Tim Murphy
Tim Murphy is a co-editor of the newsroom. He writes about politics, Auckland, and the media. Twitter: @tmurphynz
Show more
Politics
Crown has ended a high court fraud case against two men over a donation to the New Zealand First Foundation.
Is Winston Peters the “New Zealand First Party”? Is he the CEO and has been delegated financial decision-making power by the party’s board of directors? Is he the boss?
The role of New Zealand First party leader is higher because it ended a lawsuit against two men charged with deceiving up to $ 750,000 in donations made for the party between 2015 and 2020. It became the central stage again in court.
The crown claims that the money was solicited from wealthy donors for the party, but they were given a bank account to deposit their money out of the control of the party. And donations were never “sent” to the party’s secretary to be declared to the Election Commission, as required by law.
The two men denied the charges, and when the trial began, no crime was committed, the money raised for the party was to be used for the party’s projects, and Peters was a witness to the crown case. He argued that it was “important” that it was not.
A three-week trial revealed that Peters had never been interviewed by the Serious Fraud Office during an investigation into the New Zealand First Foundation and a company owned by one of the two defendants. rice field.
And the king largely excluded the founders and political leaders of the party from the case. When cross-examinating Witnesses, it repeatedly suggests that the use of two men in the money deposited in the Foundation and company bank accounts is known by Peters and has been implicitly or explicitly approved. Was a defense.
During the closing statement by the Crown on Thursday, QC John Dixon chose to address the defense dispute over Peters.
The defense explained that Peters was, in effect, the party’s chief executive officer and was delegated funding and financial decision-making by the board. Another defendant lawyer, Tudor Cree, suggested to Witnesses that it was Peters who knew of the Foundation’s payments. Evidence of the trial showed that Peters and his partner Jean Trotman intervened to pay the overdue party invoice, and that the money came from the Foundation.
Dixon said: “There is evidence in the question from the defense. It’s an argument that Mr. Peters is a party and a party. Mr. Peters knew and approved what was happening.
“My submission. Mr. Peters is not a party. The party is broader and represented by many witnesses who submitted evidence. This did not know what was happening to Mr. Peters. That’s not to say, but you can’t be wise. Peters claimed he knew exactly what he really was. “
Dixon said: [must have] He deliberately allowed the parties’ declarations to be false, deliberately withheld information from the board of directors, and instructed them to pay in breach of money. [New Zealand First Foundation] Trust instrument.
“But the crown was clearly trusted by Peters. [one of the defendants] Simply proceeded based on the guarantee of [that defendant] What was happening was legal. He didn’t even notice. “
If the defense’s allegations were correct, Peters had to be considered an “innocent conspirator,” but Dixon said it was not what the crown claimed. The lawyer called Peters as a witness and had to make his suggestion to him, but he didn’t.
Dixon said the two men had gained control of the funds donated to the party and held control without the knowledge of the party or party secretary.
“There is no doubt that they have gained control ….. Peters did not control the Foundation account. [just] He asked for payment of some invoices. “
Peters is described as a boss by witnesses. However, former party secretary Anne Martin said it was not a term she or women tend to use, but was used primarily by male party members.
He and Trotman were approached by people from various parties to help them get the money to pay the arrears for database systems, contractors, and party auditors, and authorities paid shortly. I was relieved to be struck.
Dixon’s closing statement explained two factors needed to bring Crown’s proceedings-defendants fraudulently obtained donor funds in their non-party accounts (tell donors to go to a company or foundation). (Not), then they failed to “send” their funds to the party and party secretary who were required to declare them to the Election Commission under the law.
The party didn’t know about donations to the two accounts. “They were kept in the dark.”