Politics
Labor raised $35,000 for the 2017 election campaign through an ‘auction’ of five works of art – but those listed as buyers deny buying them, saying their names have been used by others
David Zhang says he would rather burn money than donate it to the Labor Party.
“I don’t like the Labor Party,” Mt Wellington’s scaffolder told the Auckland High Court when asked if he remembered receiving a receipt from then Labor General Secretary Andrew Kirton thanking him for purchasing an $8,000 painting and helping change the government in 2017.
“I will not donate to the Labor Party. It just isn’t possible,” he said, denying seeing Kirton’s message.
Seven people are on trial for solicitation by deception related to partisan donations. One, former MP Jami-Lee Ross, is being charged with separate donations of $100,000 to National in 2017 and 2018. Three, Auckland businessmen Yikun Zhang, and twin brothers Colin and Joe Zheng, are being charged with both National and Labor donations , and three other defendants whose names are being suppressed are facing charges linked to the donation of Labor artwork.
The Crown started the case by investigating that Labor donation. It says the entire donation was made by Yikun Zhang and arrangements have been made with Zheng and Zheng and defendants associated with Labor to keep his identity out of the public eye by breaking the total down into smaller amounts, ostensibly from others who claim to have paid for the artworks.
Crown lawyers have called three witnesses who were ‘alleged buyers of a painting’.
The paintings were originally purchased by a defendant from an art store in Ohope. They were then offered to Yikun Zhang and placed on a ‘silent auction’ within the Chao Shan General Association, a Chinese community group, raising a total of $60,000 – from $16,000 to $8,000 for the various individual works. Since the art was already valued at $25,000, that value did not count as a Labour donation. If individual donations fall below the $15,000 threshold, they do not need to be declared, or have the donor identified, to the Election Commission.
Witness David Zhang’s name was one of five supplied to the Labor Party by one of the defendants after the auction.
He told Judge Ian Gault, who handles the case alone, that he was “just a scaffolder, I know nothing about art”. He had never bought a painting at an auction, nor had he talked to anyone about buying a painting.
He said he was a close friend of Joe and Colin Zheng through their construction work and that he knew Yikun Zhang, but was not “acquainted with him.”
Crown attorney John Dixon QC pointed Zhang to a Chinese-language text message from Zhang’s phone in February 2020 confirming to another person that the painting had been received. “The money for the final event auction has been given to President Zheng [one of the defendants]. The painting has been received, thank you.”
Zhang said he didn’t send that message. “I’ve never bought paintings. That’s impossible.” When asked again if he had sent it, he said: “I can’t remember. It’s been a long time”.
However, he did accept that the defendant Joe Zheng had helped him when Zhang’s mother was ill, just before the first Covid lockdown in early 2020, to send messages on Zhang’s phone to health officials about hospital appointments. “Joe used my phone, but I’m not sure if he sent that message.” he said to Dixon.
Another ‘alleged buyer of a painting’, Cuong Thu Tu, also knew Yikun Zhang and Colin and Joe Zheng through the Chao Shan Association. He also knew one of the other defendants in the Labor donation part of the case.
Tu denied ever having donated to Labor or buying a painting. “Normally I was not present at those kinds of events,” he told Paul Wicks, QC for the Crown. When he was interviewed by the Serious Fraud Office in 2020 about the total proceeds from the $60,000 art sale, it was the first time he heard of it.
Tu was on the Labor Party list for buying a painting for $12,000.
An email from one of the Labor defendants to Kirton in April 2017 said, “It would be great if you could bring the originals to Friday dinner at Zhang Yikun’s.”
The names of the buyers sent from Joe Zheng to that defendant said, “Name list for donation, from Colin.”
Wicks asked Tu, “Do you know why your name is on that list?”
“No.”
But he accepted that another defendant, whose name is not known, had called him in March 2017 and “in fact it was stated that my name was required… I didn’t say anything. If my name is required, do it”.
Tu also demanded a text message from his phone in February 2020 that the defendant received stating that “President … Labor Party auction painting. I received it. Tu Thu Cuong” was not sent by him.
A letter listing the names of the alleged buyers of paintings, including Defendant Joe Zheng, to Labor in 2020 after controversy arose over the donation was presented to the court, saying:
“We were the five people who bought Labor’s artwork in early 2017 to support your party.
“We have been approached by your party as of Wednesday regarding the process of the artworks. We can jointly confirm that we have purchased and collected the artworks, respectively, and paid Mr. Zheng to transfer the total amount of $60,000 to the account of your party.
“We have supported your party in good faith. However, we do not want to get involved in political parties in such a way. The best way to resolve this matter is that you return the money to us and we will return the artworks to Laat let us know when you’re going to do this.’
Tu said he was not shown that letter and was not involved in making it.
Sam Lowery, who represents one of the suspects with name suppression, asked Tu if his client had called him to ask for permission to use his name.
“Yes, name has been discussed.”
After a short conversation, Tu thought about the request and agreed. “It wasn’t bad.”
Lowery: “Did he say your name was needed to get around or circumvent the electoral law?”
“No, I don’t know about that. I had no suspicions about this.”
When he pressed that call, Tu told the lawyer, “I don’t want to be pushed and ask questions. If you push me, I’ll shut up.”
Tu also denied seeing a receipt from Andrew Kirton of the Labor Party.
Defendant Yikun Zhang, through his counsel John Katz QC, has already told the court that it is undisputed that it was Zhang who made the donation to Labor for the artworks. The Labor Party’s 2017 donations to the Election Commission were apparently wrong, but that wasn’t Zhang’s problem.
The Crown’s opening statement said that SFO investigators photographed the paintings at Zhang’s home in Remuera while executing a search warrant.
It also said the payment to Joe Zheng’s Labor Party was made three days before the buyers claimed an auction had taken place. “The Crown thing is that no auction took place. It was all a ruse.’