newsroom
The judge was not convinced that two men involved in the New Zealand First donation scandal took control of funds obtained through deception and without a claim to justice
Two men associated with the New Zealand First party have been found not guilty of gaining control of nearly $750,000 through fraud, ending a lawsuit that has searched the party’s dirty laundry and inner workings.
The two men denied allegations made by the Serious Fraud Office, claiming they used “a fraudulent device, trick or ruse” to control funds raised by the New Zealand First Foundation, a separate organization from the party that was established to hold the money raised.
Judge Pheroze Jagose oversaw the several-week trial at the Auckland High Court, which ended with permanent name suppression for the two defendants.
Although the two men at the center of the scandal have kept their names out of the media, the trial has been a meticulous search through the recent history of the New Zealand First party, unearthing an organization sometimes strained by internal tensions. around who knew and had control over the money.
The foundation was established after board members expressed a desire to take the party to another level, such as staffer Apirana Dawson, who took a stance early in the trial saying he had spoken to the defendants about ways to “deal with the party.” professionalize and modernize”.
Party leader Winston Peters, who stayed away from the trial but managed to chase it down by appearing named in most of the evidence, said the party “needed magnesium, a tool to make this party shine,” in a statement. board meeting 2015.
It was a wish answered by the establishment of the New Zealand First Foundation in February 2017, largely following the blueprint of the National Foundation, the National Party’s own financial backing arm.
One of the defendants explained the new structure of the party and foundation to party member Clayton Mitchell as two entities separated by a firewall that still allowed the flow of money.
Evidence shown at trial showed an entity very distant from New Zealand First, with “separate budget, different staff, separate offices and private money” – as one of the defendants put it to Dawson.
Nevertheless, it would be a “source of wealth”, with the plan to fund things like office space, computers and software for NZ First.
Around the 2017 election, the foundation ended up paying about $140,000 for things like renting a commercial space at Lambton Quay, which was used as its campaign headquarters, and producing a video showing the party’s “bus tour” through the counties. .
It was this new scheme that the Crown, led by John Dixon QC, claimed had been used unlawfully by the defendants in fundraising.
The “trick” that would be used involved providing the foundation’s bank account information to donors who wanted to make donations to the party itself.
Donations were requested from major players in various sectors, such as horse breeding and racing, and health supplements.
Rich-listers such as Graeme Hart and Duncan Hawkesby also provided evidence, stating that they had met members of New Zealand First with the intention of making a donation to encourage the party to follow certain political directions – namely the rejection of a capital gains tax.
These donations ended up in the foundation, usually without the full understanding of the donors.
Evidence from more than 30 donors shows that most did not know exactly where their money was going. A common claim was that they weren’t too concerned about the exact destination, as long as it was to help Peters and his company’s business.
Justice Jagose argued in his final verdict on Friday that the two men had not received the payments directly, but rather as trustees of the foundation and previous fundraising entities.
As a result, he did not view their actions as satisfying the charge of “maintaining control of the money”.
He said there was “nothing inherently unfair about it” [the fund-raising organisations] obtaining the money” because they “explicitly tried to support the party”, meaning the defendants could not be found guilty of the deception of the charge.