David and Antoinette Bolden believed they were “justified” in withdrawing tens of thousands of dollars from a company they part-owned, according to a business partner who confronted them over the alleged theft.John Wright, one of two Canadian partners in Bermuda-based Emerald Capital International [ECI], told the Boldens’ Supreme Court trial the transactions were not authorised.But grilling him on his evidence, defence lawyer Saul Froomkin QC suggested the Boldens did nothing wrong and earned the money for the hard work they put into the company.He accused Mr Wright of trying to “rip off” ECI himself and stealing a wireless technology idea the Boldens worked on in order to set up a new company without them in Canada. Mr Wright denied this.Prosecutors say the couple stole more than $360,000 from ECI in late 2008 and early 2009 to support their other failing companies, pay debts, and live beyond their means.The pair stand accused of theft, money laundering and filing misleading information to the Bermuda Monetary Authority. They deny the allegations.Mr Wright and another Canadian partner, Jason Bagg, went into business with the Boldens so ECI could invest in mining ventures in Canada through a mutual fund.When the economic crisis in 2008 prevented that getting off the ground, the company began exploring wireless technology instead.Mr Wright told the trial yesterday Mrs Bolden, the chief financial officer of ECI, did not provide the Canada partners with financial statements as requested.From around October or November 2008, Mr Wright and Mr Bagg found they could no longer access the company bank accounts online.When they finally obtained bank statements in late January 2009, they discovered Mrs Bolden had moved more than $300,000 out of the ECI accounts. According to Mr Wright, this was done without permission or discussion.Prosecutor Susan Mulligan told the jury during her opening speech on Monday that either Mrs Bolden or the bank changed the security access code to the Bank of Butterfield’s online records.Mr Wright stated yesterday under cross examination by Mr Froomkin that he now knows and accepts the code was changed by the bank, not Mrs Bolden.Earlier, in response to questions from Ms Mulligan, he described calling the Boldens at their Hamilton Parish home in early February 2009 to discuss the withdrawals from the company accounts. He said Mr Bolden, 48, declined to talk about it.Mrs Bolden told him withdrawals were made to pay Mr Bolden a salary in relation to the wireless technology venture he’d been exploring.According to Mr Wright, Mr Bolden was “not justified” in doing so, and he told Mrs Bolden that.Mrs Bolden said other withdrawals related to costs incurred in setting up the wireless technology venture.“I indicated they were not justified or agreed upon,” said Mr Wright.However, he said, Mrs Bolden “indicated they had justification to spend the funds. They were spending a lot of time and effort on this and they could do what they saw fit with the funds.”In March 2009, Mr Wright and Mr Bagg retained a private investigator, who was also an investor in Emerald Capital. He notified Bermuda Police, and an investigation began.Under cross examination by Mr Froomkin, Mr Wright, who is an investment advisor to Canadian expatriates around the world, agreed that director Mr Bagg was paid $133,000 by ECI at a salary of $7000 per month.Referring to the large bundle of paperwork the jury is examining in the case, Mr Froomkin put it to Mr Wright: “There isn’t a single corporate document authorising that ... in the thousand-plus documents that we have.”Mr Wright replied “not in these documents” but said the payments to Mr Bagg were agreed in discussions.“And that’s OK is it?” asked Mr Froomkin.“Yes,” replied Mr Wright.“But it’s not OK for Mr Bolden,” pressed the lawyer.“It would have to be agreed by the directors,” replied the witness.Mr Froomkin went on to suggest Mr Wright discussed salaries with the Boldens in November 2008, and it was agreed Mr Bolden would be paid $10,000 per month and Mrs Bolden $5,000 per month for their work on the wireless technology venture.Mr Wright denied that, insisting he told them salaries should be paid by a company set up to handle the Boldens’ work on that project called Bold International, which was separate from ECI.He agreed the Boldens pitched the wireless technology to Premier Ewart Brown and Minister of Home Affairs David Burch in November 2009 and the politicians were “ecstatic” about Government embracing the technology.Mr Froomkin went on to read an e-mail where Mr Wright discussed with Mr Bagg the idea of billing Bold International six times the amount ECI actually put into the wireless project.“I suggest it was you that was trying to rip off the company,” alleged Mr Froomkin. “No, not at all,” replied the witness.The defence lawyer also read another e-mail Mr Wright wrote Mr Bagg discussing inflating the expenses ECI charged to Bold International to $1 million to “shake the tree”.Mr Wright said of this e-mail, sent after they’d become concerned over the missing money,: “We were prepared to use that as a starting negotiation position to recoup losses for the [ECI] shareholders.”Mr Froomkin went on to point out that in August 2009, Mr Wright, Mr Bagg and a third business partner incorporated a company called Mobility Inc, registered to Mr Wright’s home address in Canada.“You took the Boldens’ idea away from the Bermudians and took it to Canada and set it up later yourself,” said Mr Froomkin.Mr Wright agreed the deal was with the same Swedish company he, Mr Bagg and the Boldens worked with through ECI, and the Boldens are not involved in the new Canada venture. However, he denied stealing the idea.“I suggest this was all part of the plan to get rid of the Boldens and whatever they had done for the company,” alleged Mr Froomkin, who described the original venture as one on course to be a “multimillion dollar success story”.Mr Wright denied this.The defence lawyer also suggested: “You and Mr Bagg ended up stealing, virtually, the company from the Bermudians.”“No,” replied Mr Wright.The case continues.