Porirua Fraudster Defrauds Workplace While on Home Detention for Previous Crimes

Andrew Ross during sentencing this week. Photo by Melissa Nightingale.

Andrew Ross, 43, of Porirua, has been sentenced for defrauding his employer while serving a home detention sentence for similar crimes. Ross narrowly avoided prison, receiving another home detention term instead.

Ross, described in court as a “professional conman,” manipulated his current employer by requesting to work from home, claiming it was to support his teenage daughter who was being bullied. In reality, Ross was legally confined to his home, having been sentenced to home detention for defrauding previous employers.

Despite being under this sentence, Ross defrauded his new employer, an arborist company, Arb Innovations, by diverting $21,647.61 in company funds into his personal account between mid-2022 and mid-2023. Ross altered invoices and removed company bank details, replacing them with his own, while covering his digital tracks by deleting metadata and voiding invoices in Xero.

The company’s owner, in a victim impact statement, expressed his profound betrayal. He had employed Ross in a “high trust environment,” only to have Ross exploit that trust, leading to reputational damage for the business. “I’ve lost many hours of sleep questioning the people around me,” he says.

Ross has a history of fraud, with charges laid in 2020 and 2021 for defrauding three previous employers. He did not disclose his criminal charges to Arb Innovations when applying for the job and continued his offending while on bail.

Judge Peter Hobbs. Photo by Juan Zarama Perini.

Judge Peter Hobbs noted that while Ross’ actions were premeditated and involved a substantial sum, his mental health and gender identity issues factored into the decision to grant another home detention sentence. Judge Hobbs imposed 10 months of home detention, along with six months of post-release conditions, but emphasized that protections were in place to prevent further offending. Ross will be subject to public disclosure of his crimes and restricted from working without approval from probation.

Ross claims he does not recall the offending, but the court remains concerned about the potential for reoffending, given his pattern of deception.