Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill
Submission By Grace Haden Licenced Private Investigator
I am a Licenced private investigator and member of the certified fraud examiners association , I am a former Police sergeant ( NZ police ) as well as general investigations I work in the identify fraud prevention area, I am a verification specialist. I am director of a new company Transparency New Zealand which aims to make New Zealand more transparent accountable to the truth and above all encourage ratification of the united nations convention against corruption .
In the course of my work I have come across several matters of concern which touch on the issue of fair trading act and charities and I believe should be rightfully considered when reviewing this legislation .
In 2003 New Zealand signed the United nations convention against corruption but the principals in the convention have not been ratified by law. By ignoring the spirit of the convention we are stepping further from ratification rather than closer to it. In particular in the Legislative guide for the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption it mentions (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/legislative-guide.html)
5. The Convention requires States parties to introduce effective policies aimed at the prevention of corruption.
6. The Convention goes on to require the State parties to introduce criminal and other offences to cover a wide range of acts of corruption, to the extent these are not already defined as such under domestic law.
It is therefore important while considering the changes to the fair trading act and the charities acts for all aspects and not just for third party collection agencies.
While there are professional collecting agencies which take a majority of the takings there are also charities who obtain funds from the public and are used to exclusively fund the corporate wages to the executive members or use the funds which will indirectly provide a return for themselves or are siphoned off elsewhere.
While the bill considers third party collectors it does not go far enough to eliminate unfair practices between competing charities and provides no protection to the public as to the identity and legal existence of the charities themselves let alone those collecting for it.
There is no consideration given to the ability for “ charities” to launder money and while the charities commission sets out and claims to give transparency, it falls short of the mark , and the should be no way that such registrations could slip by. There is a very large assumption that any charity which is set up is set up for legitimate and credible means.
I have voiced my concerns with the charity commission and it appears that here is more emphasis on the applications having all the boxes ticked than on the reality which exists behind the paper work.
There is also no apparent provision which holds any one accountable to false statements and false claims when applying for charitable status, the requirement of statutory declarations would easily overcome this issue.
As a private investigator I am aware that you cannot foresee every possibility which may lead to a corrupt practice , but I do believe that when you are aware of instances where the acts have been misused you are in a more powerful place to see how the legislation either does not work or is abused.
Charities like everything else in New Zealand have become a business , they are no longer voluntary organizations which provide a service and requested funds for survival, the focus for many has shifted from service to revenue collecting, and a means of supplying corporate wages for those who control the charity and an alternative way of obtaining employment by creative means.
No matter what is done to close the loop hole for third party collectors a creative alternative will be found , one that I can immediately identify is that it will be simple for collectors to set up with a credible name and become a charity themselves , there by paying their own costs and then passing the balance on to the charitable purpose.
I will illustrate my submission using documents and examples to support my assertions
Issue one The inefficiency and lack of transparency of the charities register
Example : The Roundtable On Violence Against Women Trust
This alleged trust is a charity, it has registration number CC38365
- It has a unsigned trust deed
- There are no officers listed or identifiable
- The trust is not registered under any act therefore the name is not a legal name it is a trading name which one or more person uses – that person/persons cannot be identified.
- Even its web site does not give a clue to who the members are.
Where is the transparency?
- How much money is coming in,
- who is receiving it, is it all being declared-
- Who are the trustees ,
- Why bother about third parties collecting when the Charities themselves have no transparency and therefore no accountability?
In this case the lady whose name does show in the data base is Alana Bowman , I contacted her by phone ( regarding an unrelated matter ) and she admitted to being a labour party member, she was residing at the address given for the charity but that is all the information we have. It was by having her name that I could find the trust, however By having the trusts name you cannot identify her .
Before anything can be fixed with regards to third parties the charities act requires amendment to make those applying for charitable status accountable to the truth.If this is not done then a third party collector could set themselves up in a “credible sounding name” collect funds than pass it to another charity after “administration” costs have been deducted.
I suggest that the Charities Act is amended to require
- A signed and verified copy of the trust deed, supported with a statutory declaration signed by a trustee that is a true copy.
- A leaflet setting out the legal obligations and responsibilities of trustees of charities needs to be published by the Charities commission.
- Each trustee must individually, through a statutory declaration , accept these terms and conditions and confirm having read them and willing to comply with them .
- They must also provide their full name , date of birth and address, these particulars are no more than what are required to be provided for registration on the personal property securities register.
- i. If the personal property security register can show these details for obtaining private funds why should the standard for obtaining public revenue be any less.
- ii. With regards to name it has to be remembered that simple name like Jennifer Smith does not identify the person consenting, Names are not unique, addresses change , to confirm ID we require three points of reference. If an Identity cannot be confirmed then there cannot be accountability
- There must be independent verification that this person exists, this can be done when swearing the document where it should be mandatory that a person provides Identification before swearing a document rather than saying that is who they are.
- Provision could be made on a standard statutory application form where by the JP or person swearing the document confirms the nature f the identification provided.
- i. Ironically banks require more information for persons to go on a trusts bank account than the charities commission requires for the ability to obtain public funds.
Issue 2 Litigation using charitable funds to conceal corruption
Although we provide a somewhat limited transparency it is dangerous for anyone to question corrupt practices as to do so can lead to litigation where a bottomless pit of charitable funds is used to silence those raising questions which could expose corrupt practices.
We are apparently so determined to keep New Zealand’s least corrupt perception alive that we offer no support to anyone who says.. Excuse me is that not wrong?
Currently we have no legislation or protection for those who ask questions about corruption or corrupt practices.
Example : The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand- there is profit in animals
In 2006 I questioned the existence of a RSPCA like “organization “which claimed to be a charity and had wide sweeping law enforcement powers.
For asking questions regarding conflict of interest and what I saw as corrupt practices as defined by the UN ,I was sued using funds which were raised from the public and later claimed to be charitable.
The UN convention, which we signed in 2003 provides protection and support for those who question corruption in good faith. But without support of legislation it doesn’t matter how much transparency we get no one will dare question anything if they hear my story.
Articles 32-35 of the convention provides protection for persons such as myself who without that protection would be subjected to what I have suffered.
It is ironic that of 164 countries which signed the convention, only 17 have not ratified the convention and that one of those 17 is despite this the least corrupt.
Of the top 10 least corrupt countries New Zealand is the only one which signed the convention and failed to ratify it.
That would not matter if we protected those who question corruption but I can testily that those who question corruption are dealt to more harshly than any criminal. By preventing corruption form being exposed we maintain the pretence and in my mind makes us the most corrupt of all. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/index.html
Questioning corruption has cost me Over $100,000 in lawyers fees defending myself from false claims , I have a further $150,000 to pay if my appeal is rejected, It has cost me my marriage and further lawyers fees associated with that. My family has been torn apart, my business destroyed and my life taken over by fighting this gross unbelievable injustice, and I am not alone, others too have been trampled in to the dirt by keeping up pretences of our “ corruption free “ status.
If there is to be a register to provide transparency, then there should be facilities for accountability and accountability is attained when persons who use this transparency ask questions about things which they can see don’t stack up.
Those who ask questions so that the public can raise concerns about discrepancies that they may become aware of then there has to be a way for this to be done safely and without having their lives devastated.
- In 1999 an application was made to the minister of Agriculture for AWINZ to become an approved organisation under the Animal welfare ACT ( S121) the application claimed that the trust existed by trust deed and was in the process of being registered under the charitable trust Act 1957
- AWINZ was like a SPCA, it delegates authority from the crown to animal welfare officers who have wide sweeping law enforcement powers.
- The new Act came into effect in 1999, the No 1 bill had been written by Neil Wells, Barrister, who made the application on behalf of a non existent trust and had introduced into the bill the ability for applications for “ approved organisations’
- He was also employed as an “ independent “ advisor to the select committee which saw the act which was passed into law facilitate his private business concept
- AWINZ called itself a charity but in 2006 no evidence of a trust deed, incorporation or charitable status could be found. I was asked to locate and find accountability of AWINZ following the unlawful seizure and Euthanasia of a cat by an AWINZ inspector.
- Being unable to locate the organisation and having exhausted our official information act and LGOIMA request , we formed another trust called Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand which was incorporated under the charitable trust act Number 1809454, 27-APR-2006 this trust obtained donee status through IRD.
- It was proved through both these actions that no other legal person existed by that name or had charitable status.
- In early June 2006 I received intimidating phone calls from one Vivienne Wright, the purpose of the intimidation was to force us to give up the incorporated name which was now drawing attention to the fact that the “ institute “ in Waitakere city ws not a legal person and had no identifiable identity.
- Later that month Nick Wright , barrister of Brookfield’s backed up his wife’s intimidating phone calls with lawyers demand and offered as proof of AWINZ existence an unverified signed trust deed dated 1.3.2000 .
- Despite writing to the trustees and making ourselves available for out of court resolution, we were denied the opportunity and we were taken to court on allegations of passing off, breach of fair trade and for defamation .-The defamation amongst other things for stating that the application in November 1999 was false because AWINZ neither had a trust deed nor was incorporated. These are facts.
- I phoned the persons named on the trust deed and was later to be accused of harassment because I had asked if they were trustees, these persons purportedly immediately resigned. I was however told that these persons never attended a meeting and some denied ever having signed a trust deed.
- These persons have now retreated behind lawyers.
- A new chair person came to our attention , she was not one of the trustees listed on the trust deed this Former Mayor , Labour party member Wyn Hoadley made her claim to being involved in the trust though a fundraising Flyer which went out to all dog owners in Waitakere city council .
- The only other bit of “ evidence was a document filed a year later with the charities commission by Mr Wells claiming that she was a trustee from 3/05/2006, there was no evidence of her being a trustee by any legally binding means.
- I contacted Wyn Hoadley and asked her if the matter could be resolved trust to trust by all trustees meeting with view of resolution, her reply was simple.. “ I am not a messenger “
- When the court documents were filed, it was not in the name of the trustees on the trust deed dated 1.3.2000 but of three people who together had no trust deed or proof of being a trust and therefore could not have been a charitable trust as they claimed.
- The legal action occurred simultaneously with Ms Hoadleys fundraising flyer being sent out .
- It should be noted that the logo adopted for the flyer and used by the so called Institute was deceptively similar to that used by the council animal welfare services where Mr Wells is the manager of the division which deals with dog and stock control
- This money was paid into an account which was with the national bank in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand, only one person operated this account and there were no trust deeds associated with it. Mr Wells was the person who operated the account.
- Within a month of sending out a flyer for fundraising the Brookfield’s lawyers invoices made out to the trading name AWINZ commenced (total some $99,000) and were specifically for suing me for questioned the existence of AWINZ Their intent was to obtain the name and to silence me.. beat me into submission.
- Mr Wells was to get a cost award specifically for personal gain of some $57,000 for alleged defamation which was never proved and I was prevented from defending with truth.. the chronology says it all it is as follows
- His lawyer Nick Wright of Brookfield’s achieved this victory by repeatedly misleading the court , withholding evidence form the court and manipulating the system so that my defence of truth and honest opinion were struck out.
- In August 2006, after litigation had begun another “ trustee” was to join again without any proof of being bound By a deed , this person was Tom Didovich the former manager of animal welfare Waitakere city ,who had worked on the project alongside Mr Wells in the years leading up wot the legislation being passed.
- He was also the person who had collected and witnessed the signatures of the trustees on the 1.3.2000 deed.
- He was also employed by the RNZSPCA as national education and branch support manager
- It is only in December 2006 , 6 months after litigation commenced that a new deed was signed , the deed was amended to change the purpose so that it could qualify for the Charity commission. Charitable status was obtained on 28/09/2007 ( 14 months after litigation began)
- This charitable trust shows through its Financial statements filed on line ,that funds were used for legal action against me.
- The chronology of events is as follows
|3/05/2006||awinz.co.nz web site set up by incorporated trust stating they were not the same as the trust in Waitakere|
|10/05/2006||Wyn Hoadley allegedly becomes a trustee of unincorporated AWINZ there is no trust deed or proof of any kind|
|request for public funds by Wyn Hoadley as ” chair of AWINZ “|
|30/06/2006||Brookfield’s invoice 201163||2818.35|
statement of claim
Legal action was taken by persons other than those shown on the only trust deed which existed dated 1/3/2000
|14/08/2006||Didovich becomes a trustee|
|5/12/2006||trust deed signed|
|28/09/2007||The trust formed by trust deed 5/12/06 becomes a charity|
|Note all invoices are made out to|
|invoice made out to AWINZ|
- It needs to be noted that the invoices to 30 June 2008 on the financial statements total $91, 968.81 this is not reflected in the financial statements .
- A lot of confusion exists with regards to trusts, thanks to this litigation I have become some what of an expert in this field, and I know that only incorporated trust have perpetual existence, but trustees still need to be shown on and off the trust through a paper trail.
- Unincorporated trusts are an agreement between the parties to the deed. If the name does not appear on the deed or an amended or supplemental deed they cannot claim to be a trustee.
- There are only two trust deeds , and the plaintiffs who took legal action were not bound by a deed and were therefore not one and the same as the group on the first deed or the group on the second deed which have claimed the charitable funds and the payments which are not theirs.
- The confusion arises through the use of a trade name for various trusts as if it is one and the same. If the legal name was used in each instance that confusion would be eliminated.
- As a result of litigation and the inability of the incorporated AWINZ to have access to public funds like the unincorporated trust did, they were put out of business. In the end survival comes to who can raise the most money and invariably the honest will lose.
- The incorporated trust changed their name, under duress , to animal owner support trust, they were to have supported people who could not afford treatment for their animals
- Mr Wells prosecutes and obtains revenue (purportedly for AWINZ) from people he charges for not being able to afford the vet bills, the charges arise after an interaction with the council staff who he supervises.
- i. I can supply the information’s for these showing Wells appearing in court wearing his barristers hat and obtaining remuneration for the bank account which he had sole control over in 2006.
- It was therefore in the financial interest of Mr Wells “AWINZ “to put a trust such as animal owners support trust out of business, for when people cannot afford vet bill they are better targets for animal welfare offences.
- One of the claims in the statement of claim was breach of fair trading act But the incorporated trust existed 27/04/2006 so how could Wyn Hoadley bring a claim of Passing off and breach of fair trade when
- the date she allegedly became a trustee was after the other trust had formed
- There was no proof of being a trustee.
- Of greater public concern is that she as Chairwoman of a non charitable trust solicited for funds and although the flyer makes no claims to the trust being charitable , those who rang council were told that the donations were tax deductible and the web site www.Awinz.org.nz states on the about us page “The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was formed as a charitable trust in 1999.”
- In 2008 Neil Wells writes to the Mayor Bob Harvey and asks for his endorsement for the next fund raising drive He claims that it raises abut $5,000 per year. Yet the 2006 and 2007 figures in the Financial statements filed do not reflect that and show a substantially lower figure
- Charities registered with the charities commission should be open to review and auditing.
- Funds can only be used for the charitable purpose and penalties should be there for abuse.
- As with many of New Zealand’s so called watch dogs they appear to be run by people who have little or no understanding of the law and are easily duped by a barrister or persons who are seen to be persons of high profile and are therefore perceived to be trust worthy.- No one should be taken for their word and lawyers and accountants should be used to audit those about whom questions are raised.
- I have complained a number of times about the manner AWINZ is being operated but I may be more constructive in hitting my head against a brick wall.
Issue 3 transfer of funds between charities
Transfers between charities could easily occur and could be a way for third parties to circumvent legislation by setting up as a charity . The definition of third party needs to be clearly defined.
- On 15 May 2000 the Waikato SPCA trust was established . This trust had a corporate trustee being the RNZSPCA Waikato. The other trustees were Garrick , Dalton Shepherd and Wells .
- Land belonging to the RNZSPCA was sold and as a result $400,000 was transferred from the RNZSPCA into the trust. ( this is verifiable through public records )
- 12 may 2003 the trust amends the trust deed and drops off the corporate trustee .
- IN 2005 it applies for incorporation to become an entity in its own right retaining the $400,000 and then becomes a charity .
A similar transfer of funds occurs with the 2000 AWINZ unincorporated trust and BEAUTY WITH COMPASSION INCORPORATED
- BEAUTY WITH COMPASSION had a trust called the lord Dowding fund. In 2005 Neil Wells writes to the secretary of the trust which wound up on 6th September 2000 and asks for the funds to be transferred to AWINZ , and so in excess of $100,000 are made over to him into the account which at that time only he had access to .
- Transfers of money between trusts should be limited to the same extent as private individuals gifting to a trust, the sum being $27,000 ( or what ever it is ) per annum and sums over that amount being subject to a gift duty.
Issue 4 Registration of trustees of trusts
As previously mentioned unincorporated trusts consist of people who come together for a common purpose and intent which is expressed and agreed to in a deed. If these person owned property it could not be held in the name of the trust but is registered in the name of the individual trustees who comprise the trust. Similarly shares cannot not be held in the name of an unincorporated trust and again are held by legal or natural persons.
The charities act contains a fundamental flaw in law in section 6 where it allows registration in the name nominated by the trustees , this name is not a legal name .
And then in section 2 goes on to say
2) The registration of the trustees of a trust as a charitable entity is not affected by—
- (a) 1 or more of the trustees ceasing to be a trustee of the trust; or
- (b) the appointment of new trustees of the trust.
This statement leaves it open to an unincorporated trust to bring any one on board without signing a deed , it Fails to recognize the difference between incorporated trusts and unincorporated trusts and does not consider the fact that Unincorporated trusts do not have perpetual existence and when trustees leave and new trustees come on board there needs to be a new deed usually being a deed of variation of deed which explain, records and brings about the changes.
Example : referring to the AWINZ 1/3/ 2000 deed , if that trust had been registered under the charities act and as there is no record of Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap resigning they could equally have claimed to be the charity and had two others join them.
Mr. Wells and Mr. Coutts did just that they brought Wyn Hoadley and Tom Didovich on board , changed the trust purpose singed a new deed in December 2005 and claimed to be the same trust, when It is not.
While section 6 (2) can hold true to incorporated trusts or societies it cannot be true of unincorporated trusts as persons not shown on a trust deed have no accountability to the deed.
It is therefore essential that all applications are done by the individual trustee through a statutory declaration ( making a false statement is a criminal offence section 110 False oaths crimes act 1961)
Issue 5 Legal name
The charities commission web site is misleading , on the site the line identifying the charity states
Legal name of the charity
The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand
- This should be a legal name, trading names are not legal names. As in the case of animal welfare institute of New Zealand the legal name would be the name which appears on court documents.
- The charities commission is therefore facilitating a breach of the fair trading act where by it is allowing a trading name to be represented as a legal name.
- There is no register of trading names and by law any one in new Zealand can call themselves anything but when it comes to accountability it is the legal name which has to be known as opposed to the assumed, adopted and trading names -yet the charities commission allows trading names to be registered as if they are legal names.
- To sue a trading name , adopted name or an assumed name you must first identify what the real name is, if there is no transparency in that there is no accountability to the law as the legal persons representing what the charities commission calls entity cannot be identified. E.g how would you sue The Roundtable On Violence Against Women Trust? You would have as much success as suing “a tea pot”, for both are just names with no accountability .
- A true test of an Entity is would you give a loan to a group of unidentified persons. If they failed to pay how would you get your money back?
- In the case of the animal welfare institute of new Zealand the legal name is the one in which they can sue and be sued which is Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley, Tom Didovich and Graeme Coutts as trustees in the animal Welfare institute of New Zealand.
- By allowing the use of trading names to be labelled as legal names can lead to instances of identity fraud and open a raft of traps to people who are already very confused as to the status of trusts.
- Only the legal name, being the one in which the organisation is legally accountable in is to be used for registration.
- Penalties should be in place for those who use anything other than the legal name.
- This provision would also prevent the type or registration as seen in my first example.
Issue 6 Loss of officers
It has also come to my notice that a number of incorporated societies which are charitable do not have any more than one officer listed. It needs to be of public concern when only one person operates such a trust or society an example of this is
- The Waiheke Island Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
- Kaitaia and Districts Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
- Hawkes Bay Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
- The Hokitika Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
- The Central King Country Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
- The Horowhenua Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
- The Gisborne SPCA Inc
All of the above have only one officer it is the same officer in each instance , when there is only one person on an incorporated society there is no transparency or accountability
In my investigations I have uncovered other charitable bodies such as the Hibiscus Coast Youth Council Incorporated which had self funded manager who used the charitable funds for her wages which were in the vicinity of $60,000 per annum, she also drove a $40,000 vehicle belonging to the trust and sacked the three members on the executive and recruited new executive at will.
Funding was obtained simply by ticking the right boxes and providing he illusion that services were being performed.
Again when I questioned this I was attacked for those who had provided the government funding did not wish to show their neglect in not assuring accountability.
An incorporated trust which I have identified as existing without trustees is the New Zealand fund for humane research . All the trustees except one believe that this trust has been wound up , Mr Wells still claims to be a trustee of this trust. It is not registered as a charity but effectively if one person as in the instance of AWINZ can apply on behalf of others for it to become one then the is nothing to prevent defunct trusts from being registered as charities.
Continually I have people phone me and tell me that the incorporated society to which tey belong is wishing to become a trust , rules need to be set in place where incorporated societies are liquidated or have funds transferred so that few can have greater control and provide less transparency.
- All wages paid by a charity should be listed to show who they were paid to, those who are paid from the public purse need to be accountable to it.
- Societies have to have a minimum number to exist , if they fall below their 15 members they should be wound up .
- Society annual meeting minutes as well as the annual return should be visible including who the members are.
- The charities commission should work closely with the charitable trust register and vice versa.
Issue 7 listing of officers on the charities web site .
A gain the Waikato SPCA had until recently a large number of trustees shown, the number was in excess of the number allowed by the deed. It was expressed to me by those involves with Questioning the loss of the $400,000 that this was a deliberate move so that no one would know who the trustees were at any given time.
This has apparently bee resolved but it does show a need for the minutes of meeting to be sent in as proof as to election of officers and changes of officers.
- Penalties need to be imposed for those organisations which fail to keep the register up to date and for those who file false returns.
Issue 8 Lack of verification as to the existence of officers.
- To identify a person you need a name , address and a date of birth, i.e. three points of reference.
- The charities act provides only for a name for a trustee to be put forward, there is not even a requirement for a person to do it personally and it can be done on behalf of some one. Therefore there is not even a signature on file for those who are replacement trustees in incorporated trusts/ societies.
- Neil Wells made an application on behalf of his fellow trustees for the trust to become charitable. ( as shown by the documents on this file )
- Because the trust is unincorporated and only has a legal identity through the trustees comprising it there should have been consent from each trustee agreeing that the application for charitable status was being made.
- Mr Wells completed the application forms for each person, in this case I know them to be real people but the reality is that they could in other circumstances be entirely fictitious and there is therefore no provision to confirm that they actually knew that the organisation had become charitable or had consented to it.
- If the trustees were to have more common names like Mary Jones, David Green you would not have any basis for identifying the trustees.
- Even in the trust deed there is more information available about the witness than the actual trustee.
- A signature and a written name does give enough accountability as people who cannot be found have no accountability, there is even less accountability for fictional characters.
- Trustees have accountability to a charity, and the public therefore there has to be direct consent from each person to show that they consent to being part of a charity and know their responsibilities.
- Full details of trustees should be available as provided by the personal property register, If one register can provide full names addresses and date of birth why is another register limited.
In summing up
I have written to the charities commission with my concerns and wish to comment on their reply
- 1. Each of the applications for registration provided to the Commission is scrutinised individually to ensure that the applicant meets the criteria set out in the Charities Act,
While the commission scrutinizes each application there is no accountability to the truth and any astute person can fill in the application so that it meets the criteria on paper. More needs to be done to ensure that the charity is not a fiction. I would like to suggest an investigations branch for the charities commission which has its own ability to prosecute and enforce criminal penalties for misuse of public money.
- 2. A registered charity must also notify the Commission if it changes its name, address for service, balance date, rules, purposes, or officers (including new appointments). This information is published on each charity’s page on the Register.
As in the case of the Waikato SPCA there was an excessive number of people shown on the register , there needs to be a penalty element for not informing and keeping the register up to date, people have to be accountable to transparency.
Whist I agree that third party collectors need to be accountable to the fair trading act, so should charities themselves and to allow the use of trading names as if they were legal names is deceptive .
Summary of Suggestions
- The definition of entity needs to be amended to being the name of the legal person , body corporate
- The legal name for unincorporated bodies need to be used being the name which would appear on court documents or a loan application.
- A statutory declaration needs to be completed by each trustee or officer giving their name address date of birth and stating that they are an office holder , giving the dates from which they were elected etc and stating that they have read and accepted the terms and conditions of becoming an officer of a charitable trust.
- The bank statements showing the legal name of the charity need to be provided, financials are easily doctored and these too need to be filed subject to a statutory declaration .
- When charitable funds are transferred there needs to be a limit anything outside that limit should be questioned and be subject to gift duty.
- Spot checks and high penalties should be a reality to ensure that those running trusts do not abuse the process.
- Unincorporated trusts should be identifiable as such
- There needs to be a minimum number of trustees or officers for a charity.
- Accounts need to have spot check by forensic accountants, the sum allowed for payment of wages should be a set proportion of the funds raised .
I would like to make submissions in person .
Licenced Private Investigator.