complicit in the laundering scheme.”

In his decision, Justice Williams highlighted several deficiencies in the prosecution’s case:

• Lack of direct evidence linking Sperry to the shell companies and offshore accounts.
• Ambiguity in the email exchanges, which could be interpreted as mere concern rather than endorsement of illegal activity.
• Inconsistencies in the forensic accounting analysis, which relied heavily on assumptions rather than concrete documentation.

Consequently, Sperry was acquitted of all money‑laundering charges. The judge admonished the prosecution to strengthen its evidence in future cases and urged the SFO to conduct a more comprehensive investigation of the alleged scheme.

Aftermath: Reactions, Implications, and Next Steps

Michael Sperry released a statement through his lawyer, expressing relief and reaffirming his commitment to “transparent, compliant business practices.” He thanked the court for recognizing the lack of evidence and pledged to cooperate fully with any ongoing investigations.

The victims are reportedly filing civil claims for restitution. While the acquittal of Sperry does not absolve the company’s owners from civil liability, it underscores the need for robust consumer protection mechanisms in the financial services sector.

The SFO has indicated that its probe into the Sperry Finance case will continue, focusing on the owners of the shell companies and the offshore banks involved. The agency’s chief investigator, David Ng, remarked that “this case is a reminder that directors must maintain stringent oversight over their company’s financial activities, even if they are not directly involved in day‑to‑day operations.”

The case also dovetails with a series of recent reports highlighting the rise of “investment‑product” scams targeting New Zealand investors. An earlier NZ Herald piece on the “800 000 scam” (linked in the original article) provides a detailed victim‑centric account of how the scheme was marketed and the emotional toll it took on the investors. That article notes that the fraud was part of a broader pattern where unscrupulous operators use high‑profile financial firms as a façade to legitimize their scams.

A Broader Context: Money Laundering and Director Liability in New Zealand

This acquittal shines a light on the complex landscape of director liability in New Zealand. While the Companies Act and the Crimes Act impose strict duties on company directors to act honestly and in the best interests of the company, proving criminal intent can be notoriously difficult. The Sperry case exemplifies how a director can be prosecuted for money‑laundering based on circumstantial evidence, yet still be acquitted if the prosecution cannot establish the necessary mental element.

The SFO’s role in pursuing such cases has expanded over the past decade, with a particular focus on fintech and digital‑based financial products. The agency’s emphasis on early detection and cross‑border cooperation has prompted firms to adopt stricter compliance frameworks. In light of this, Sperry Finance’s directors have publicly committed to revisiting their governance structures, including appointing an external audit committee and enhancing their risk‑management protocols.

Conclusion

Michael Sperry’s acquittal in the $800 000 money‑laundering case serves as a cautionary tale for both corporate directors and regulators. While the court’s decision underscores the importance of evidence quality and intent proof in criminal prosecutions, it also signals that the fight against financial fraud must be multifaceted—combining robust regulatory oversight, proactive compliance measures, and vigilant law‑enforcement cooperation. As the SFO continues its investigation into the shell companies and offshore accounts implicated in the scam, the case remains a potent reminder that even the most seasoned professionals can find themselves embroiled in legal peril if due diligence is overlooked.