Man gambled away small fortune after bank accidentally transferred money into his account

A New Zealand man spent more than $100,000 (£49,000, $80,000) in a week after his bank accidentally transferred the money into his account, a court has heard. Mehdi Soheili, whose name suppression lapsed on Tuesday, appeared in the Auckland District Court after admitting a charge of theft. The 32-year-old's lawyer Shannon Withers called it "an unfortunate crime of opportunity" and told the court how his client gambled most of the cash away. On November 13, Soheili found that his bank, the name of which is suppressed, had transferred $141,991 (£69,000, $113,000) into his account in error.

Eight days later they froze his spending but not before he had spent a significant chunk of it. Soheili, a qualified chef, admitted stealing $106,217 (£52,000, $84,500). "It was his addiction to gambling and an unwise series of decisions," Mr Withers said. "This will impact upon his future for a considerable amount of time." The lawyer said his client intended to pay the money back but his job prospects would be diminished if his name was made public. Judge David Wilson, QC, declined name suppression and said that at $150 (£73, $119) a week, it would take the defendant about 13 years to pay off his debt.



In the interim, the bank added the debt to Soheili's account, meaning he now had a six-figure, maxed-out overdraft. The court heard how he had obtained a self-seclusion order from SkyCity to keep him away but the judge noted that had only been done in May, six months after the theft. Soheili was due to be sentenced on Tuesday but because he had refused to let probation assess his home, he could not be considered for a community-based sentence.

Rather than sentence him to imprisonment, Judge Wilson adjourned the hearing until November so he could rethink his position, which appeared to please the defendant. "Generally speaking a theft of this magnitude would lead to a jail sentence," the judge said. He called the offending "an act of some significant dishonesty" but said that among his seven previous convictions, which included unlawfully taking a vehicle, there was little to suggest the defendant was capable of repeating such serious acts. The case was not as bad as people defrauding others of their life savings, he said, but it was not a victimless crime. "I don't accept there's been no loss to the bank. Whether they get fully paid, that remains to be seen," the judge added.