I had been dealing with Mark Patchett see my email to him here email to Mark Patchett I had requested the following official information from MPI
- What due diligence has ever been conducted into the existence of the applicant of the approved organisation
- How did MPI justify the application for approved status by a trust which did not exist
- What enquiries did the MPI make with the persons named on the application to ensure that they were aware of and consented to the application being made in their names and were willing to take on the law enforcement responsibilities.
- Please provided the documents on which each of these persons consented to being trustees of a law enforcement authority
- Why is it of no concern that the trust deed which MPI was provided with in 2006 is not signed on every page and is different to the deed which I was provided See the deeds here MPI version and the version I was provided with . Under which law can MPI condone the supply of false documents .
- Under what legislation can the MPI condone the application of a fictional organisation for law enforcement authority
- Under which legislation or any provision can MPI condone fraudulent applications
The response came from the Acting Chief Legal Advisor of MPI Anthea Williams it included a copy of the email email to Mark Patchett and these documents ReleaseOIA14-381 Release and Documents to which I responded on 19 June 2015
Good afternoon Anthea.
I apologise for the length but I have put most of the evidence together for you
I have taken the letter you sent to me by Jim Anderton and shown how he like MPI was duped. The events of he past years have shown that MPI was totally misled and I suspect that there were those within MPI who wanted to keep the lid on it
I hope that I have not yet again wasted my time . I believe that the evidence is compelling and conclusive
I will publish this on the transparency Web site sometime next week as I have learned that MPI just ignore me and at least this way it may be of use to someone.
I hope that you will look at this seriously you are a lawyer and your office does not allow you to conceal fraud.
I hope you are the one person who will bring this nightmare to an end.
If you do intend to look into it and do not wish to have this disclosed publicly because you intend to take action then I will withhold this from the public , If that is the case then I hope your intentions are sincere. MPI has destroyed my family and my life due to allowing this fraud to continue
If you do not act then I will have to consider a judicial review.
By way of OIA please advise if MPI are concerned with fraud of this magnitude and if you will investigate
I have now received a response OIA14-530 and have again requested
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Friday, 10 July 2015 10:37 a.m.
To: ‘Anthea Williams’
Subject: Official information request MPI
Official information act request to MPI
Good Morning Anthea
Thank you for your response
The information which I have provided you with proved that
- A fraudulent application was made to the minister of Agriculture and MPI
- This fraudulent document resulted in a fictional organisation being given approved status under section 122 Of the animal welfare act
- The fictional organisation carried out law enforcement duties for some 10 years.
- Following an audit , the parameters of which were set outside the application process, the “ organisation” sought revocation of the statutory powers.
My Official information request is Please provide
- the evidence on which MPI relied to confirm that the persons who made the application for revocation were in fact the same persons who made the application given that
- the name of the applicant was given as animal welfare institute of New Zealand a trading name for which no real or legal persons were identified and
- the name of the trust which sought to revoke the approved status was a trust which bore the legal name Neil Wells , Wyn Hoadley , Graeme Coutts and Tom Didovich as trustee in the animal welfare trust of New Zealand .
- a copy of the trust deed which you relied on so as to accept the application of revocation of the approved status.
- The guidelines which MAF had in 2000 for contracting to a trust
- The guidelines which MAF had for contracting to a trust at the time when the application for revocation was made.
- The act and section or policies under which MPI can condone fraud
A fraud has been committed and highlighted to MPI and its former persons MAF many times yet as the evidence I have provided shows MPI has redacted vital evidence and withheld documents which would be prima facie evidence that it was either a party to the offence or an accessory after the fact . By way of OIA please provide
- MPI’s policies on fraud and dates of implementation ( dating back to 2000)
- The job description for chief legal advisor of MPI
I wish to remind you that as legal counsel your first and fore most obligations are to
4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers
Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:
(a)the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
(b)the obligation to be independent in providing regulated services to his or her clients:
(c)the obligation to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients:
(d)the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.
FYI. I will be publishing this correspondence and my previous correspondence to you on www.anticorruption.co.nz
at last the day came and It was presented in Parliament by Andrew Little , see here I was placed before the law and order committee and I was invited to produce evidence.law and order committee correspondence
So the logical thing to do is to provide evidence which showed that corruption exists in New Zealand and that there is no way of questioning it. So I produced my evidence which covered a number of topics each of which disclosed corruption and fraud and each a matter which had not been dealt with read my full submission here Evidence in support of the Petition of Grace Haden and others 5 11
On 26 November I received a response , you may note that I did not name any one in my submissions, I merely attached official documents as evidence . the response states ” We note that the evidence you have provided contains allegation of fraud against named individuals. After detailed consideration, we have resolved to not accept your evidence and to expun:ge it from our records under Standing Order 236(b) due to the risk of harm
that the allegations in your evidence may cause to the reputation of the individuals that are identified in your evidence.” see full letter here response rejecting evidence
I SENT THE FOLLOWING EMAIL
From: Grace Haden Sent: Saturday, 29 November 2014 3:48 p.m. To: ‘email@example.com’ Cc: ‘Andrew Little’ Subject: Response to Law and order committee. 2011/117 Petition of Grace Haden and 121 others
Mike Sabin and the select committee
I am in receipt of your letter dated 26 November 2014 in which you state that my evidence is rejected
1. “due to the risk of harm that the allegations in your evidence may cause to the reputation of the individuals that are identified in your evidence.”
And you also allege that
2. “Your evidence makes it clear that the issues you have raised have already been thoroughly investigated, and we are satisfied that institutions such as the Serious Fraud Office and the Ombudsman are the proper agencies to carry out detailed investigations into allegations of the nature that you raise”
It would appear that we have a catch 22 situation here as it appears that I cannot mention un resolved fraud and corruption as evidence as to why we need a commission against corruption to investigate just such issues.
I have not mentioned any one I have however attached documents which were largely obtained from Government and local government files and responses to OIA’s .
As an experienced fraud Investigator I find it frustrating that there has never been an independent investigation of these matters
With regards to the AWINZ matter, a fictional law enforcement authority. This has never been investigated , the civil jurisdiction of the court was used to conceal the corruption though a defamation claim in which I was denied the right to a defence of truth and honest opinion . Additionally it never had a formal proof hearing and went straight to a quantum hearing where perjury was relied upon .
I made a complaint to the police for the perjury but they declined this complaint.
The complaint with regards the false application has never been investigated by any one.
The police hand it to the SFO
The SFO have never investigated they handed it back to the police
The Police decided that it had already been dealt with by the court when it had not he only thing which had been before the court was a defamation claim a claim based on the fact that I said AWINZ did not exist, I have tuck loads of evidence and it does not exist, MPI cannot produce evidence of who the real or legal persons were involved in the law enforcement authority
The ombudsmen only assisted in obtaining documents and it took then two and a half years to re lease documents which would have assisted in my appeals
This is a matter of serious corruption which has never been independently investigated by any of the alleged anti-corruption agencies , hence it had to feature in my evidence.
Had I raised the issue with MAF and the ombudsmen, and perhaps later with the SFO and they had investigated, then I would not be petitioning for a commission against corruption as it does not take the brains of Britain to see that this is pure blatant fraud.
Could you please advise
1. what the future of the petition is has it been thrown out due to lack of evidence ?
2. can I amend my evidence in any way ,
3. does the government not care about the fact that law enforcement authority was given to a fictional organisation.
4. Can you request an independent review of this matter ?
This is a matter of gross public concern and very topical , I have not disclosed my evidence as requested but if my petition is thrown out then I do feel that the public have to know why. I support transparency
I request that you please reconsider your response as I do not believe that it is possible to request a commission against corruption without showing that current agencies have failed.
The response was simple straight forward response
The report to Parliament is located here Full report text [PDF 54k] it tells you exactly nothing
The Law and Order Committee has considered Petition 2011/117 of Grace Haden and 121 others, requesting that the House legislate to set up an Independent Commission against Corruption tasked with the prevention, education, detection, and prosecution of corruption in New Zealand.
We have no matters to bring to the attention of the House and recommend that the House take note of our report.
So what is there to note in a report which has no content?
It appears to me that this was a very swift and underhanded way of getting rid of a petition for accountability.
there are ways of dealing with evidence which does not sit comfortably and this is set out in standing orders Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, New Zealand, 2014 [PDF 1196k]
There are procedures set out for dealing with situations such as this and these are set out in sections 232 on
To me this strikes at the very heart of corruption , in my evidence I have two copies of a a letter one which was obtained from Maf which contained redaction’s the other unedited.
Considering that the Minister gave law enforcement powers to a fictional organization and this statement was redacted , I think it is very material on the level of corruption in New Zealand. Suttons letter
I believe that the opinion given by Crown Counsel is detailed and persuasive and raises an important matter of public policy. I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that Iam advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.- Hon Jim Sutton
the fictional ” organization ” Animal welfare Institute Of New Zealand was given law enforcement powers,
the minister mistakenly thought it was an incorporated society and amended this when he was told it was a trust , However no signed trust deed for the applicant existed and this has been a serious case of identity fraud swept under the carpet and denied.
AWINZ administered the law for some 9 years using council staff and resources to procure a private income it lost its law enforcement powers when a group of people posing as the ” organisation ” relinquished the approved status .
No loss of reputation to those who are on the inside those who have mates in parliament but those who raised questions in total innocence have been totally annihilated. But then to be a pleb or some one important there is a difference.
Looks like those in parliament are still doing their work.
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
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.
Not too long ago we posted an article with regards to Milk New Zealand Holding , this is the company which is purportedly owned by Shangai Pengxin
The office of overseas investment OIO Assessment at page four stated
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.
It transpired that the applicant did not comply with this direction instead another company named Milk New Zealand Holding was registered as a New Zealand company with a share holder initially unidentified but later revealed to be Milk New Zealand Investment a company registered in the British Virgin islands .
I requested information from the companies office through FYI and a response has been received .
MILK NEW ZEALAND INVESTMENT LIMITED is indeed registered in the British Virgin islands , but the companies register there does not disclose who the share holders are .
The British Virgin Islands company was registered on 24 May 2012 , the company which registers off shore incorporation has provided a certificate of incumbency which presumably is only accurate as at the date it was issued.
Additionally the final paragraph it states that the register may be kept elsewhere and their records may not be up to date .. so fat lot of use that certificate is .
But going back to the instructions of the OIO it states The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.
The agreement therefore between the applicant and the government has not been complied with and the Purchaser has no obligations to fulfill the conditions as the purchaser is not the applicant , it is a grand son who has the same name .
It is the company in between the applicant and purchaser which is of concern as this is the weakest and a very non transparent link in the chain .
I wonder if any one will do anything about it ? I have sent the open letter below to the ministers .
Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 10:01 a.m.
To: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’
Open letter to the Ministers of finance, land information and economic development and OIA request
I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the purchaser of the Crafar farms was not the company which applied to and was approved by the OIO
The directions of the OIO appear to have been ignored , these were that “The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.”
The resulting group of companies went on to purchase more farms and a deception/error occurred which caused the OIO to state at point 16 of the application for the purchase of the Synlait farms
“In 2012, Milk NZ was granted consent to acquire 16 dairy farms known as the Crafar Farms (“Crafar Farms”). Consent was granted subject to extensive conditions, including annual reporting. The Overseas Investment Office has recently received Milk NZ’s first annual report and is satisfied that Milk NZ is not in breach of any conditions of consent.”
But the report which was produced was not from the applicant in the Crafar application but from a company which has the same name and purports to descend from the applicant.
The statement on the OIO web site states “Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (Milk NZ), the company that purchased the 16 former Crafar Farms last year, has submitted its first annual report to the Overseas Investment Office (OIO).” This statement is true however it was not the company which was approved to purchase the farms , it was in effect a name sake with questionable genealogy.
The annual report furnished further complicates matter s by referring to the purchaser of the farms as being Pengxin New Zealand Farm Group, which is a subsidiary of Milk new Zealand Holding (NZ) as opposed to a direct subsidiary of Milk New Zealand Holding, (HK) the applicant . As a fraud investigator I am aware that through the use of names assumptions can be made which divert those who accept the assumption away from the truth.
In between the company ,which was the applicant Milk NZ holding ( HK) and milk New Zealand Holding ( NZ) is a non-transparent and unscreened ,unapproved entity called Milk New Zealand investments .This has a certificate of incumbency dated 5 december 2013, which by its own disclaimer may or may not be accurate.
Milk New Zealand holding the applicant is not the purchaser or the direct owner of the purchaser and this may bring about issues of its own as the purchaser is not a party to any of the conditions agreed to with the OIO .
There appears to be a disconnect between the OIO and the MED . No one has verified that the applicant has been properly registered as directed as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993.
It would appear that the provisions of the act specified under the heading Overseas companies has not been complied with .
As per section 15 of the companies act, each company is a separate legal entity , therefore the applicant considered by the OIO and the purchaser are two separate legal persons.
By way of OIA please provide copies of any documents in which any of the ministers or ministries have considered the fact that the applicant in the Crafar farms deal was not the purchaser . And please provide copies of any consents which have allowed the purchaser to be different from the applicant .
I ask this under urgency due to the Lochinvar station being negotiated and if falsehoods exist then this should be addressed prior to the sale going through.
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 ????
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 Inn, Lincoln’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
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.
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!
New Zealand is renowned for its ease of settling up a company. A company is a new legal person and separate legal entity. Each company generally has the same rights and privileges in law afforded to a real or natural person .( the type that breathes )
There appears to be two sets of standards though one afforded to natural people the other to legal persons ( corporates )
A real person takes 9 months to develop in utero and 18 years after their birth attains legal age where he/she can own property , make independent decisions , sign contracts etc. there are no short cuts and you cannot cheat . Claiming a false age , false parenthood, nationality , identity are generally considered serious offences.
Then there is the second type of person the corporate.. body of persons or company. – the legal person
The legal person can be created by any one in the world , all it takes is an online trip to the NZ companies office. You will need a NZ address but no one will check if you actually live there. if you dont live there they will ask yo to update the records.
It has been made slightly trickier now due to the requirement for a log in but dont fret there is noting that a few $$ wont overcome, there are plenty agencies willing to help
You dont even need to be truthful about the ownership of the company and this can be disguised behind trusts and behind other persons called nominees. Not only will you for the princely sum of $160 get a New Zealand company you will also have a NZ identity.
To avoid displaying the overseas ownership of your new company you can use an address in New Zealand you could use a friends address and perhaps use the motel that you stayed in the last time you visited.
We have seen directors and share holders who are one and the same using different name and different signatures. the system is open to such abuse that it is limitless…..no one checks.
As director you can use your middle name and mothers surname or what every you feel like being known as this week you should be a real person but as we will show in our example imaginary people can be directors and liquidators. .The good news is we no longer have a national Enforcement unit we have an integrity unit who simply ask you to correct the details. No penalties for Bullshit here.
So imagine if a foreigner wants to purchase real estate in NZ but cant get authority, they can set up a company , use it to set up a second company and buy a house. They can then on sell the company and the assets without any need for conveyancing. and the house will transfer as part of the assets of the company.
In short the company registration is totally unsafe and only the records of honest people have integrity .
The Transparency International Integrity report recognized that
the ease of company registration has been exploited for fraudulent purposes by international actors and New Zealanders.
This is compounded by the lack of due diligence employed by our companies office and lack of enforcement.
New Zealand companies are an invitation to international money laundering.
There is no doubt that there are laws in place to deal with fraudulent application to the companies office but these are no longer enforced.
The last published conviction is for DR Gerald WATERS, who was running a company for scamster Jonathan Mann Waikato doctor fights convictions and also see Jonathon Mann seeks to silence victims and http://bewarefraudmann.wordpress.com/
Several years ago I was also involved on the periphery of a case with a fictional director and liquidator
Fresh Prepared Limited owed a lawyer $64,000. the company was directed by Lynne PRYOR Unit 1, 135 Grey St, Onehunga, Auckland she directed it on behalf of her boss Terry Hay , (Business partner of David Nathan )Instead of paying the lawyers Hay on sold the company to Sanjay PATEL 01 Nov 2006 who on 30 Jan 2007 appointed Liquidator Babubhai Patel of Papakura. It transpired that both ” men” were fictional Babubhai even shifted to Mumbai and his affidavits witnessed by a solicitor in Shanghai .Fortunately in those days there was such a thing as National enforcement unit in the companies office , one which actually prosecuted. Lynne PRYOR and Terry Hay were both charged with some 22 fraud offences . see news items Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt . Hay took off to Honolulu his home turf and stayed low until Pryor had been dealt with in the courts , she was able to bargain away 21 charges as Hay was the prime offender. Lynne Pryor was disqualified from being a director but she remains at the premises which have now become a new company doing the same as before , business as usual , her brother Graham Pryor is supposedly her supervisor . this company is now called Salad foods . Salad foods share holding is hidden in a solicitors trust, but it used to be Terry Hay whose financial interests were in this company.
The transition of Fresh prepared into salad Foods was not simple for a bit there there was another company in the mix SALAD FOODS (1992) LIMITED directed and allegedly owned by Gui Li , Hays girlfriend at the time who used her parents Shanghai address.
But sadly it appears that these falsehoods are now condoned. I have always noted that when ther is no consequence to an action the abuse will increase.
This brings me back to this weeks Chinese company care of the British Virgin Island .
Milk New Zealand Investment was allegedly the share holder but had no real identifiable existence.
Yesterday the entry was changed on the companies register. the company is now shown as
Milk New Zealand Investment Limited Offshore Incorporations Centre, Road Town, Tortola , British Virgin Is.
All changed with the flick of a pen effectively having the effect of transferring the beneficial ownership of massive blocks of New Zealand pasture and all done apparently without a shred of evidence. I have requested the proof. will keep you posted
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 .
My 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
(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
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
source Chinese document translation Husbandry Co., Limited Hunan Kang non Public offering plan
Time to look at the players
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 .