Politics
The High Court fraud case against two men over a donation to the New Zealand First Foundation ends with a defense asking why neither the Serious Fraud Office nor the King called on the party leader.
Two defendant lawyers accused of donation fraud in a New Zealand First trial said the Serious Fraud Office failed to summon important witness Winston Peters himself.
Tudor Klee said Crown’s allegations that the two men had earned up to $ 750,000 in political contributions through deception are based on a “false assumption pattern” and are prosecuted beyond reasonable suspicion. Said he couldn’t.
Cree’s final debate to defend Judge Ferose Jagos in the Oakland High Court on Monday was a single witness claiming criminal activity, despite weeks of trial and 60 witnesses. Claimed that it could not be produced.
“In this case, your honor is suspicion of seeking statute,” he said.
Mr. Cree argued that it was a deception guilty that the SFO was trying to assemble men’s behavior as a criminal rather than simply violating election law.
“This was an SFO attempt to shoehorn a crime under election law under the Crimes Act …. It was simply an attempt to grant criminal liability for non-criminal allegations.”
He has pointed out price changes since the Foundation funding news first came to light in 2019/2020, and the time and price paraphrase it took was that the Crown had a weak case. Said showed.
“This claim took 20 months to bear fruit, with no new evidence, no new witnesses, no new information,” he said. “This is a summary of the uncertainties in the Crown case.”
And there was one key figure who did not appear throughout the days of witness and donor statements talking about the internal mechanics of the New Zealand First Party and its financial system.
Winston Peters, the nearly 30-year leader of the New Zealand First Party, wasn’t anywhere in the case at once. He appeared on the lips of almost every witness and by name in countless emails and letters.
Still, despite his central role in the party’s ecosystem, neither the crown nor the SFO forced him to submit evidence in court.
Klee said the SFO has the power of a forced interview and the crown has the ability to summon Peters. “That didn’t happen.”
The defense claimed that the crown “could not call an obvious witness.”
“Only one person has been on the board all the time,” Cree said. “He had never been called and did not fully explain why.”
Cree claims that the party’s Peters leadership made him an “important witness,” and the evidence of that witness is probably some knowledge of the Foundation’s work, as Peters had a purse string within the party. Showed that he had.
He mentioned in November 2018 a meeting where then MP Clayton Mitchell asked Peters for a refund of his trip to the UK to network Nigel Farage and his Brexit party.
“We talked about his repayment, I gave him an indication that Mr Peters was in control of the money,” Cree said. At that time, Mitchell said it was a “potentially” fact.
When asked if Peters had financial control, Mitchell replied, “What Winston generally wants will be delivered.”
“Obviously, the crown … made many assumptions that aren’t supported by evidence,” Cree said. Despite evidence that Peters delegated authority from the board for spending, the crown dispute suggested that he may have been in the dark about the work of his own party. ..
“What the crown says is that Mr Peters was fooled. If so, what was the point of not calling him?” Klee said, “The crown has never interviewed him. The court can only draw reasoning, “said the SFO, who decided that Peters’ testimony was contrary to the case they were doing.
Mr Klee said Peters himself had to be deceived by the defendant for being deceived, and that the party secretary had no property rights to the money in question and therefore could not be the victim of the crime.
“”[Peters] I knew the structure that was established … there was no suggestion that it didn’t make sense to be established to damage the party, “he said. “Crime presupposes property …; submits a leader who understands the structure … unless Mr. Peters is fooled, the structure cannot be a fraudulent device or strategy.”
“The opposition may be the only reasoning,” Cree said, without evidence that Peters had been fooled.
“Without Mr Peters’ complaint against a non-existent crown … this accusation without his support is groundless. It was deliberately made without his complaint or evidence,” he said.
In a closing argument to the King last Thursday, lawyer John Dixon QC said the party was broader than Peters alone and he may not have been aware of some financial events.
“There is evidence in the defense’s question. It’s an argument that Peters is a party and a party. Peters knew and approved what was happening. Peters is not a party. Is broader and is represented by the many witnesses who submitted the evidence. This does not mean that Peters did not know what was happening, but he was completely in the true picture. I can’t wisely claim that I knew. “
Dixon said he should be considered a “free conspirator” if Peters knew exactly what was going on.
Mr. Klee rejected the allegation, saying it was “unfounded” and “showing prosecution’s prejudice and confusion.”
“The allegations were made without consulting Mr. Peters and we are concerned about professionalism,” he said.
The defense’s closing looked at whether the defendant’s actions were consistent with the alleged charges, specifically whether the money was obtained by deception and who was the victim.
“It looks like it’s circulating” that deception makes money for the benefit of the affected party, Klee said. “The case law is for those who have been fooled by the affected party. It makes it clear that it must be done. “
He insisted on a deliberate attempt to deceive the allegations that it was necessary to stick.
“The proof of SFO analysts is that money was spent for the benefit of the party,” he said. “”[There was] There is no evidence that the defendants have spent money on their behalf. “
Last week, Dixon said the end result wasn’t important, but whether the defendant was illegally managing the money.
“The crown accepts that the defendant has spent money on a series of costs that could have been … for the benefit of the party,” he said. “It was the defendant who decided and controlled how the money was spent, not the party.”
The identities of the two defendants remain restrained and a hearing is scheduled for next week.