Politics
The division of New Zealand was first revealed when the King closed the proceedings against two men accused of misusing donations to the party.
Attorney Crown says the two defendants in the NZ First fraud trial were not charged under election law, but they deceived the party and its donors as well as the election committee and the general public.
Over the course of three weeks, the Auckland High Court trial revealed communication from within the party and shed light on the internal mechanics of political funding.
The closing of the crown proceedings by John Dixon QC to Judge Ferose Jagose on Thursday is a photo of a party where the left hand does not know what the right is doing and donations are being made to the New Zealand First Foundation and others. I drew. Create an account without the knowledge of the party secretary or the president.
Defendants whose names have been oppressed have denied the charges acquired by the Serious Fraud Office for deception. The SFO claims that the man raised $ 750,000, donated it to the party, and diverted it to one of the defendants’ companies or the Foundation, and then without the authority or knowledge of the elected party officers. I used. The total donated was not declared to the Election Commission as a donation.
One “terrible” example of how party money was diverted was a $ 2000 check paid to the party by fishing leader Sir Peter Tally, who was somehow deposited directly into the Foundation’s bank account.
“They were trapped in the dark,” Dixon said, referring to senior New Zealand First party executives such as former Deputy Leader Fletcher Tabuteau and former Party Secretary Anne Martin.
Dixon mentioned an email between one defendant and party member Apilana Dawson in July 2015. There, the man outlined a plan for what he described as a “leader’s fund.”
“We used to loosely call this kind of thing a leader’s fund, but people were cool with it,” the defendant wrote. “Everything should be pretty much going on despite the board … what’s at stake here [Winston Peters’] Ability to run Knock M Dead campaigns without interference from the board of directors. ”
The defendant proposed that the fund “pose” as part of the party. “Choice of interesting words,” Dixon said.
The defense claimed previously solicited money, as the donations were used primarily for party purposes, but said such exchanges indicated that the board was unknown.
“The crown accepts that the defendant has spent money on a series of costs that could have been … for the benefit of the party,” Dixon said. “It was the defendant who decided and controlled how the money was spent, not the party.”
Early in the trial, former New Zealand First Party lawmaker Clayton Mitchell presented a broader party structure for him in the form of a figure by one of the defendants.
In this figure, the party is on one side, the base is on the other side, and the firewall is in the center. The arrows connecting them through the firewall showed the ability of cash to flow, but a powerful element of the secret could be maintained by the man on the money side.
That money includes a $ 7,500 invoice for a tent at the race, about $ 12,000 to send Mitchell to the UK for a network with Brexit Party, and a hefty performance fee for boxer Joseph Parker to become a guest speaker. , Used for various costs. At the NZ First Event.
However, growing anxiety among the members of the board left in the dark, Mr Dixon said the party members were “extremely unhappy.”
“Why don’t you just talk to treasurers and secretaries? Why hide?” “They didn’t want to risk what they were doing. They realized that the board might not approve it. rice field.”
Dixon argued that the defendant’s deception had two sides. One is to arrange for donations to a non-party account on the side of the “firewall” and not to return it to the parties.
The former is said to have been done by providing fundraiser like Mitchell with the details of the Foundation’s bank account, while the latter did not warn the party secretary about the donations received and handed the money over to his management.
Martin, a former party secretary, told the court that he would have expected all donations to be placed in the party’s account and declared. She didn’t know that the donation was being sent elsewhere. “Non-reporting causes the party secretary to believe in one thing when something is different,” Dixon said.
Dixon addressed the issue raised by the defense in the trial. Under the election law, no crimes were filed against the two defendants.
He said the defendant did not comply with the legal requirement to send donated money to the party, but the law did not include sanctions for its failure. If they submitted a donation, they had to provide the donor’s name and address. But they didn’t send, so they didn’t violate that section.
The party secretary could face up to two years’ imprisonment for not declaring a donation, but there was no sanctions on the person who caused the party secretary not to do so.
The question at trial was not whether the defendants did not comply with the election law, but whether they committed the crimes indicted, that is, whether they were obtained by deception.
The deception was both misleading the donors and not warning the party secretary to claim control of the donated funds.
“The strategy was intended and actually deceived the party and the party secretary,” he said. “It meant that the party’s board of directors and the party’s secretary were unaware of the donations and could not claim control over them. And that was the purpose of this case and these donations. Is to manage. “
It is arguable that he ended up going where the gold would have been, because it was about deception, not whether the gold was used for unlicensed purposes. Said.
According to Dixon, both men were lying to the Election Commission and / or the Serious Fraud Office. “It’s just not true … it didn’t happen … it’s not true … no … a list of statements that aren’t true,” QC detailed each claim by the defendant.
“The crown claim is that there was an intention to deceive here.”
Closing arguments for defense are expected next Monday.
Hearings about the ongoing repression of male names are also pending.