A Dunedin businessman who provided financial advisory services has entered no plea to charges brought by the Serious Fraud Office.
The SFO alleges Barry Edward Kloogh (57), who appeared in the Dunedin District Court today, defrauded investors of at least $15.7 million.
Mr Kloogh faces representative charges of ‘False accounting’, ‘False statement by promoters’, ‘Theft by person in special relationship’ and ‘Obtaining by deception’. He also faces individual charges of ‘Forgery’, ‘Theft by person in special relationship’ and ‘Obtaining by deception’.
Mr Kloogh provided his financial advisory services through several companies of which he was the sole director and shareholder. He had approximately 2000 active clients in May 2019.
The defendant was remanded without plea to reappear in the Dunedin District Court on 12 March.
The Financial Markets Authority referred the matter to the SFO and assisted the agency in its investigation.
Recent NZ Law News
- The Judicial Trajectory of Justice Neil Campbell
- Minter NZ’s Digital Push
- Stephen Franks’ Bid To Drag Professional Bodies Back To Earth
- Rising Litigation Concerns for US Doctors Sees New Zealand Trust Group Expand
- AML Warning Shot Sees Six Auckland Law Firms Caught in DIA Compliance Crackdown
- London’s Pay Lure Is Draining NZ’s Mid‑Level Talent
- John Edwards’ £200k Privacy Limbo
- Antonia Watson Exits As ANZ Doubles Down On NZ$125m CCCFA Appeal
- NZ Lawyer News – Health law heavyweight Dr Jonathan Coates joins Britomart Chambers
- New Zealand Legal Tech Company Just Launched An AI Workspace For In-House Teams Globally
- Bell Gully Bought Harvey Firm-Wide. The Supreme Court Just Made That Look PrescientIn Jones v Family Court at Whangārei [2026] NZSC 1, the Supreme Court used a published judgment to call out a litigant for citing case law that an AI application had invented. Meanwhile, Bell Gully had become the first large New Zealand firm to roll out Harvey AI to its entire 200-plus lawyer team. What the Supreme Court Said Justices Ellen France, Stephen Kós and Forrest Miller dismissed Mr Jones’s leave application after identifying that submissions cited several authorities that “appear to have been hallucinated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) application”. Specific examples included “Teddy v Police [2015] NZSC 62” and “Baird v R [2013] NZSC 120” — real case names combined with incorrect citations, while four genuine cases were misused to support propositions they did not stand for. The issue for New Zealand law firms. Log in to read . .
- Father and Son Law Partners Fined for ‘Grave’ Client Conflicts in Palmerston North
- Why Law Firms Feel Busier Than Ever, But Still Lack Pipeline Confidence
[adrotate banner=”90″]
