Transparency

Thank You   Curtis Gregorash

This morning when I woke up  I had never heard your name, I read my Herald and you have  restored my  faith in humanity.

In my experience we are   riddled with corruption  .It is concealed by those who work  for it,  intentionally, through  ignorance and  others for self preservation.

At last there is some one   who  not only has the   values to resign  but also the guts to speak out .We need more like you Curtis , there is actually strength in numbers   and  wouldn’t that   just make such a difference on the integrity of New Zealand.

Corruption is like cancer.  You can deny   you have it   but in the end  the symptoms will be too bad and it will either become obvious  or   you simply pop your clogs.

I Stood as an Independent Candidate for  Epsom  to  highlight the corruption issue.  I think I have contributed to the exposure of it  but  only in a minor way  as   what I have had to say has as usual been   well concealed,  yes the media play their part in the concealment too .

I happen to think that if the   improper swearing in of police officers is a significant issue then a fraudulent application  for Law enforcement powers  and as a result   having this granted to a fictitious organization  would also be of significance. The Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ )enforced the animal welfare act  for some 10 years  despite having  any  identifiable  legal persons  revealed behind this trading name.  Ultimately   four people, who together have no evidence of having run the  ” organisation ” and who  MPI have no record of  being  the  applicant , sought to have the law enforcement  status revoked 

Both National and Labour   are involved  in this   corruption,  and  it is not as if  it has not been raised with Government departments   the office of the auditor general, Ombudsmen , SFO, MPI , Solicitor General , office of the prime minister etc   did not know,  they all knew   and all played their part.

We have  preciously highlighted the reason  for that , it  is because they  all support Transparency International New Zealand  . And  What does Transparency International – New Zealand Know about corruption ? apparently not much ,  they know how to deny  that corruption exists   just look   who supports them in their quest to   portray  that  New Zealand is the least corrupt country . In the end  Transparency New Zealand is a business  and  needs to be paid . Rule 1. never bite the hand that feeds.

Come to think of it Transparency International New Zealand has been surprisingly  quite   during the election campaign .

Then  the other  item   which was of news this week was that  There are reports that Chinese communist party anti-corruption officials are looking to investigate suspects in New Zealand.

Mr  Peter Goodfellow   got involved in the matter as mentioned in the  article  but   we have found connections with him and Oravida see Nationals multiple connections with Oravida – is it all about scampi ?

Then  there is the issue of the Crarfar farms and he manner in which  New Zealand farm land is being bought up in a most non transparent  way  and  here again we have a connection with Oravida  through their former director  who resigned from  Orvida one day  and  set up  with   those involved in making an application for the farms  the next  day and then doing so  deceptively  in my opinion through a  British Virgin Islands Company  Is there an obligation to comply with directions of the Overseas investment office ?

New Zealand is all about big business  we are happy to facilitate anything  from International money laundering   to  selling off our land  to unknown persons  all the while  we have this pretense of being squeaky clean

In 2011 commerce Minister Simon Power wants the taxman to help crack down on NZ registered companies implicated overseas in smuggling, money laundering and tax fraud.

Three  years later and  another election later  nothing much has changed in the mean time  brand NZ has been damaged   by having  our companies  registered here  through our slack company registration processes  being used in international money  laundering  and fraud.

We dont learn from our mistakes , we allow  the real criminals to use our justice system to conceal corruption  and  beat up   whistle blowers.

The Government  and  its employees   all stand on the side line and are complicit.   I takes a very special person to   make a stand . I have  heard far too may  say, “I am just a few years off retirement  I dont want to rock the boat.  ‘   Those who remember the   old TV program Gliding On.. Well  Its alive and well  .

I am preparing my submissions for  the commission against corruption petition  which was presented in June , let us hope that people vote  wisely   and that  we will see the C word  ( corruption )  Used a lot more  and  also see actions to combat it.

 

What would happen   if the  silent majority was not  silent ?

Imagine if  every one who is  eligible to vote  voted .

The undecided would become the deciders  and we may all  be better off because of them .

Instead of not voting  if all non voters voted  for nothing but ” other minority parties ”  which received .48%  of the vote in the last elections  their  vote take woudl be increased  to  34.63%   which would be  3.47%  more than National  got in the  last elections .

Now wouldn’t that be a  left field game changer  ?

These minority parties  would be in a position  to form a government with any one   . They could   actually form a Government  with every one except national and Labour .

They could throw out    consultants, advisers  and  just runt eh country on good  old common sense  .

It would be any ones guess  who would be prime minister  but I certainly do hope that   the first thing this parliament  would address is corruption  .

I have no doubts  that those in  the Grey are those  who can help us beat the  1% .. are you in  ????

 

  Petition for an independent lawyers authority

What is the point of having laws if there  is no accountability to it?

We have screeds of legislation  which applies to lawyers  but just about every time  a complaint  made to the law society  comes back with the words that the lawyer concerned does not meet the threshold   for that rule or offence  or it is written off  in some other lame manner  without real consideration of the rule has been breached or not .

We appear to have allowed a  Grey area creep into law a decision which says technically they have  broken the rules or ignored them  but we dont think that it has done serious damage.  Should we  perhaps  re write our laws  so that  the  law can be broken  by 5%  , 10%   or even totally ignored or sat theft is not a theft is  the sum is less than , or   too bad he stole your TV  but because it was old it doesn’t matter.   Or simply apply  the law  selectively  to people  who you think   has  good reputation which will be tarnished by  a conviction  regardless of the facts.

I think I may have  hit the problem on   the head there as our legal system is built  on the 12 the century  legal concept  in  Britain.There were four inns of court  Grays InnLincoln’s Inn,   Inner Temple,    Middle temple , the links will take you  on a fascinating    voyage of discovery .

It  is perhaps not  very surprising that the words   Bar, standing  and  Inns   are all associated with the   law  .That is why only those standing  can  be at the bar, I can only guess that the others  were under the  table  or  dead in a corner  .

Through the   involvement of the Knights Templar and the  inns,  religion was a tool used  control  those both in the  Inns  and those   on whom the law was practiced. The Fear that  some harm would befall them  would  get any  one  to confess except those  who secretly knew that  you could tell lies and get away with it.

But fast forward to  2014, knights in shining amour are out, religion has been  shown not to  deliver the thunder bolts and lighting  to those who  do not speak the truth  or act honourably  . So what do we do  we   say to the lawyers   go and form an organization and control yourselves. New Zealand Law Society

As a safe guard we   set up  the LCRO    to which you can appeal  if you dont like what the law society does  but  we make certain that the people on the LCRO are appointed in consultation with  the law society  and also funded by them.

Because of the lack of funds the LCRO is desperately under resourced  and there appears to be a wait of some 2 years  before the matter is determined by the LCRO , evidence of this is  shown  in the dates of  the determinations .

To expedite matters and  to make it appear that most of the lawyers are good  guys   the law society ” writes the complaint off ” in their  early resolution process, this has the effect that people   just done bother making complaints   as it is simply a waste of  their time.  Their actions with lawyers are more akin to that of a mother of a very spoiled  only child  , rather than a mother of 10  who  in years gone by would have given   the culprit a good reason to remember why he has to stick to the rules.

I   have   only ever had one successful   complaint to the law society  and  that took 3 years to complete .  I was to get $30,000   after  false invoices had been issued .

As a former police officer I find it appalling that a person with  the full weight and responsibility of upholding the law and being an officer of the court    can  commit  acts which  when I was a police officer  were crimes .I have seen people locked up for  stealing  a packet of tobacco  yet here  I have been deprived of a massive sum   through false accounting and the  offender   is now suing me for bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy and liquidation are two processes used to  ” take some one   out ”   which liquidation of a company is the equivalent of killing off an opponent, bankruptcy is as close as you can  legally get to  bopping off a person  who gets in your way and if  they resit  they will son find that another $3,000 is added  to the bill.

This week a  Lawyer was  jailed for stealing from clients  this brings about the question, what is the threshold for theft? In my day a theft was a theft  but it appears that now thefts are acceptable up to a certain limit.

I have also become aware that  the law society  has a process which takes time  and  does not allow for intervention . Since  filing my  complaint with regards to  my former lawyer in  February 2011,   he has  taken me to court no less than five times  and my matter  has still not been resolved.

He is currently trying  to bankrupt me over $3,000  and  sue me for $500,000 .   All these court processes have   strict time frames  and   is  taking my time.  It has occurred to me that if he  bankrupts me for $3,000 all  my  issues will go away    and when your broke there is no point in coming after you for more dosh  cause your bankrupt.. It must be the  best  place to be. Perhaps my former lawyer is  trying to make me an example after all he   is in the business of setting up trusts  so that people  can hide their  money overseas . I know I wont get a cent from him  as  he  , despite  his business connections does not hold assets in his own name.

A  very good example  of how the  process is abused  is  that  my former lawyer   who was struck off as a  lawyer but  has had a reprieve and can practice   again if the was to get  a practicing certificate , is apparently  running his practice through a Proxy, a   very junior junior   who is working under the supervision of a lawyer in Alexandra and claiming to be a branch of that law firm   and having incorporated   both  law firms names into  the   trading name for the branch.

The very junior lawyer  operates from the premises of the former law firm  and    any one not knowing would think that it is business as usual at the former law firm .   I rather suspect that she is being given Practice   experience  by suing me,  all it can do is  cost me money  because if I  hired a lawyer and was   going to get a cost  payment in favour of me,   my former lawyer would  simply skip the country .

Now I consider  taking court action without   any evidence  as an abuse of process , it is akin to beating some one up  with a piece of 4 x2  and saying  sorry  wrong person  , didn’t mean to  hurt you .

But the law society will no doubt look at this and say no harm  done  and leave the door wide open to the next lawyer to make the same mistake.

In the mean time the person who has had  the court action filed agaisnt them has  how many sleepless nights?

This ” mistake  ‘ is actually a breach of the rules   and   the law society   has a duty to keep lawyers accountable to the rules , but the reality is that it works well for  lawyers not to be hard on   this  kind of thing  as it gives them something to put pressure on people with  .

This is not the only mistake   there have been many  .

It is for such  incidents ,  that I believe that the law society  should not be the both  the  body which disciplines  lawyers and holds them accountable .   I have drawn up a petition to segregate the functions of the law society  being 65 Regulatory functions  and 66 Representative functions. And to ask the government to set up one organization which    is dependent of Lawyers and only has the regulatory functions   so as to  hold lawyers truly accountable to the law.

A matter  follows   from complaint to law society , to LCRO to  tribunal   and  even after that there is  appeal

I am 4 years in on my matter and we have not hit the LCRO yet  , the LCRO will need at least 6 months to make a decision  then    there can be an appeal to the tribunal . Bankruptcy is just a  few   months  so it is a lot easier  for the lawyer to beat up his complainant  than it is for the complainant  to get  justice .

We need a process which work as  fast as a bankruptcy application does, a  process    during which administrators can intervene  and assess  all  court action  between the parties  and ensure that  only matters  are filed which    have followed the rules, proper negotiation and for which  there is evidence.

No more soft touch for lawyers.  They need to be held accountable to the law  to a Higher degree than the people who they proceed against . You can help by singing the petition

The petition is down loadable here   Petition for an independent lawyers authority

high courtThere is a real trend in New Zealand to use the court to  conceal corruption

the Statement  of claim statement of claim here and the  affidavit in response  here  affidavit defamation filed.

Affidavits when sworn and filed can be used for any purpose, this is my sworn statement of truth .

The  response has been sworn this is an unworn  copy  with live links

I am making it  publicly available to show  how our justice system is being used to   attack those who  show that our companies are being used  internationally  in fraud and crime.

There are many organizations like  mentioned  who facilitate this  .

The World Bank said last year that New Zealand is “the easiest place in the world to set up a business”. Sources say the country’s company registration process has been used over the past few years to run a series of massive money-laundering schemes reaching into eastern Europe.

I am not the only one to link  this law firm  to fraud,  this is another quote  The Auckland law firm whose address is on the registration has been accused previously of being linked to international fraud scams.” this comment was made with regards  to a  fraudulent  insurance company. ” A New Zealand-based general insurer that was banned last week by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has been linked to activities including international fraud scams and money-laundering.”

The statement is in relation to  Pacific Blu http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/otherSearch

 

It is timely with Nicky Hager‘s  publication of Dirty politics that  we examine the corruption behind the  dirt.

I am in the process of putting together my  submissions for the select committee  to  substantiate my  petition for an Independent commission agaisnt corruption .

I have already done an informal post Why I initiated a Petition for a commission against corruption.

On that post we covered off  several headings  our concerns with regards to the  rather nontransparent system which appears to be operating in parliament. All the  issues   can be attributed to one single  underlying  problem .  There is no code of conduct for members of parliament .

Labour MP Ross Robertson has for the past 13 years been battling   to get Parliament to  accept a code of conduct for MPs. see story

There is a cabinet manual  which touches on  Code of conduct and holds ministers   accountable to the  Prime Minister for their behaviour. This however does not extend to   members of parliament who are not ministers they are responsible to their party leaders.

New Zealand MPs do have a register of pecuniary interest  the requirements for this are set out in  appendix B  of the standing orders .

The   returns are found   at this link . Again as  with so many registers in New Zealand there is nothing which compels the truth  and no consequences for  deliberate omissions.  The integrity  of the register is  therefor  solely dependent on the integrity of those who  provide the information.

In Australia we see a different scene  and a magnificent summary which  also    looks at New Zealand  and notes that

The parliamentary practice states that :

As occasion requires, ministerial guidelines may be issued by the Cabinet or the Prime Minister to deal with particular circumstances that have arisen (such as the conduct to be observed by Ministers involved in mayoral election campaigns). However, these ministerial codes of conduct are political guidelines adopted by Governments to guide their own conduct. They have no statutory origin and are not regarded as being legally enforceable. Their significance depends upon the sense of commitment to public office held by Ministers and on their political responsibility to Parliament and public opinion.

New Zealand Parliamentary Practice notes that:

Except in the case of financial interests, the House has not adopted any detailed ethical guidelines for its members, taking the view that advice about appropriate behaviour is primarily a matter for induction training and internal party discipline.

And so it  is that the system  which operates in Our government today   revolves around the prim ministers top drawer.

Conduct which should be independently  investigated is retained until a suitable   ” spat arises”  party Politics are never far  away and we are constantly reminded that the  governance is   a war between left and right.

While  it is the conduct of  the house which should be considered we find  that  the  protects its members as  do the other parties.

Being the prime minister allows better access than any one   to the dirt  and  you simply hold on to it  to trade off    and save the neck of one of your own.

it is of note that  the code of conduct and ethics is linked to    ICAC particularly  involving Lobbying.   It appears that elections may be    time for open slather  of those wishing  favours  in the   forth coming terms  to help  provide a leg up   for the party who  is to deliver   the goods. see this link .

The   open door to the Westminster  style  of  parliament is that   it places the prim minister   in total control of the conduct  of the ministers  and the Prime minister  does not even require  formal parliamentary  authorization  to alter amend or interpret anything   he likes  as he likes.

It is therefore a matter of playing the game   and while we frown upon bullying in the playground, the same tactics are essential  for  political  survival.   Its all count getting   your bum on  the hot seat so that you can steer  your  country   for  what  could well be  private  financial  gains.     why not?    we dont have  any  law agaisnt  it!

truthThere are Many New Zealanders who know all too well  of the corruption in New Zealand.  There are also many who  dismiss   corruption as a conspiracy theory.

Invariably the ones  who agree with every word I say are the ones who have been exposed to corruption and found that it is  wave that  washed over you and consumes assets  on the way .

The only people who do not see corruption are the ones in denial   who  desperately want to believe the rhetoric because of the financial advantage it holds for them.

Amateur sleuths  can have a field  day  with uncovering corruption in New Zealand   but most are foiled by the presumption that  ” things will have been done properly.” The reality is that we  do not have proper systems or safe guards in place and our company  registration is easily  foiled

Trading names  are commonly used and it is not  unusual to find that   companies swap names   or trade in the name of another company.  so  it is always important o know who you are actually dealing with.

You can buy a house in the name of a company  and  then on sell the company , there by changing the   directors and share holders of the company and   the assets transfer  to new  owners without need  for  conveyancing as the ownership of the  property has not changed,  just change in   ownership of the company.

Like any magic trick  you   dont believe it can be done until you see  how it is done, then  you will notice  that it is  happening more  than  you ever thought.  its like buying a purple car, once you have one you see them every where. The reality is that nothing has changed only  that   you now  have an awareness.

Looking at the companies involved in  the Milk New Zealand   group of companies  , it is noted that the company Milk New Zealand Investment Limited  does not appear on the New Zealand register   but  it appears on the  company genealogy .

Rumour has it  that  the company is registers in the  British virgin Island, but even if it does  there is no evidence to show that this is he company  which is the share holder  of the multi million dollar  chain of companies.

We have already seen that  the Chinese company Hunan Roland animal husbandry Co., Ltd. is  selling off shares in our land.  

Our company  registration is   so unsafe that   it is a possibility that this company which has never been considered as  a potential purchaser is the actual owner of our land .

we can only wait and see.   time  will tell .

collins milkMy very wise mother always told me that once you part with something, sell it off or give it away  , you lose control over it. It looks to me  that we have lost control over  our  farm land  as it appears that it  about to change hands within China.

The overseas investment office  did  due  diligence on the purchasers of  the Crafar farm- Milk New Zealand Holding  Hong Kong , the report directed that this company should set up as a New Zealand company.Part 18 Overseas companiesof the  Companies Act provides for this.

A new company named Milk New Zealand Holding  appeared on our registry n its share holder   was not Milk New Zealand Holding  HK  , and neither  was this registration  that of an over seas company.

Instead the share holder was listed as Milk New Zealand Investment Limited Suite 1, 139 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand see post A closer look at the 2 Milk New Zealand Holding Limited companies

On discovering a  Chinese document  on Reuters  more   has become apparent

BRIEF-Dakang Pasture Farming to raise up to 2.5 bln yuan in private placement for New Zealand acquisition

(Reuters) – Hunan Dakang Pasture Farming Co Ltd

* Says plans to raise up to 2.51 billion yuan ($404.25 million) via private placement of shares, proceeds will be used to acquire two pastures in New Zealand

Source text in Chinese: link.reuters.com/cuv22w;see transaltion  Hunan Roland animal husbandry Co., Ltd. 

 The second  document   link.reuters.com/fuv22w  indicates the possibility  that the share holder may be  the company registered in  the British Virgin Islands.

Due to the nature and secrecy of  this registration  we cannot be sure if Milk NZ holdings  HK is the 100% share holder  of this company   or even if this company is the  shareholder of the New Zealand   company Milk NZ holdings, thepossibility is that another company with an identical name exists some where else  hidden in a tax haven  which will come forward int he future and claim to be the shareholder.

Another possibility is  the the chain of ownership  could be through more than one  company   with several intermediaries between the company which the due diligence was done on and the  ultimate purchaser a process during which the share holding of the BV   investment company was diluted and now  is not 100%  Shanghai Pengxing, through subsidiaries.

When company structures become complicated there is  always a reason  and the reason only becomes clear with hind sight.

The Reuters document  also  alludes to the  sale of our farms though shares  the report is not one of  Shanghai Penxin  is is  of Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd. Hunan Health Board

This company on a flow chart as  55%  controlled by Shahai Pengxin and the ownership of the  farms is attributed to th is company  in the report   see translated  documentation Husbandry Co., Limited Hunan Kang non Public offering plan ( per  Google translate )

the statement which I believe needs explanation   is  this

After the net proceeds will be used to: (1) the acquisition of New Zealand’s North Island Ranch and transformation projects; (2) the acquisition of New Zealand Los Cen ranch and improvement projects. In the implementation of the acquisition, the company will acquire new use Pengxin Group to raise funds Stake in the Hong Kong company (including its underlying company), and the Hong Kong company indirectly owned by North Island Ranch  Entitled to, and the Hong Kong subsidiary has signed agreements to acquire the Los Cen ranch. Pengxin Group through the acquisition of new Hong Kong companies, Roland will indirectly take ownership of livestock pasture North Island, and can be implemented on the ranch of Los Cen
Acquisitions.

source Chinese document  translation  Husbandry Co., Limited Hunan Kang non Public offering plan

Time to look at the players 

Terry Lee

1 December 2009  Lee  became director of Westlake capital Registered office Gilligan Shephard.

2 December 2009  Lee together with  Xing Hong and Stone Shi became directors of KIWI DAIRY CORPORATION LIMITED Registerd office Gilligan Shephard.  Westlake capital  is the shareholder   This company  became Oravida NZ  LTD on 13 may 2011

3 December 2009 Lee together with  Xing Hong and Stone Shi became directors of Registerd office Gilligan Shephard.  This company  became ORAVIDA PROPERTY LIMITED on 27 June 2011

Oravida property limited  owns 8  titles . It has to be noted that  ORAVIDA PROPERTY LIMITED formed  22/7/2011 changed its name to KIWI DAIRY INDUSTRY LIMITED 27/7/11

18 Nov 2010 Terry Lee sets up a new company and   Westlake capital becomes 100% share holder MILK NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION LIMITED.  Zhaobai JIANG  becomes a director   On 02 Sep 2011  and acquires 50% of this shareholding  2 July 2014 . this company is not involved in any of the land purchases.

28 September 2010  Terry Lee resigns  from Oravida portfolios

30 September  2010 Terry Lee & Zhaobai JIANG set up  Nature pure Limited  60 % Milk New Zealand Holding Limited Kong Kong   40% Westlake shareholding .  this company  is not involved in any o f the land purchases .

My red flags

Terry Lee   is the sole person to  update the company registers  and  file now directors shareholders etc.

It is  to me extremely odd that the  Director is  doing this task

It is also odd that    the Hong Kong company   which has shareholding in New Zealand  simply did not  become the  shareholder of the New Zealand company or register here.

To me the registration of Milk New Zealand  holdings is  deceptive  as the  statement of the share holder is so deficient that there is no proof of existence.

I also notice that Mr Jiangs signatures are not consistent  and I have to wonder if some one else is signing for him at times.

The revelations  of  the   assumed ownership of  the land  By  Rolands  is worrying and  I  have to wonder if the Chinese  like myself have worked out  how  our companies registration process   has more holes in it  than  a seive.

We need an urgent  inquiry .

 

 

 

tweedle deeYesterday I did  some delving into the back ground structure of the  farms purchased in New Zealand by the Chinese   today I am focusing on the companies  New Zealand Milk Holding  one is registered in Hong Kong and the other is a New Zealand  entity  which is not registered as an overseas  company.

You could  say  they are identical twins   but it does not appear that they have the same parents and they may not even be  directly related .. its  all  open to   presumption .

There can be no doubt at all that the applicant   for the purchase of  the Crafar farms  was Milk New Zealand Holding Limited a Hong Kong   company ,

It was this company which was approved by Linz under  the overseas  Investment act on 31.January 2012 .

“The Applicant is Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (“the Applicant”), a Hong Kong incorporated company which is an overseas person under the Act.”

The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.

This means  that  the legal entity the company registered in Hong Kong  would also be registered in New Zealand. But it is NOT registered in New Zealand  .

For  clarity this would be the  equivalent to a person   having  dual nationality, ie the person is  registered in  Hong Kong  and New Zealand.  So in this case there would only be  one person  named Milk New Zealand Holdings  Limited with registration in both New Zealand and Hong Kong .

Part  18   of the  companies  act sets out in detail how overseas companies are to register.  Overseas companies

334Overseas companies to register under this Act    (1) An overseas company that, on or after the commencement of this Act, commences to carry on business in New Zealand must apply for registration under this Part in accordance with section 336 within 10 working days of commencing to carry on business.

An example of such a registration on the register is  a company selected at random  SOHO PROPERTY LIMITED  a Gibraltar based company registered here in New Zealand Soho Property Limited (Gibraltar).   On the companies application forms  you  can see   its constitution and  certifications as to its existence.

This is what  is supposed to have happened   but what actually occurred was that  another company  identical named was set up   as  a New Zealand Entity, there by creating a new and separate legal entity which has no visible connection or ties to  the  Linz applicant.  

On 26 Jun 2012   MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED (3883536) was registered with an alleged share holder  of Milk New Zealand Investment Limited   Suite 1, 139 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand.

The share holder Milk New Zealand Investment Limited, has not been Located on any  share registry  and does not appear to be a legal  person. It is therefore in the absence of proof  considered to be a fictional   organsiation.

Any way that aside   it is clear  that the consent to purchase  the farms  was given to the Hong Kong company  and not any  other legal entity.

The Hong Kong  company  which was given the right to purchase and which  many believe purchased the Crafar farms and other farms  has not registered in New Zealand  as directed and is  NOT THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE FARMS

The  ownership  floownershipw of the company at the Chinese end is  as shown below  or on page 5 of the   Linz report

Paragraphs 6-12 of the report set out in detail the lineage of the applicant Milk New Zealand Holding Hong  Kong

At Point  43   of the OIO Assessment:  it states
“The Overseas Investment Office is satisfied that the individuals with control of the relevant overseas persons have  business experience and acumen relevant to the overseas investment. The Applicant’s parent company group has  extensive investment experience and Landcorp will provide the required specialist New Zealand dairying expertise

But  the  overseas  company DID NOT purchase the  farms 

As  a  person who  conducts back grounds screens  I have to wonder why  you would  do due diligence on one entity and then have another   seemingly unrelated  entity complete the transaction.

It appears to me   that  a lot of  work went into  checking out one person so  that another person who has not had any due diligence done on them could purchase large chunks  of New Zealand.

The OIO   never  considered or evaluated the alleged share holder of the ultimate purchaser Pengxin New Zealand Farm group   and its pedigree

I know for a fact that  in New Zealand  no one checks ,when we  see two names the same we  make the assumption that they are one and the same.  However an experienced investigator will tell you that there are many names  which are  in common  .

You need only  look at the  quotes from Judith Collins to  see that  she  relies upon the reports of Transparency International New Zealand who repeatedly  claim that New Zealand  has low level corruption and is perceived to be the least corrupt in the world. The Minister misquotes this repeatedly as   being the least corrupt and  has made statements along the line of ” with our low level of  corruption we dont  need to check as our processes are such that we are free of corruption “, the fact that we  dont have corruption could be  due to the fact that the word is not defined   see my  OIA request

There is no legally binding definition of corruption in New Zealand.

The same issue came up  for me in  2006 when I questioned the existence of a law enforcement authority  called AWINZ. this was covered up   by using other people  using the same trading name.   If the Chinese are aware  of the ability to switch  one name for an other  then at the very  worst this could be a massive money laundering  scam  and  at the best it could be  gross negligence   and ignorance.

With a transaction this  big you would think that some one in government  would be assigned to ensure that things are done correctly .

company structureI am doing  some delving into the  purchase of  the Lochinvar station.  I have learnt  a long time ago that in New Zealand No one checks.   This is what happened  when a  fictional  organization was give law  enforcement  powers . So  I never assume and I check everything mainly because   our government departments assume that honesty and integrity prevail  and accept every thing on face value.

This leaves the country wide open to abuse.  I am not saying that this is the case in this instance but what I am saying is that things  simply dont stack up  .

Let us start with a simple chronology ( I love chronologies )

5 October 2009:

Crafar Farms placed into receivership, owing $216 million to creditors.source

2 December 2009

ORAVIDA NZ LIMITED (2356805) Registered Terry Lee , Xing Hong   and Stone Shi directors  and Shareholders: Jing Huang, Julia Jiyan Xu, and Deyi Shi.

11 June 2010:  & 30 July 2010

National Party receives $50,000.00 donation from Susan ChouThe National Party has received $200,000 from a wealthy Chinese New Zealand couple linked to the businessman behind the foreign bid for the Crafar dairy-farm empire.

28 Sep 2010

Terry Lee  resigns his directorship of  ORAVIDA NZ LIMITED (2356805)

30 Sep 2010

Nature Pure Limited A new company is registered in New Zealand  .Terry Lee and Zhaobai JIANG are the directors  with the Hong Kong based Milk New Zealand Holdings Ltd as 60% shareholder  is registered for them by Liew and associates.

This company is called Nature Pure Limited . From that Point on the   annual returns are completed by the director  Terry  Lee . The registered office  is Liew and associates  until 19 march 2013

The remaining 40% shareholding is held by WESTLAKE CAPITAL LIMITED (2368441)registered to Gilligan shepherd  , who are also the   accountants/ registered office for Oravida.

Westlake capital through WESTLAKE  is  owned  by GILLIGAN SHEPPARD NOMINEES LIMITED which administers a multitude of trusts see here

Nature Pure  till this day  does not own any properties in New Zealand  nor is it a shareholder of any other company.

22 December 2010:

Government  blocks  bid by Natural Dairy to buy the 16 Crafar farms on ‘good character’ grounds. source

14 January 2011

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has laid charges against five parties involved in the running of the Crafar farms, it said today.
The Animal Welfare Act charges were laid in the Taupo District Court and relate to a farm which was investigated by MAF in October 2009 as part of a wider review of all Crafar-owned properties.

hk  milk nz27 January 2011:

KordaMentha accepts offer from Shanghai Pengxin International Group Ltd to buy Crafar Farms.source

13 April 2011:

Shanghai Pengxin lodges application with the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) to buy the Crafar farms.source

31 May 2011:

National Party receives $100,000 donation from Susan Chou. (Source)

22 July 2011: 

ORAVIDA LTD registered. Shareholders: Jing Huang, Julia Jiyan Xu, and Deyi Shi. (Source)

27 July 2011:  O

RAVIDA PROPERTY LTD changes name to  KIWI DAIRY INDUSTRY LTD.  Shareholder: Deyi Shi (Source)

26 September 2011:

Crafar farms receiver KordaMentha  rejects a conditional NZ$171.5 million offer for 16 central North Island dairy farms from a group led by controversial former merchant banker Michael Fay.source

22 November 2011:

National Party receives $50,0000 donation from Citi Financial Group. Shareholders: Yan Yang and Qiang Wei. (Source) (Source)

22 November 2011: National Party receives $1,600 from Oravida NZ. (Source) (Source)

26 November 2011:

  NZ General Election

30 November 2011:

National Party receives further $55,000 donation  from Oravida NZ. (Source) (Source)

27-Jan-12

Consent granted for  Milk New Zealand Holdings limited ( The Hong Kong company) to purchase Crafar  farms
Associate Minister of Finance Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman and Minister for Land Information Hon Maurice Williamson have granted consent to Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (Milk New Zealand), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Shanghai Pengxin Group Co. Limited (Pengxin)

15/02/2012

The High Court today released its decision in relation to the judicial review of Ministers’ decision to grant consent to Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (a wholly owned subsidiary of Shanghai Pengxin Group Co. Limited) to purchase the 16 Crafar farms.

This court decision again refers to  an overseas company.

The successful bidder was Milk NZ, a Hong Kong registered company.6 It is a subsidiary of a Chinese company, Shanghai Pengxin Group Co Ltd (Shanghai Pengxin), which is in turn a subsidiary of another Chinese company, Nantong Yingxin Investment Co Ltd (Nantong). Most of the shares in Nantong (99 per cent) are owned by Zhaobai Jiang and the remainder by his brother. Mr Jiang is a successful entrepreneur.
[6] For the purposes of the Act:
(a) Milk NZ is an overseas person.

20 April 2012:

Government ministers , Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson and Associate Finance Minister Jonathan Coleman  approve the Overseas’ Investment Office’s (OIO) new recommendation to allow the sale of the 16 Crafar farms to Shanghai Pengxin.source

26 Jun 2012 

A New Zealand company is registered as  MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED (3883536) it is listed as a NZ Limited Company  and  the transaction is through LIEW & ASSOCIATES.

Immediately after wards but on the same day    companies were also registered by Liew and associates  being

  1. PURE 100 FARM LIMITED (3899541)
  2. NEW ZEALAND STANDARD FARM LIMITED (3900378)
  3. MILK NEW ZEALAND DAIRY LIMITED (3900437)  registered as NATURE PURE FARM LIMITED but changed its name in  July 2013

 27 Jun 2012

PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED is registered  and while it is touted to be a subsidiary of he overseas purchaser  it has in reality no direct connection  other than that it is owned by s similarly named company   to the purchaser  but this  MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED (3883536) is a New Zealand entity and not a foreign company

17 Oct 2013

NEW ZEALAND STANDARD FARM LIMITEDbecomes 74% shareholder in  SFL Holdings   it  in turn has  99.65% shareholding in  SYNLAIT FARMS LIMITED which  owns 35 land titles

7 April 2014

Three more companies  are  registered  again having the New Zealand   registered MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED as  the share holder , you have to wonder  which farms are being eyed up  .

Further reading

Please visit https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/doing-the-business-with-john-key-heres-how-part-rua/

http://www.spcs.org.nz/lochinver-station-is-foreign-buy-up-of-nz-farms-milking-nz-dry/

Nationals multiple connections with Oravida – is it all about scampi ?

For those who are visual   this is the flow chart of how it comes together company structure the question we have to ask  is  are those who put the offer in   the same as the ones who actually bought it  , why is there not a direct link to  the Hong Kong  company .

We would welcome transparency  or an explanation , this   shows just how  dangerous our company  registry is   and how easily  assets  can be   appropriated to   companies other than those intended.

The question remains  who is , what is MILK NEW ZEALAND INVESTMENT  LTD.. or is it  or is it not a legal entity ?

With the  governments close ties to Oravida  it is essential  that we have a full impartial investigation into this one

company structure

Spot the differenceBanks in New Zealand have to  be registered and appear on the register ,On that register you will not find Breder Suasso .

Despite this  there are many over seas web sites which are promoting this company   as on off shore bank.

On the contacts page you will see  a picture of what purports to be their office . ironically this picture   is pretty much the  same as one found on the internet advertising office design . It therefore will not come as much of a surprise to find that  Breder Suasso shares its international head office at level 2  44 Khyberpass  with a graphic artist.

the real office  is a bit of a contrast breder suasso in realityno flowers  no  apples   and no receptionist

Delve deeper  into the company  and all sorts of interesting things  appear… more tomorrow