Former financial adviser Marion Joan Pearson is set to face 136 charges of theft in Western Australia after the New Zealand citizen’s attempts to escape extradition reached their conclusion.
Pearson and her company Colisa were authorised representatives of Ballast Financial Management from 1 November 2007 until 30 October 2013, when Ballast revoked the authorisation, and the charges relate to conduct that took place during this period.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) permanently banned Pearson from the financial services industry in November 2015 after an investigation into her conduct in advising self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) clients.
Noting at the time that Pearson was already residing in New Zealand, ASIC said its investigation found she had created documents to disguise the fact that client money was paid into Colisa’s bank account without their knowledge or authority, as well as misleading clients to believe funds had been placed in investments, despite not having done so.
In December 2018, the Magistrates Court of Western Australia issued a warrant for Pearson’s arrest on 136 charges of theft in the range of $4 million in total, which the New Zealand District Court endorsed in 2019, at which point she was arrested, though was granted bail and interim name suppression.
The District Court ruled in October 2021 that Pearson was eligible for extradition, rejecting her arguments that extradition would be “unjust or oppressive due to the time that had passed since the alleged offences”, and that a less “coercive alternative” – namely participating remotely from New Zealand via summons – should be pursued.
It also refused her application for permanent name suppression, concluding that the “extreme hardship threshold was not met”.
Over the subsequent years, the case has been the subject of multiple appeals to a variety of different courts in New Zealand, including the High Court, Court of Appeal, and finally the Supreme Court.
In delivering its final ruling, the Supreme Court was “not persuaded the proposed appeal has sufficient prospects of success to justify the grant of leave”, ultimately dismissing Pearson’s application to appeal the extradition order.
