Adelaide Brighton Cement chasing former credit manager Glenda Burgess over $12.5 million in missing funds
A FORMER senior manager at Adelaide Brighton Cement is at the centre of a civil court case and police investigation over $12.5 million in missing revenue.
THE former credit manager of one of South Australia’s largest companies is at the centre of a Supreme Court civil case and a major police investigation into $12.5 million in missing cash.
In one of the largest civil suits to come before the Supreme Court in SA, Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited (ABCL) is seeking damages from Glenda Ivy Burgess in connection with the $12.5 million in missing revenue.
The Advertiser can also reveal that Ms Burgess has had a significant legal victory — winning a stay application in the Supreme Court civil case — because of her fears that police may be about to charge her with serious fraud offences.
Ms Burgess was credit manager at ABCL for 18 years until she was sacked in February when an internal audit discovered financial anomalies. Police were notified at that time.
While the police investigation was in its infancy, ABCL launched the civil lawsuit in late March, lodging a lengthy statement of claim in the Supreme Court detailing the allegations against Ms Burgess.
The extensive statement of claim alleges a significant range of misconduct by Ms Burgess that has resulted in a loss of $12,477,879 in revenue.
The actions include allegedly misallocating payments made by two ABCL customers for the benefit of another company called Concrete Supply, making false entries in accounts to disguise the manipulation of Concrete Supply’s account, transferring indebtedness between ABC customer accounts without authority, increasing customer credit limits by millions of dollars without authority and providing false information to the ABCL board and auditors concerning the indebtedness of customers.
It states her misconduct allowed Concrete Supply to obtain “$32,599,250 of cement from ABCL between 1 August 2009 and 25 October 2017 while only making payments totalling $20,938,639’’.
“Further, to disguise the misconduct, Ms Burgess made additional false entries in ABCL’s accounts the purpose, or in the alternative the effect, of which was to cloak the misconduct ... as a consequence of Ms Burgess undertaking and concealing the misconduct, ABCL has $12,477,879 of bad or doubtful debts due from Concrete Supply.’’
On July 21, detectives from the Major Fraud Investigation Section raided Ms Burgess’ house, seizing her laptop computer and other electronic devices.
Police on Monday confirmed the investigation, but declined to elaborate further.
“A matter has been reported to police and is under investigation by the Major Fraud Investigation Section. No arrest has been made at this time and police have no further comment to make,’’ a police spokeswoman said.
On August 2, as a direct result of the police raid, lawyers acting for Ms Burgess lodged an application seeking a stay in the civil case.
In her affidavit filed with the stay application, Ms Burgess states she is concerned police may be intending to charge her with offences arising from the same subject matters as the proceedings.
“If criminal charges are brought against me, I expect they will relate to the very same matters and circumstances which are alleged in the statement of claim in these proceedings,’’ she states.
“If I am now required to defend these proceedings, including to defend the application by ABCL for summary judgment, I will be required to address the matters alleged against me — by both addressing the allegations in an affidavit and by way of argument on the summary judgment application — in a manner that will interfere with my right to silence in a criminal prosecution that I am concerned is imminent.
“I do not wish to waive my right to silence.’’
In granting the stay application, Judge Graham Dart said “there was considerable case law’’ in respect of the circumstances in which it was appropriate to stay proceedings.
“It is not necessary when considering an application to stay civil proceedings that the criminal proceedings have already commenced,’’ he stated.
“It is sufficient if, on the facts of the matter, criminal proceedings are on the cards, in that there is a reasonable possibility that criminal proceedings will be instituted.
“I accept that to be the case here.’’
Judge Dart said if the civil proceeding were stayed now, while the position of Ms Burgess may not be “pristine’’, the risk of further prejudice could be avoided.
“The grant of stay is an indulgence granted by the court to protect the defendant’s position in the criminal proceedings,’’ he said.
“It is the correct thing to do where the interests of justice require it. In my opinion, that is the case here.’’
Ms Burgess has lodged a limited defence in the civil case in which she denies the allegations of misconduct in the statement of claim.
ABCL has also launched a separate action in the Federal Court seeking to recover losses from Concrete Supply — which went into liquidation in November 2017 — and its directors by way of compensation.
