3 May 2013
Open Letter to the NZ Solicitor-General, Michael Heron:
Dear Solicitor-General,
http://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/uploads/prosecution_guidelines.pdf
The ‘Evidential’ and ‘Public Interest’ tests as outlined in s6 of the Crown Law Prosecution
Guidelines, have arguably been met in the decision of Wellington District Court Judge Mill on 16 April 2013, in the matter of Graham Edward McCready (Informant) vs John Archibald Banks (Defendant) CRI – 2012-085-0009093 and CRI – 2012- 085- 007894:
Judge Mill’s decision is available here:
http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Banks-summoned-on-election-
return-19-4-13.pdf
Both myself and Lisa Prager, made formal complaints to the NZ Police over this matter, as
outlined below, in this reply, dated 26 July 2012:
http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Bright-Letter.pdf
” COMPLAINT REGARDING HONOURABLE JOHN BANKS – MAYORAL ELECTIONS
RETURN – FILE NO: 120427/9334 REFERS
On 27 April 2012, you made a complaint to the Auckland City Police requesting they
investigate reports regarding the Hon. John Archibald Banks, CNZM QSO, that he submitted a
false donation return in respect to the Auckland City Council Mayoral election 2010 .
Specifically the letter of complaint referred to two donations in question:
1. A $15,000.00 donation allegedly made by Sky City to the former Auckland City Mayor John
Banks which did not show up as a donation in the return .
2. A donation of “Anonymous- radio ads” .
On Monday 30 April 2012 you made a further complaint in respect to the election expenses
donation return by Mr John Banks. Your complaint referred to media articles by Campbell Live
(27 April 2012) and the New Zealand Herald (28 April 2012) that discussed donations allegedly
made by Mr Dotcom to Mr Banks for his mayoral campaign .
In both complaints you allege that if the articles were correct then Mr Banks had breached
the Local Electoral Act 2001 in that a candidate commits an offence who transmits a return of
electoral expenses knowing that it is false in any material particular….”
The NZ Police chose not to prosecute.
The significant and ongoing ‘public interest’ in this case is arguably referenced in the following
article in today’s NZ Herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10881226
Loss in court would cost Banks seat
By Isaac Davison @Isaac_Davison
5:30 AM Friday May 3, 2013
_______________________________________________________
Lisa Prager and myself, Penny Bright, hereby support the following Memorandum of Informant,
dated 29 April 2013:
Referral to Solicitor-General to Intervene as Prosecutor
http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/John-Banks-referral-to-Solicitor-
General.pdf
Please be reminded of the following statutory provision of the Local Electoral Act 2001:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/latest/DLM93437.html
6 Act binds Crown
This Act binds the Crown.
Please confirm at your earliest convenience that Crown Law will do their best to ensure that
‘justice is done and is seen to be done’, and ensure that the principle of ‘one law for all’, equally
applies to sitting Ministers of the Crown, by intervening as Prosecutor in this above-mentioned
proceeding.
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
Lisa Prager
Further evidence of public interest JOHN BANKS Application Media coverage Banks 8 May 2013
The John Banks Private Prosecution has been referred to the Solicitor General with a request that the Crown take over the prosecution and appear for the Informant when Banks is summoned to appear in the Auckland District Court sometime in May or early June 2013.
see the document here John Banks referral to Solicitor General
- The Police investigation of found that the defendant had transmitted an election return false in a material particular (the subject donations were not anonymous) and had sufficient evidence to charge him summarily under Section 134(2) of the Local Electoral Act. However they were statutory barred from doing so under the provisions of the Summary Proceedings Act that required an Information to be filed within six months of the alleged offence. They also found that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant knew that the donations were not anonymous to charge him under Section 134(1) of the Act. For these reasons no Public prosecution was commenced
- On 7 November 2012 and again on 16 April 2013, Judge IG Mill found that there was sufficient evidence that the private prosecutor could adduce to establish a prima facie case against the defendant.
c. Referral to the Solicitor General
Given that the evidential barrier has been overcome and the Court has ordered the defendant to appear to answer to the Information, the prosecutor hereby refers the case to the Solicitor General for the Crown to continue the prosecution as a Public Prosecution.The prosecutor submits there is considerable public interest and support for this cause of action.
The District Court Memorandum served on the Solicitor General on 29 April 2013 is attached
Graham Mc Cready
Informant
The decision of Judge Mill is out read the full decison here Banks summoned on election return 19 4 13
he finishes up saying
I do not think: it can be said that the prosecution has no prospect of success. There is sufficient evidential foundation for a summons to issue. The provision for private prosecutions in our law is itself an important check on potential abuses of prosecutorial discretion conferred on the Executive: Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435 at 498, so the police decision not to prosecute cannot, in my view, strongly militate against issuing a summons in a private prosecution where the requirements for doing so are otherwise met.
[ 44] I agree that there will be significant media interest if the prosecution of Mr Banks goes ahead. However that would also have been the case if Mr Banks had been prosecuted by the Police or by the Crown. The likelihood of media interest
cannot be a ground for declining to allow a prosecution to proceed. In my estimation strong media interest indicates a strong public interest, which would tend to support the contention that it is appropriate for the case to be answered in open court.
[ 45] Likewise, the character of a proposed infom1ant or his or her personal wherewithal to successfully prosecute a privately brought charge cannot, in my opinion, influence the summons discretion. What is impotiant is whether the proposed informant is able to give substance to the allegations. If so, the informant is entitled to access to the courts.
[ 46] Accordingly for the reasons already given I authorize the issue of the sunm1ons and direct that it then be transferred to the Auckland District Court.
Congratulations Graeme from the team at Dodgy john has gone.com
“NZ Herald – News digest Tuesday 20 November 2012
Banks faces more counts
Act leader John Banks is facing two fresh charges in a private prosecution brought by political activist Graham McCready. The charges relate to Mr Banks’ role at investment company Huljich Wealth Management before he became an Act MP. ”
Written Submissions by Informant in Support of the Informations and of Issuing a Summons on the Proposed Charges
Wellington District Court stamped front cover of Written Submissions dated 19 November 2012 court acknowledgment
Graham McCready states that the Deputy Registrar ‘confirmed she would set them down for Banks to be Summons to appear on these two with the Local Elections Act charge on 11 December 2012 at 1:45. The Court will ensure the Police serve all three summonses.’
Graham McCready will be filling the same Securities Act Informations against against Don Brash on Wednesday 29 November.
When the police don’t act you have to rely on a public spirited individual .
DECISION OF JUDGE IG MILL [Re: Issue of Summons]
[17] In my view, if Mr McCready can present evidence that reflects these allegations then there is a sufficient case to be tested in Court.
[18] I therefore amend the information to be an indictable one and direct that a summons issue.
see full decision here McCready-Banks
Report of the Commerce Select Committee on Petition 2011/5 of Penelope Mary Bright and 307 others, which requests “that the House conduct an urgent inquiry into the decisions regarding prosecutions relating to the Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009 “.
“The Commerce Committee has considered Petition 2011/5 of Penelope Mary Bright and 307 others, which requests “that the House conduct an urgent inquiry into the decisions regarding prosecutions relating to the Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009”, and has no matters to bring to the attention of the House.”
The Commerce Select Committee of the ‘Highest Court in the Land’ – has effectively decided that ‘one law for all’ does not apply to former and current ACT Party Leaders – Don Brash and John Banks?
How DODGY is that?
Could it be that yet again John Banks is being politically protected – given that 5 out of 9 Commerce Select Committee members are National MPs?
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs/Default.htm?pf=CommitteeShortName&sf=Commerce&lgc=0
| Commerce | Member | Bakshi, Kanwaljit Singh | National Party, List |
| Commerce | Member | Borrows, Chester | National Party, Whanganui |
| Commerce | Deputy-Chairperson | Cosgrove, Clayton | Labour Party, List |
| Commerce | Member | Cunliffe, David | Labour Party, New Lynn |
| Commerce | Member | Curran, Clare | Labour Party, Dunedin South |
| Commerce | Member | Lotu-Iiga, Peseta Sam | National Party, Maungakiekie |
| Commerce | Member | Mathers, Mojo | Green Party, List |
| Commerce | Member | Mitchell, Mark | National Party, Rodney |
| Commerce | Chairperson | Young, Jonathan | National Party, New Plymouth |
Check out the attached evidence from the Finance Markets Authority (FMA) and ask yourself WHY – for a strict liability offence – the former Securities Commission FIVE times went to Crown Law for advice and FOUR times to an independent QC for advice – and ended up deciding NOT to prosecute John Banks or Don Brash as former fellow Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd?
BOTH John Banks and Don Brash equally signed Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009 which contained untrue statements – A STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCE under Securities Act ..58(3) – but were never charged.
(Copies of these registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009 are available on www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz
The excuses given by the SFO for not prosecuting John Banks and Don Brash are also rather fascinating – don’t you think?
Evidence considered by the commerce select committee was as follows and from
Penny Bright
We raised the Banks issue with the Police the investigation is over and the concern has spread to the press.
The Heralds David Fisher has done an excellent article ” Police file: How Banks’ team targeted rich-list”
The Official information act request flushed out the Police report and this is available here
Both are well worth reading
To the House of Representatives
The petition of Penelope Mary Bright of 86A School Road Kingsland Auckland, Ph (09) 846 9825 and others:
”Respectfully requests:
”That the House conduct an urgent inquiry into the findings of the Police investigation into the allegations that the Hon. John Archibald Banks, CNZM QSO, submitted a false donation return in respect to the Auckland Council Mayoral election 2010 – that it was not unlawful for the Hon. John Archibald Banks, CNZM QSO to sign and transmit his candidate’s declaration of expenses without first personally checking and verifying that the information provided (by another party) was accurate.”
download petition here PETITION Urgent Inquiry into the Police findings re John Banks complaint 2 August 2012
There are questions to be asked.
Such as
Banks was at a meeting in sky city and was handed sealed envelope .
- What did he think it was
- What would he have thought it was
- How did he know to give it to who ever opened the envelope
- What were the words which were spoken at the time of the exchange?
Why did the administration person for Bank who processed the check write anonymous on the register when the cheque would quite clearly have shown who it came from.
How did Sky city deal with this payment as part of their tax obligations.
Time to stop playing Possum John .
For the full Bright Letter click here
Dear Ms Bright
COMPLAINT REGARDING HONOURABLE JOHN BANKS – MAYORAL ELECTIONS
RETURN – FILE NO: 120427/9334 REFERS
On 27 April 2012, you made a complaint to the Auckland City Police requesting they
investigate reports regarding the Hon. John Archibald Banks, CNZM QSO, that he submitted
a false donation return in respect to the Auckland City Council Mayoral election 2010 .
Specifically the letter of complaint referred to two donations in question:
1. A $15,000.00 donation allegedly made by Sky City to the former Auckland City Mayor
John Banks which did not show up as a donation in the return .
2. A donation of “Anonymous- radio ads” .
On Monday 30 April 2012 you made a further complaint in respect to the election expenses
donation return by Mr John Banks. Your complaint referred to media articles by Campbell
Live (27 April 2012) and the New Zealand Herald (28 April 2012) that discussed donations
allegedly made by Mr Dotcom to Mr Banks for his mayoral campaign .
In both complaints you allege that if the articles were correct then Mr Banks had breached
the Local Electoral Act 2001 in that a candidate commits an offence who transmits a return
of electoral expenses knowing that it is false in any material particular .
Findings:
The allegations you refer to are offences that come under Part 7 section 134 (False return)
of the Local Electoral Act 2001 . I will detail each donation and its find ings .
Section 134 has two levels of offences pertaining to false returns:
134 (1) Every candidate commits an offence who transmits a return of electoral expenses
knowing that it is false in any material particular, and is liable on conviction on indictment to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000.
and
134 (2) Every candidate commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine
not exceeding $5, 000 who transmits a return of electoral expenses that is false in any
material particular unless the candidate proves-
(a) that he or she had no intention to mis-state or conceal the facts; and
(b) that he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that the information was accurate.
Skycity Entertainment Group Limited- $15,000.00:
The Police investigation established that on 24 May 2010 Mayor John Banks met with the
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Sky City Entertainment Group Limited. At that meeting
Mayor Banks received a sealed envelope containing a $15,000.00 cheque written out to
“Team Banksie 2010″. Team Banksie was the name given to Mr Bank’s campaign
organisation. This donation was subsequently recorded in the Electoral Return by the
Treasurer for Team Banksie as anonymous.
Police were unable to establish that Mr Banks had the necessary knowledge that the
donation had been recorded as anonymous in the return before he signed and submitted it.
The return was compiled by a campaign volunteer. Mr Banks sought and received
confirmation that it was an accurate return of his expenses before signing and transmitting
the return. Police are therefore of the view that there is insufficient evidence to consider a
prosecution in respect of section 134( 1 ).
Any charges for offences pursuant to section 134 (2) must be laid within six months of the
electoral return being supplied. Police first received the complaint for investigation on 27
April 2012, approximately 10 months after the expiry of six month period. Police are
therefore unable to consider charges pursuant to this section.
Anonymous Radio Ads $15,690.00:
Police have established that in September 2010 Mr John Banks personally solicited a
request for help from a Donor who prefers to remain anonymous for the purpose of this
correspondence. As a result of a discussion between the two it was agreed that the Donor
would help with a donation of radio advertising for the campaign.
The donation was recorded on the return by the Treasurer for Team Banksie as an
“Anonymous” donation of $15690.00 and also as an advertising expense of $15690.00 in
the expenses section of the return.
Police were unable to establish that Mr BANKS had the necessary knowledge that the
donation had been recorded as anonymous in the return before he signed and submitted it.
The return was compiled by a campaign volunteer. Mr Banks sought and received
confirmation that it was an accurate return of his expenses before signing and transmitting
the return. Police are therefore of the view that there is insufficient evidence to consider a
prosecution in respect of section 134( 1 ).
Any charges for offences pursuant to section 134 (2) must be laid within six months of the
electoral return being supplied. Police first received the complaint for investigation on 27
April 2012, approximately 10 months after the expiry of six month period. Police are
therefore unable to consider charges pursuant to this section.
Kim Dotcom donations: 2 x $25,000.00:
Police have established that on 09 June 2010 Mr John Banks personally sol icited a donation
from Mr Kim Dotcom. This request resulted in Mr Kim Dotcom paying two $25,000.00
donations to the bank account of Team Banksie 2010 on 14 July 2010. Both donations were
subsequently recorded in the Electoral Return by the Treasurer for Team Banksie as
anonymous.
Police were unable to establish that Mr Banks had the necessary knowledge that the
donation had been recorded as anonymous in the return before he signed and submitted it.
The return was compiled by a campaign volunteer. Mr Banks sought and received
confirmation that it was an accurate return of his expenses before signing and transmitting
the return. Police are therefore of the view that there is insufficient evidence to consider a
prosecution in respect of section 134( 1 ).
Any charges for offences pursuant to section 134 (2) must be laid within six months of the
electoral return being supplied. Police first received this complaint for investigation on 1 May
2012, approximately 10 months after the expiry of six month period. Police are therefore
unable to consider charges pursuant to this section.
On 14 June 2012 you sent an email to Detective Inspector Benefield requesting Police
extend the investigation of John Banks for alleged electoral fraud to further include alleged
“corruption and bribery of an official” under section 105 of the Crimes Act 1961.
After a review of the circumstances and information gathered in this investigation I cannot
find any evidence that would support a charge in relation to section 105 of the Crimes Act
1961.
The file is now complete and will be filed at the Auckland Central Police station.
If you have any concerns over the contents of this letter or any issues stemming from this
complaint, do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours faithfully
Peter Read
Detective Superintendent : Southern
Christchurch
27 June 2012
‘OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL’ – Please consider using your ‘Reserve Powers’ to refuse Royal Assent to the Mixed Ownership Model Bill (if passed).
The Mixed Ownership Model Bill is not yet law – it still does not yet have ‘Royal Assent’ (according to Parliamentary staff to whom I spoke on Wednesday 27 June 2012, from the Table Office – who are responsible for facilitating ‘bills’ into legislation.
Apparently, ’Royal Assent’ from the Governor-General, is a few days away…..
‘OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL’ – Please consider using your ‘Reserve Powers’ to refuse Royal Assent to the Mixed Ownership Model Bill (if passed).
(Sent Monday 25 June 2012, 5.12pm)
|
||||
|
||||
(I apologise for the lateness of this email. It unfortunately involved more work than originally anticipated).
My intention was to try and get it to the Executive Council as an ‘Item of Business’ for the consideration of the Governor-General.
Please can you forward this correspondence to the Governor-General at your earliest opportunity?
Thank you.
Penny Bright
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
25 June 2012
‘OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL – The Rt Hon Sir Jerry Mateparae
Please consider using your ‘Reserve Powers’ to refuse Royal Assent to the Mixed Ownership Model Bill (if passed).
Dear Governor-General,
I understand that the Executive Council, comprising of all Ministers of the Crown, meets today, 25 June 2012 at Parliament at 4pm, and you will be presiding over this meeting.
http://gg.govt.nz/content/executive-council
The Executive Council is the highest formal instrument of government. It is created by the Letters Patent that also establish the Office of Governor-General and is part of the executive branch of government that carries out formal acts of government.
The Executive Council comprises all Ministers of the Crown, whether those Ministers are inside or outside Cabinet.
The Governor-General presides over, but is not a member of, the Executive Council.”
I wish this letter to be included as a urgent ‘Item of Business’ for this meeting of the Executive Council, whose members have sworn the following oath:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1957/0088/latest/whole.html#DLM316134
19 Executive Councillor’s Oath
(1)The oath in this Act referred to as the Executive Councillor’s Oath shall be in the form following, that is to say:
I,…, being chosen and admitted of the Executive Council of New Zealand, swear that I will to the best of my judgment, at all times, when thereto required, freely give my counsel and advice to the Governor-General for the time being, for the good management of the affairs of New Zealand. That I will not directly nor indirectly reveal such matters as shall be debated in Council and committed to my secrecy, but that I will in all things be a true and faithful Councillor. So help me God.
_________________________________________________________________________
I understand that as the Governor-General of New Zealand, you do have the power to refuse ‘Royal Assent’ for legislation, although, to date, this power has yet to be used.
http://gg.govt.nz/role/powers.htm
In a very few instances, the Governor-General may exercise a degree of personal discretion, under what are known as the “reserve powers.” The most important of these is the appointment of a Prime Minister following an election, or accepting the resignation of an incumbent Prime Minister.
By convention, the Governor-General will always appoint as Prime Minister the person who has been identified through the government formation process as the person who will lead the party or group of parties that appears able to command the confidence of the House of Representatives. The Governor-General expects that there will be clear and public statements that a political agreement has been reached and that a government can be formed that will have the support of the new Parliament. The Governor-General abides by the outcome of the government formation process.
Other reserve powers are to dismiss a Prime Minister, to force a dissolution of Parliament and call new elections, to refuse a Prime Minister’s request for an election, and to refuse assent to legislation.
These powers to act without or even against ministerial advice are reserved for the most extreme situations and with the exception of the appointment of a Prime Minister following an election, no New Zealand Governor-General has ever needed to use them.
___________________________________________________________________________________
In my considered opinion, as an ‘anti-corruption campaigner’, the passage of the ‘Mixed Ownership Model Bill’, would constitute a ‘most extreme situation’, and Royal Assent should be therefore refused for the following reasons:
1) Although the National Party ‘campaigned’ on asset sales during the 2011 General Election, they only received enough votes to return 59 out of 121 Members of Parliament.
(Irrespective of the number of votes cast by electors – it is votes cast in the House which determine the passage of legislation.)
59 National MPs out of 121 is NOT a majority – so National’s claimed ’mandate’, has arguably no basis in fact.
No majority – no mandate.
2) If National genuinely believe that the majority of New Zealanders support the ‘partial privatisation’ of key State assets, then why not support the confirmation of this belief through a public referendum on this matter?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7162589/Asset-sales-set-to-pass-last-hurdle-this-week
3) As it stands, provided the 3 Maori Party MPs vote against the Mixed Ownership Model Bill at its third reading, National are dependent on the pivotal votes of United Future’s Peter Dunne, and the ACT MP for Epsom, the Hon. John Banks.
Herein lies the problem:
a) Complaints have been lodged with Police, alleging electoral fraud against the Hon. John Banks.
I know, because I, along with fellow ‘community activist’, Lisa Prager, am one of the complainants:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM, BENEFIELD, Mark <Mark.Benefield@police.govt.nz> wrote:
This email is to formally acknowledge your complaint under the Local Electoral Act 2001(LEA) in respect to the 2010 Mayoral Election and allegation of a false return made by the now Hon John BANKS in respect of his returns under section 109 LEA.
For future reference File 120427/9334 refers.
At this point in time I will be your point of contact.
Regards
Detective Inspector Mark Benefield
Field Crime Manager Auckland City District
Extn: 95766
DDI: 09 3026 766
Mob: 0274 741902
Fax: 09 3754652″
______________________________________________________________________________
However, it is unclear if the Police have even questioned the Hon. John Banks about this alleged electoral fraud, although the complaint was made on 27 April 2012, almost 8 weeks ago, as per this recent correspondence with the Auckland District Commander of Police, SuperIntendent Mike Clements, dated 20 June 2012:
“LATEST DEVELOPMENTS WITH POLICE / CORRESPONDENCE WITH AUCKLAND DISTRICT COMMANDER SUPERINTENDENT MIKE CLEMENTS AND LISA PRAGER:
Has John Banks yet been questioned by Police over alleged electoral fraud? We still don’t know.
_____________________________________________________
Att: Police Commissioner:
Peter Marshall
New Zealand Police Force
Wellington
To:Mike Clement,
Superintendent
District Commander : Auckland City District
Dear Mike,
Thanks you for your email below, however this is exactly what Detective Inspector Mark Benefield, Field Crime Manager, Auckland City has been saying since my original complaint 27/4/2012.
As a complainant I feel that the Police a behaving in an in-genuine way. I feel that the gravity of this particular situation
is not being respected. If this was a burglary or murder investigation and I was able to provide details of a possible suspect, I do not believe that the Police would act with so little urgency.
Bribery, corruption and fraud is as serious an issue, especially as the implications of a vote by one of the individuals involved my lead to the disposal of MILLIONS of dollars worth of public assets.
Has John Banks been spoken to by Police? If not why not? This is what I want to know.
Still extremely concerned
Lisa Prager
Westmere
_____________________________________________________
From: “CLEMENT, Michael” <Michael.Clement@police.govt..nz>
Date: 20 June 2012 9:40:15 AM NZST
To: “l.pra@xtra.co.nz” <l.pra@xtra.co.nz>
Subject: Banks investigation
Ms Prager
Police are making good progress with this investigation but will not be detailing the investigative process through the media. We undertake to keep complainants appraised as appropriate in line with protocol.
We will be in touch as soon as we have reached a decision and likewise, public comment will be made as appropriate at that time.
Regards
Mike
Mike Clement
Superintendent
District Commander: Auckland City District
New Zealand Police | Auckland Central Police Station | Cnr Cook & Vincent Streets | Auckland
+ Private Bag 92 002 | DX CR51501 | Auckland | ( 09 302 6861 | Ext: 95861 | 7 09 375 4650 ”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
b) Complaints have been lodged with both the Police and Serious Fraud Office (SFO) alleging bribery and corruption against the Hon. John Banks, by both myself and above-mentioned ’community activist’, Lisa Prager:
“14 June 2012
Detective Inspector Mark Benefield
RE: File 120427/9334
‘Complaint under the Local Electoral Act 2001(LEA) in respect to the 2010 Mayoral Election and allegation of a false return made by the now Hon John BANKS in respect of his returns under section 109 LEA’.
As discussed, please can Police extend your investigation of John Banks for alleged electoral fraud to further include alleged ‘corruption and bribery of an official’ (s.105 Crimes Act 1961),
In light of recent correspondence from the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), this appears to be a more sensible course of action, given that information you must be obtaining as a result of your ongoing investigation into the John Banks electoral fraud allegations will be pertinent to the following ’corruption and bribery of an official’ (s.105 Crimes Act 1961) allegation, which was originally filed with the SFO on 3 May 2012.
(Correspondence with the SFO is included in the body of this email.)
NEW EVIDENCE:
John Banks was an ‘official’ in his capacity as Mayor of Auckland City Council (from 13 October 2007 to 9 October 2010), during the time that $50,000 was ‘donated’ by Kim Dotcom,
However, John Banks was also an ‘official’ from 28 January 1997, which was the date he was granted the title “The Honourable John Archibald BANKS, CNZM, QSO, MP in recognition of his services on the Executive Council.
This title is ‘for life’, therefore covers the time period that John Banks provided ’assistance’ to Kim DotCom?
(Or does ‘life’ not mean ‘life’?)
http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/honours/lists/hon
ROLL OF THE HONOURABLES
The Title The Honourable
Her Majesty The Queen has approved the use and grant of the title “The Honourable” in New Zealand (abbreviated to “The Hon”) for life, in recognition of their services as:
Member of the Executive Council
Judge of the High Court (including Judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal)
NAME SERVICE DATE GRANTED
The Honourable John Archibald BANKS, CNZM, QSO, MPExecutive Council28 January 1997
John Banks was also awarded the QSO (“The Queens Service Order”) in 2000.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/minister/biography/john-banks
“John was awarded the Companion of the Queen’s Service Order (QSO) for public service in the Year 2000 New Year’s Honours.”
http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/honours/overview/qso#The_Queens_Service_Medal
……………………
___________________________________________________________________________
This request for Police to cover this complaint arises from the reply received from Graham Gill, General Manager of Fraud Detection and Intelligence, dated 30 May 2012 which stated:
“Dear Ms Bright,
RE: C2390 – Complaint to the Serious Fraud Office
I refer to your complaint received by the Serious Fraud office (SFO) on 3 May 2012.
We have assessed your complaint and decided that there was insufficient evidence to support an allegation of a serious or complex fraud.
The Police are already investigating the circumstances surrounding Kim Dotcom’s donation to John Banks.
We have advised the police to contact us should they find any evidence that would be of interest to the SFO.
If you have any further information you would like to provide in relation to this matter please feel free to do so.”
The (updated) response from myself and Lisa Prager follows:
“(UPDATED)*OPEN LETTER / REQUEST TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE, ADAM FEELEY: 12 June 2012 RE: C2390 – COMPLAINT TO THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE PLEASE URGENTLY REVIEW YOUR DECISION WHICH HAS TREATED A ‘BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION’ COMPLAINT AS A ‘SERIOUS OR COMPLEX FRAUD’ COMPLAINT – WHICH IT IS NOT:
The reply received from Graham Gill, General Manager of Fraud Detection and Intelligence, dated 30 May 2012 stated:
Dear Ms Bright,
RE: C2390 – Complaint to the Serious Fraud Office
I refer to your complaint received by the Serious Fraud office (SFO) on 3 May 2012.
We have assessed your complaint and decided that there was insufficient evidence to support an allegation of a serious or complex fraud.
The Police are already investigating the circumstances surrounding Kim Dotcom’s donation to John Banks.
We have advised the police to contact us should they find any evidence that would be of interest to the SFO.
If you have any further information you would like to provide in relation to this matter please feel free to do so.”
Why has a complaint alleging BRIBERY and CORRUPTION has been treated as a complaint alleging SERIOUS or COMPLEX FRAUD.
With all due respect – do you people know what you’re doing?
Since 2010, the SFO has been purportedly the ‘lead agency’ to whom complaints alleging bribery and corruption are supposed to be forwarded.
This complaint has been made, in the proper way – to supposedly the proper body, and it appears to have been sent in the completely wrong direction.
According to your SFO ‘flow chart’ – the General Manager for Fraud and Corruption is Nick Paterson.
The recent phone call (Monday 11 June 2012) from Graham Gill, has now clarified why a complaint alleging ‘bribery and corruption’ was not directed to the General Manager of Fraud and Corruption, but – it still seems a rather peculiar process.
New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ (according to the 2011 Transparency International ‘Corruption Perception index’).
Is this one of the reasons why NZ has this ‘perceived’ status? Because allegations of bribery and corruption are simply not dealt with as such, as appears to have happened in this case?
Why is it that former Labour MP Taito Phillip Field got sentenced to SIX years jail for ‘bribery and corruption’, for providing ‘immigration advice’ to Thai nationals in exchange for work on his properties – whilst John Banks, the Minister of Regulatory Reform appears to be effectively getting political protection from NZ Prime Minister John Key, after John Banks has allegedly given ‘immigration assistance’ and Coatsville property purchase ‘assistance’ to a German/ Finnish national, in return for $50,000 donated to his 2010 Auckland Mayoral campaign fund, and gifts valued at over $500 which he failed to declare?
Are you aware that Kim Dotcom’s ‘John Bank’s song’ has had nearly 150,000 ‘hits’ on You Tube,
in my opinion, helping to make NZ an international laughing stock? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CvRSZxqk_I
It is also of great concern that ACT’s ‘one law for all’ has yet still to apply to either John Banks and/ or Don Brash, current and former Leaders of the ACT Party.
As former fellow directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, both signed Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009, which contained untrue statements, but were never charged for so doing. This is a strict liability offence under s58(3) of the Securities Act 1978, but neither the old Securities Commission, the Finance Markets Authority (FMA), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) , nor the NZ Police arguably ‘did their job’ and charged John Banks or Don Brash.
John Banks, is now the Minister of Regulatory Reform, yet four different ‘regulatory’ bodies failed to act against him , someone, who arguably couldn’t properly run a Kiwisaver Scheme, yet now has a key Ministerial post and is supposedly helping to run the country ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt in the world’
The public ‘perception’ is arguably that John Banks has been politically protected at the highest levels, because this minority National Government has only 59 out of 121 MPs, thus no mandate for assets sales. Because there is not a majority of National MPs, this minority National Government is dependent on the pivotal vote of John Banks – the ACT MP for Epsom.
The ‘perception’ is that this why NZ Prime Minister John Key is continuing to ‘defend the indefensible’ and still express ‘confidence’ in John Banks, although former National MPs, Richard Worth and Pansy Wong appear to have lost his confidence over a lot less.
The public ‘perception’ is that if you are a politician upon whose vote the Government is politically dependent, you are protected at the highest levels, and ‘one law for all’ does NOT apply to you?
Please ensure that this complaint is given to those in the SFO tasked with dealing with corruption, as a matter of extreme urgency, and please ensure that the Police are requested to act with similar haste. This Government is proceeding with extreme urgency to railroad through the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, and it would be a travesty of justice for this to occur on the pivotal vote of a yet-to-be-charged alleged ‘corrupt’ Minister of the Crown?
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright Anti-corruption campaigner’ Ph (xxxxx
Lisa Prager Ph (09) xxxxxx
( UPDATED* Lisa Prager’s name has been added with her consent, and grammatical changes have thus been made by Penny Bright to the letter hand-delivered to the SFO on Monday
11 June 2012. ) ”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Detective Inspector Mark Benefield, we look forward to your acknowledgment of receipt of this latest correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright Anti-corruption campaigner’
Ph (09) xxxxxxx xxxxxx
Lisa Prager Community Activist Ph (09) xxxxxx ”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
c) Since 29 February 2012, petition 2011/5, which I initiated, has been an ‘Item of Business’ before the Commerce Select Committee
“That the House conduct an urgent inquiry into the decisions regarding prosecutions relating to the Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009.”
On 21 June 2012 – I sent an ‘Open Letter’ to all members of the Commerce Select Committee and asked the following question…
21 June 2012
URGENT: To Members of the Commerce Select Committee.
RE: Petition of Penelope Mary Bright and 307 others
That the House conduct an urgent inquiry into the decisions regarding prosecutions relating to the Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009.
|
Petition number: |
2011/5 |
|
Presented by: |
Phil Twyford |
|
Date presented: |
29 February 2012 |
|
Referred to: |
Commerce Committee |
As the initiating petitioner – it is of considerable concern to myself, as an ’anti-corruption’ campaigner, to find that the Commerce Select Committee has yet to report back on this Petition 2011/5 which was presented to the House on 29 February 2012.
It is now 21 June 2012.
I am at a loss to understand why members of the Commerce Select Committee have yet resolved to uphold the principle of ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’ and conduct an urgent inquiry into why fellow former Directors Of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, Don Brash and John Banks were not prosecuted by any of the following’ regulatory bodies’ for signing the above-mentioned registered prospectuses which contained untrue statements.
It is a FACT that neither the former Securities Commission, the Finance Markets Authority (FMA), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) or the New Zealand Police have charged former Directors Of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, Don Brash and John Banks for signing the above-mentioned registered prospectuses which contained untrue statements.
Only fellow former Director of Of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, Peter Huljich, was ever charged.
s.58(3) of the Securities Act 1978 is a ‘strict liability’ offence.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1978/0103/latest/DLM29406.html
58 Criminal liability for misstatement in advertisement or registered prospectus
(3) Subject to subsection (4), where a registered prospectus that includes an untrue statement is distributed, every person who signed the prospectus, or on whose behalf the registered prospectus was signed for the purposes of section 41(1)(b), commits an offence.
If John Banks or Don Brash wanted to rely upon the defence provided in s.58(4) – in my considered opinion, they should have argued that in Court, after having first been CHARGED, but all the above-mentioned regulatory bodies to date appeared to have acted as ‘gatekeepers’ to effectively stop this happening?
(4)(4) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (3) if the person proves either that the statement was immaterial or that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe, and did, up to the time of the distribution of the prospectus, believe that the statement was true.
I am very concerned that the failure to even charge fellow former Directors Of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, Don Brash and John Banks, can be’ perceived’ as an arguably corrupt form of political protection, particularly given how politically reliant this National Government is on the vote of coalition partner John Banks, Leader of the ACT Party.
At this time, the Mixed Ownership Model Bill is being rushed through the House,dependent upon the pivotal vote of the Minister of Regulatory Reform, the Hon. John Banks, whom arguably couldn’t properly run a Kiwisaver Scheme?
Is it because the majority of members of the Commerce Select Committee are National Party MPs that no progress is apparently being made on this Petition 2011/5 as an ’Item of business’?
Because National, with only 59 out of 121 MPs, politically cannot afford to take any action which could potentially result in John Banks being forced to resign from Parliament?
Because – that is how I for one ‘perceive’ it.
| Commerce | Member | Bakshi, Kanwaljit Singh | National Party, List |
| Commerce | Deputy-Chairperson | Cosgrove, Clayton | Labour Party, List |
| Commerce | Member | Cunliffe, David | Labour Party, New Lynn |
| Commerce | Member | Curran, Clare | Labour Party, Dunedin South |
| Commerce | Member | Lotu-Iiga, Peseta Sam | National Party, Maungakiekie |
| Commerce | Member | Mathers, Mojo | Green Party, List |
| Commerce | Member | Mitchell, Mark | National Party, Rodney |
| Commerce | Member | Smith, Nick | National Party, Nelson |
| Commerce | Chairperson | Young, Jonathan | National Party, New Plymouth |
This matter is already in the public domain, and on the streets (particularly in the Epsom electorate) I have found there is increasing public interest.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-news/latest-edition/6556277/Petition-stalks-Banks-Brash
Also, further information on this matter, and other complaints about the Hon. John Banks are available for public perusal on www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com - for which I take full personal responsibility for content.
In my considered opinion, the lack of action to date on this matter (and other complaints against the Hon. John Banks) helps to prove why New Zealand needs to urgently ratify the UN Convention Against Corruption and establish a genuinely Independent Commission Against Corruption.
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
______________________________________________________________________________________________
d) The Cabinet Manual states the following regarding the ‘Conduct of Ministers’:
http://cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/2.50
Conduct of Ministers
2.52A Minister of the Crown, while holding a ministerial warrant, acts in a number of different capacities:
- in a ministerial capacity, making decisions, and determining and promoting policy within particular portfolios;
- in a political capacity as a member of Parliament, representing a constituency or particular community of interest;
- in a personal capacity.
2.53In all these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour. ”
However, the Hon. John Banks still apparently ‘has the confidence’ of the Prime Minister John Key.
Mr Key says he will not stand down Mr Banks as the ACT Party MP “has to enjoy my confidence”.
Why did former National Party Ministers Richard Worth and Pansy Wong resign from Parliament?
What ‘law’ did they break – what did they do to no longer ‘enjoy the confidence’ of the Prime Minister?
e) When it comes to leadership regarding ‘ethical’ behaviour, it must be noted that the actions of the Prime Minister are currently under investigation by the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG)
http://www.oag.govt.nz/media/2012/inquiry-med
“Inquiry into the Ministry of Economic Development’s expressions of interest process for proposals to establish an international convention centre
13 June 2012
The Deputy Auditor-General, Phillippa Smith,1 has decided to carry out an inquiry into the expressions of interest (EOI) process for proposals to establish an international convention centre. This document sets out the terms of reference for the inquiry.
Background
In 2010, the Ministry of Economic Development carried out an EOI process, on behalf of the Government, seeking proposals to build an international convention centre. On 12 June 2011, the Government announced that it was negotiating with SKYCITY Entertainment Group Limited, whose proposal had been selected as the best option. . ”
_________________________________________________________________________________________
It is also noted that although the Prime Minister stated that Labour Party MP Shane Jones should stand down whilst his actions were investigated by the OAG, he does not appear to be applying the same requirement to himself?
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/labour-standing-down-shane-jones-4898323
” Prime Minister John Key had been calling on Labour to stand down Jones, describing the case as “murky”. ”
f) Please be reminded that New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be the least corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International’s 2011 ‘Corruption Perception Index’. http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/
If New Zealand were truly worthy of this ‘perceived’ status – then surely we should arguably be the most ‘transparent’ country in the world?
Why is it that the ‘perception’ appears to be that if you are a politician upon whose vote legislation such as the Mixed Ownership Model Bill depends for its passage – that you are effectively ‘above the law’?
(FYI – as an attendee at the 2010 Transparency International Conference, as an ’transparency whistleblower’ distributed the following ‘New Zealand Corruption Reality Checklist’: (Attached).
Perhaps if New Zealand had ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption; had a truly Independent Commission Against Corruption, if MPs and Judges had enforceable ‘Codes of Conduct’; if it were a lawful requirement that only a binding vote of the public majority could determine whether public assets held at NZ central or local government could be sold or long-term leased via Public -Private-Partnerships (PPPs) – then we might be a little more deserving of this ‘perceived’ international status? )
g) Investment in the partial privatisation of essential State assets – particularly electricity assets – enabled through the granting of Royal Assent for the Mixed Ownership Model Bill – would arguably be UNETHICAL and SOCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE?
In my opinion, the following submission from CARITUS helps to outline some of these reasons?
“Who we are
Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand is the Catholic Bishops’ agency for justice, peace and development. We are working for a world free of poverty and injustice through community development, advocacy, education, and emergency relief.
- We provide community development and emergency relief overseas
- We educate and advocate on social justice issues to counter poverty and injustice in New Zealand and overseas
- Gospel values and Catholic social teaching underpin our work
- Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand has 14 staff based in Wellington and an Auckland Regional Coordinator
- We are part of Caritas Internationalis, an international confederation of 168 Catholic aid, development and social justice agencies
- The Caritas network operates in over 200 countries and territories, supporting the poorest and most vulnerable, regardless of ethnicity, religion or nationality
- We are the Catholic agency for justice, peace and development
- Caritas has reflected on the question of the partial privatization of State owned power companies in the light of Catholic social teaching on the common good, the protection of the poor and vulnerable members of society, the protection of the environment, and the principle of the universal destination of created goods.
- We recognise that Catholic social teaching does not prescribe specific public policy solutions. We also recognise that Catholic social teaching contains cautions both for people seeking to privatise and people seeking to nationalise industries and services which provide essential goods. It recognises both the value of the market and the limits to the market.
- Caritas does not favour the partial privatisation of the four State owned power companies. We believe continued state ownership is a better way:
- to ensure the provision of essential services, particularly for the most poor and vulnerable consumers;
- to improve our use of energy in the face of environmental destruction and climate change;
- to ensure that our commitments to the Treaty of Waitangi are met;
- to overcome or at least not worsen local and global inequalities; and
- to continue to have an adequate oversight of the behaviour of state institutions. “
Submission to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee on the Mixed Ownership Model Bill
Summary of key points
h) How can the ‘mums and dads’ who can’t afford to have their heaters on in winter, who are struggling to pay their power bills, going to be able to afford to invest in power companies, which at present, they already own, given the proven track record of power price rises since the ‘inefficient’ days of the Department of Electricity and local Power Boards ?
Is it not painfully obvious, that once the ‘competitive model’ is ‘introduced into a ‘natural monopoly’ such as electricity supply (which is also an essential public service’) - then there is a duplication of resources which results in higher power prices?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10811555
i) Treasury information which arguably proves that ‘extending the Mixed Ownership Model’ is fiscally irresponsible:
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2012/bps/bps12.pdf
“Extending the Mixed Ownership Model
……
Over the mixed ownership programme, the forecast finance cost savings exceed the forecast forgone dividends.
However, the forecast finance cost savings are less than the forecast forgone profits.
This is because State-owned enterprises are expected to act as profitable companies and therefore over time to earn an appropriate commercial rate of return that reflects the risk of owning such companies. In effect, the Crown is exchanging an expected stream of income for a (risk adjusted) equivalent amount of cash now. “
________________________________________________________________________________________________
How, therefore, will the passage of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, be working ‘for the good management of the affairs of New Zealand’?
In light of the above-mentioned reasons, I request that you, Governor-General, The Rt Hon Sir Jerry Mateparae, consider using your ‘reserve powers’ and refuse to grant ‘Royal Assent’ for the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, should it pass its Third Reading.
Yours sincerely,
Penny Bright
‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference Brisbane 2009
Attendee: Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference Bangkok 2010