A director of a company that allegedly had its funds stolen by David and Antoinette Bolden admitted that company rules were made verbally and recorded in a “sloppy” fashion.Jason Bagg insisted nonetheless that large banking transactions at the centre of the trial are instances where the Boldens stole funds in contravention of those rules.However, the couple’s lawyer Saul Froomkin QC announced that he plans to produce “back-up documents” proving the transactions were legitimate.Mr Bagg, 37, told the Boldens’ trial amounts of up to $37,000 per day were moved from the Emerald Capital International accounts into the Boldens’ personal and business accounts over the course of November 2008 to January 2009.He alleged that the movements of the funds were not authorised, there were no supporting documents for them and he had not approved them.He was finishing off a list of transactions forming the basis of 18 theft charges against the couple, having begun detailing them on Friday at Supreme Court.Mr Bagg is one of two Canadian directors of Emerald Capital International [ECI] who claim Mrs Bolden and her husband stole more than $300,000 from the company.He and John Wright held equal shares in ECI along with the Boldens, who were also company directors. Mr Bagg and Mr Wright say they never authorised or approved the large-scale withdrawals from ECI funds made by the Boldens, and those funds belonged to the company as a whole.Prosecutors say the couple plundered the accounts in late 2008 and early 2009 to support their failing Emerald Financial Group companies, pay debts, and live beyond their means.Besides the theft charges, they’re also accused of six counts of money laundering and one of misleading the Bermuda Monetary Authority. They deny all the allegations.Cross-examining Mr Bagg yesterday, Mr Froomkin suggested the banking transactions were legitimate payments to the Boldens for expenses incurred on behalf of the company.He pressed the witness on the procedures for authorising legitimate expenses incurred by directors on company business.“There would only be reimbursements if approved by the directors,” stated Mr Bagg.He said this would necessitate an expenses form being filled out and approved by three directors: himself, Mr Wright and Mr Bolden.He agreed with Mr Froomkin that a $2,500 travel expenses payment was made from company funds to an acting director of ECI in 2008 without documentation or an expenses form.However, he said of the payment: “We all discussed and approved it.”Mr Froomkin pointed out there are also no documents to show approval for $7,000-per-month payments Mr Bagg received from ECI, which he described as a loan to be paid back from future profits.“It’s something we discussed and agreed to before forming the company,” said Mr Bagg. He also agreed there’s nothing in the company bylaws stating all the directors had to approve expenses payments. “Again, it’s something we decided.”Mr Froomkin put it to the witness: “Anything that’s important is always done verbally and not in writing.”Mr Bagg conceded: “I do agree the corporate minutes and resolutions was a bit sloppy.”Handing the witness a spreadsheet, Mr Froomkin told the witness: “Let me take you through the monies taken from ECI and let me see if I can help you with back-up documents.”He said these documents related to all but two of the transactions in question.However, prosecutor Susan Mulligan objected that she’d not had time to peruse the spreadsheet, so Chief Justice Richard Ground adjourned proceedings until today.