Kim Marie Scofield is accused of fraudulently taking about $35,000 from her employer.
Kim Marie Scofield is accused of fraudulently taking about $35,000 from her employer.

Fraud accused claims she had right to share in $200,000

A FORMER book-keeper accused of defrauding her boss of $35,000 claims she had verbal authority to pay herself up to $40,000 commission, advance wages and loans.

The jury retired late today to deliberate its verdicts on three counts of fraud Kim Marie Scofield is alleged to have committed against Witta-based Bazaar Marketing Pty Ltd between late 2012 to February 2016.

Crown prosecutor Aleksandra Nikolic said it was not disputed the money subject to the charges was transferred from business bank accounts into Ms Scofield's accounts, and that Ms Scofield "made most of those transfers".

In closing, defence barrister Clare Hurley said her client's behaviour was inconsistent with someone acting "dishonestly" and that she created a "paper trail" of all the alleged suspicious transactions.

The court heard Ms Scofield was employed first as a permanent part-time employee in charge of payroll and accounting, and later a contractor when she is alleged to have committed the fraud against the company which promoted high-profile music festivals.

Ms Hurley claimed Bazaar Marketing director Lynda Simpson gave Ms Scofield "verbal authority" to pay herself a 15 to 20 per cent commission on a forecast $200,000 profit for the 2012-13 financial year. Ms Hurley claimed this accounted for a series of transactions of varying amounts from the business to Ms Scofield's accounts.

She claimed a further $4435 was intended to be refunded from the business to Ms Simpson, but was paid to Ms Scofield's account by "mistake".

She submitted a further $3500 in late 2015 to early 2016 was advance wages and loans Ms Scofield paid to herself while she lived with Ms Simpson and worked as a contractor for Bazaar Marketing.

Ms Hurley said Ms Simpson had historically authorised Ms Scofield to make such payments in times of financial hardship.

Ms Nikolic said the case came down to whether Ms Scofield transferred bank credits to herself dishonestly, and that it was "irrelevant" if she intended to or had paid the money back.

Ms Simpson gave evidence all wage agreements regarding Ms Scofield were verbal, and absolutely denied giving her authority to make the alleged fraudulent transfers.