Key Takeaways
- Barry Kloogh, a 62-year-old financial adviser, was denied early release from prison for the second time due to his lack of empathy for his victims.
- Kloogh was jailed for 8 years and 10 months for running a $15.7 million Ponzi scheme that spanned 25 years.
- A psychologist’s report stated that Kloogh demonstrates superficial insight into the effects of his crimes on his victims and lacks insight into the personality traits that motivated his offending.
- Kloogh claims to be remorseful, but the Parole Board remains unconvinced due to his lack of understanding of the harm he caused and his desire to return to the same area where his victims live.
- The Parole Board has urged Kloogh to arrange a parole address outside of the proposed exclusion zones, including Dunedin, Mosgiel, and Cromwell.
Introduction to the Case
Barry Kloogh, a disgraced financial adviser, has been denied early release from prison for the second time due to his lack of empathy for his victims. The 62-year-old was jailed for 8 years and 10 months for running a $15.7 million Ponzi scheme that spanned 25 years. Despite his claims of remorse, the Parole Board remains unconvinced, citing his lack of understanding of the harm he caused and his desire to return to the same area where his victims live.
The Parole Hearing
During the parole hearing, Kloogh appeared before the Parole Board, wearing prison-issue garb, and stated that he would never again be placed in a role of financial responsibility. He also claimed to be halfway through a creative writing degree and intended to continue with it if he was released. However, the board was skeptical of his claims, with panel convener Judge Jane Lovell-Smith stating that his plan to return to Dunedin, despite the victims seeking his exclusion from the city, was at odds with his claims of remorse. Judge Lovell-Smith also emphasized that Kloogh’s actions had "ruined other people’s lives through his own greed" and that he had "created the situation and nobody else."
Lack of Empathy and Insight
A psychologist’s report, ordered following Kloogh’s last parole hearing, noted that his narrative account remained "minimally detailed" and that he had to be prompted to elicit further relevant information about the crimes. The report also stated that Kloogh demonstrates superficial insight into the effects of his crimes on his victims and lacks insight into the personality traits that motivated his offending. Kloogh disputed the report, stating that he completely disagreed with the assessment of his victim insight. However, he conceded that he might have ingrained character issues, acknowledging that "personality traits are very very difficult to change."
Risk of Reoffending
The Parole Board also expressed concerns about the risk of Kloogh reoffending if he were to be released back into the community. Parole Board member Alan Hackney stressed the risks of Kloogh effectively returning to the scene of the crime, stating that it would be "hugely damaging" to any victim if they were to encounter him in a public place. Kloogh claimed that he would "keep a low profile" and would not be shopping for groceries, visiting cafes, or attending the theatre. However, Judge Lovell-Smith described this plan as unrealistic, stating that it would be unlikely for Kloogh to remain housebound for an extended period.
Conclusion and Next Steps
In conclusion, the Parole Board denied Kloogh’s request for early release, citing his lack of empathy and insight into the harm he caused. The board urged him to attempt to arrange a parole address outside of the proposed exclusion zones, including Dunedin, Mosgiel, and Cromwell. Kloogh will see the board again in six months, at which point he will have the opportunity to demonstrate a greater understanding of the harm he caused and a more convincing plan for his rehabilitation. Ultimately, the decision to grant or deny parole will depend on Kloogh’s ability to demonstrate a genuine commitment to changing his behavior and making amends for his past actions.
