A guidance counsellor charged with making false statements admitted to police that he should have given the complainant written documentation acknowledging her investment.However Cedric Oates, 42, said he warned the complainant, teacher Dianne Laird, that there was no guarantee her money would be returned quickly.Mr Oates has denied a single charge of using false or misleading statements to convince Ms Laird to invest her life savings into a plan to buy, repair and resell foreclosed homes with his friend, Micheal Hopkins in Tacoma, Washington.The offence reportedly occurred in 2009, with Ms Laird investing a total of $345,000 over a three-month period.Ms Laird said that the defendant promised her investment would be returned in three to four months, but she has not seen a penny returned in more than three years.As the trial continued in Supreme Court yesterday, the jury was shown a recording of Mr Oates’ interview with police, recorded in May, 2010. At that stage, he had been arrested on suspicion of stealing.He told the officers that he had mentioned to Ms Laird that he had a friend involved in house “flipping” in Washington and she quickly became interested in the possibility of investing.“I did say with real estate there isn’t a time limit as far as when things are going to sell,” he told the officers. “You can invest in January and the house may not sell by May.“She was hesitant. I said it is up to you. It’s an opportunity to make money, but it’s up to you.”Mr Oates told the officers that Ms Laird wanted to wire the money into his account rather than directly into Mr Hopkins’ account because she trusted him. Asked if he told Ms Laird he would be able to move the money to Mr Hopkins faster if it were in his account, he said it was possible.He said he had set up his bank account earlier that summer for a record label he was trying to start, and that in addition to Ms Laird’s money, thousands of dollars passed through the account.Asked why Ms Laird didn’t receive paperwork for her significant investment, while he gave recording artists he “sort of” worked with contracts, he said: “I know it doesn’t make sense, but that’s what it is.”He agreed during the interview that he should have provided her with documentation for her investment, and that he understood her frustration, saying: “All of this could have been avoided if I had put something on paper for her.”Mr Oates told the officers that the money he received from Ms Laird was wired to Mr Hopkins, but the money was broken up into smaller amounts. He explained that whenever he flew to his home in the US, he would contact Mr Hopkins if he needed any additional funds.He said he remembered contacting Ms Laird while she was on vacation in Scotland. While he remembered telling her that Mr Hopkins had put in a bid for a property, he denied telling her that the deal had closed.He explained the bank had repeatedly come back with counter- offers and, with the estimated cost of completing the properties higher than earlier anticipated, Mr Hopkins had decided to back away from the project.While Mr Oates told the officers that the money sent to him by Ms Laird wasn’t meant for any specific project, he agreed that the final investment was intended for the abandoned project.During the interview, Mr Oates repeatedly denied stealing Ms Laird’s money, telling the officers the money has been invested. He said the complainant would receive some of her investment back by that June of 2010, and the rest around September of that year.When asked if the money may have been used to pay his bills or in getting his record label off the ground, he said: “I knew not to touch that account. I have my own account.”He told the officers that if he were in the same position again, he would handle matters differently, adding: “I don’t think I would even want to deal with it any more. I wouldn’t want to deal with that amount from anyone any more.”Lawyer Charles Richardson, representing Mr Oates, questioned Dc Karena Flood, the chief investigating officer in the matter about the interview.He noted Mr Oates was arrested under suspicion of stealing less than 24-hours after Ms Laird came to police.While Mr Richardson suggested that Dc Flood had jumped to a conclusion, she told the court: “Once we have reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed we can make an arrest.”She said the decision to arrest Mr Oates was not hers, but she felt comfortable with it.Mr Richardson however said that she didn’t have reasonable grounds to suggest anything more than a bad business deal had taken place.Under cross-examination Dc Flood also said that officers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation had questioned Mr Hopkins about the matter on behalf of the Bermuda Police Service, but he was not arrested at any stage.However she said no efforts were made to contact Mount Rainier National Bank to find out if paperwork regarding a proposed purchase for a property on 48th Street were legitimate.She also further acknowledged that it appeared the majority of funds invested by Ms Laird were in fact sent to Mr Hopkins.The trial is expected to continue in Supreme Court tomorrow.