The man previously behind an illegal North Canterbury tyre stockpile has been found guilty of forging signatures on official documents in an attempt to avoid debt and bankruptcy.

Michael Le Roy, 60, was found guilty of five charges of forgery in the Christchurch District Court on Friday.

Judge Raoul Neave found Le Roy had forged two people’s signatures – Le Roy’s relative, who has interim name suppression,​ and his former employee Dion Hamilton​ – to place them as directors of companies with debt, or place their names onto guarantees, accepting responsibility for Le Roy’s debt or that of his businesses.

The court had earlier heard the relative had been made a director of Tyre Recycling Services New Zealand Limited in 2015, which had over $20,000 in debt, without her knowledge. She became aware she was a director of the company only when she was contacted by debt collectors in August 2018, she said.

Hamilton told the court he had met up with Le Roy at a restaurant while he was still working for Le Roy. According to Hamilton, Le Roy offered him a business and there was a conversation about how it would work. Hamilton told Le Roy he was interested but wanted to see all the paperwork and give it some thought.

He later found out the company had already been set up in his name.

During the trial, Le Roy denied the allegations and claimed the relevant documents had been signed by the two complainants, and that they knew what they were signing. Judge Neave rejected his version of events.

The judge referred to testimony from a handwriting expert that found the signatures on the documents did not match the signatures of the two people purported to have made them. The expert had said the employee’s signature especially “bore absolutely no resemblance to the two signatures on the Companies Office documents”.

Judge Neave said he took into account the absence of any obvious reason why the complainants would fabricate the allegations against Le Roy, as well as the “measured and reasonable” way in which they gave evidence.

“The defendant on the other hand tended to give over-elaborate answers even in relation to simple questions, and his testimony did in at least one respect contrast with his own acceptance of agreed fact.”

Le Roy was taken into custody after the verdict while a sentencing date was being determined.