politics
Details of a morning raid to execute a search warrant at a defendant’s home complete the Crown’s case against two men over the use of political donations to the New Zealand First party
Two men on trial in the NZ First fraud case have pleaded no evidence to their defense after hearing 10 days of charges from the Crown – and a defense attorney has indicated they can still ask the judge to drop the charges dismiss.
The men, who are under name suppression, had previously unsuccessfully tried to have the charges dismissed in court and in preliminary Supreme Court hearings.
They argued in their opening post in this case that no crime had taken place, the Serious Fraud Office had come forward empty-handed when looking for Elections Act violations and had therefore resorted to accusing them of obtaining by fraud.
The Crown alleges that the men took money donated to the party and used it from two accounts that were not under the control of the party and without the knowledge of party officials. One account was a company owned by one of the defendants and one was for the New Zealand First Foundation, founded in February 2017, weeks before the political party board even decided to investigate the concept.
The SFO case was that payments from those bills were made without the authority or knowledge of elected party officials and about $750,000 in total donations went unreported to the Election Commission, as might be expected if held directly by a political party. Many donations were made just below the $15,000 threshold for identifying donors to the committee.
Evidence from about 40 donors, party officials and board members and SFO investigators showed that most donors were unaware that their money was going to the company or NZ First Foundation and several party officials were unaware of the donations and expenditures of those two accounts between 2015 and 2019.
Party officials expressed frustration at being thwarted in their questions about the company, the foundation and their activities.
The money from the accounts was spent on a software platform called Nation Builder, which was supposed to manage NZ First party memberships and donations, as well as social media links and mass email campaigns. The license to Nation Builder was in the possession of the defendant’s company and then the foundation an arm’s length from party officials. The trial heard evidence that party officials were unable to get answers to their questions about donations or expenses.
Donations received by the foundation also paid $80,000 to one of the defendants, $80,000 to that person’s relative, $12,000 for a trip to the UK for NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell, $10,000 for a Wellington Cup race hospital tent, and $9000 for a speech to the 2018 NZ First Convention by boxer Joseph Parker.
The trial provided evidence that the NZ First party was struggling to pay back bills and officials had to seek help from party leader Winston Peters and his partner Jan Trotman to ensure funds would somehow be made available.
One bill, from media company NZME for advertising ahead of the 2017 election, led the foundation to loan the party $73,500 to bridge it. That loan was granted without the party secretary’s knowledge, as required by the electoral law, and thus had to be re-granted later on the advice of the Electoral Commission.
The two defendants said in their opening statement: “The party has collected the money deposited in the accounts for the benefit of the party, they were used for the benefit of the party as foreseen by the party. The proof is that the foundation as the party expected.
“We ask the question – where is the cheating? The party board has not been cheated. Significantly, the party leader is not on the witness list. The disclosure shows that he has not been questioned about the property offense in court. There is no evidence of this property offense against the party.”
They argued that the party has not been cheated, and the donors have not been cheated. “Nobody has complained. But that doesn’t stop the SFO from suing the defendants as if they had.”
During the cross-examination of the latest crown witness, SFO chief investigator John Woolford, it was revealed that the Crown wanted to add a charge of theft by a person in a special relationship earlier this year, but this was rejected by a Supreme Court judge.
Woolford outlined what was found under a search warrant executed at the home of one of the defendants at 6:30 a.m. one morning, and he outlined notes of interviews taken with the defendant at the time.
When asked by the defense why the SFO chose a search warrant when it could have used its powers to issue a written warrant requiring people to provide documents and files, Woolford said a judgment would have been made as to how likely it is. is that the person concerned would cooperate with such an order.
Also influential in this case was that when the Election Commission referred the matter to the police, who took the matter to the SFO, it noted that it had not received any information it had requested from the defendant.
Why the 6:30 visit? “The aim of the exercise is to get there at a time when residents are home and not going to work and not so early that it’s unfair.”
Woolford said the defendant told him that the foundation’s expenses, such as Mitchell’s study trip to the UK, were “foundation matters”, the foundation’s payment of office rent in Wellington (for what the staff using it used to call the NZ campaign headquarters). Party 2017) not for a party headquarters, but for a foundation office, and the hospitality tent at the races that cost $10,000 was not a matter for the party.
Asked by the defense, who had “decided there would be no violation under the electoral law” in charges against the couple, Woolford said he was not sure a decision had ever been made under that law was not transgressed.
The defense also asked him why Julie Read, director of the Serious Fraud Office, allegedly gave a luncheon address discussing the investigation before the charges were filed, why she planned to issue a press statement after the charges were filed, and before the defendants’ first court. latest, and whether Woolford knew there was a general election coming up in October 2019. He was unable to comment on the first two issues, but confirmed that he was aware of those elections.
Crown and defense lawyers will hold their closing arguments on Thursday. Defense attorney Tudor Clee suggested Tuesday to Judge Pheroze Jagose, who is handling the case alone, that a new petition could be filed Thursday to dismiss the charges.