Anticorruptionnz's Blog

27/08/2010

Questioning fraud gets higher penalty than those who are convicted of fraud

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 5:47 am

Open letter and Official information act request to  Mr Power and Mr Finlayson.

When Courts  give less rights  to, and are harsher on , those who question Fraud than they are on those who commit Fraud… how do we expect to  discourage Fraud?

In 2006  I asked questions of  Waitakere city council with regards to   a private law enforcement  authority of  which  was  operating  on council premises using  council staff , resources  assets and plant  and  collecting  donations which  went into a private bank account.

I had proved that this organisation did not exist as claimed and I asked questions of accountability to the public for what is defined in the united nations convention against  corruption  as a corrupt practice.  I was taken to court for defamation when all I had done was speak the truth and seek answers. This action was taken   to silence me and keep government agencies from investigating.. it has worked very well.

Rodney  Hyde   asked questions in parliament  and for this I was accused of continuing to defame ( when  there has never been proof that  I  defamed any  one – truth is never defamatory !  .

I was denied a defence and  the cost award of over $100,000 resulted in   excessive stress both  physical and financial which resulted in my marriage breaking down and my family being torn apart.

I reflect today on the penalty  I reflect today on the penalty  Roger McClay a convicted Fraudster  received . I have not committed a criminal offence and  asked the questions which the   public watchdogs failed to ask    and for that I have been penalised   more  than if I had been a  criminal.

Ironically  while I

  1. was denied a defence ,
  2. had no  formal proof hearing separate from the quantum hearing
  3. had my statutory admissible  evidence in mitigation used as  evidence of  further defamation
  4. Had judge trawling the internet for evidence
  5. Was   fined  but never found guilty of defamation   and the  statement of claim was never proved ,  never had any  evidence  presented  plaintiffs  who also avoided discovery.
  6. Was Arbitrarily found guilty  on the  uncorroborated evidence of the   plaintiff whose  fiction and spin  was accepted unquestioningly , the judge even making  excused for the plaintiff where there were  holes.

I took   my complaint to the police the serious fraud office but they were focused on writing the  complaint off despite the fact that  the  person involved

  1. Had a business plan to amalgamate  dog and stock control with Animal welfare work
  2. wrote the legislation to facilitate this plan  and wrote the provisions of approved organisations into the animal welfare act .
  3. As independent advisor to the select committee  and as Legal advisor to MAF   Provided guidance on the  bills which were read conjointly.( the bill which was to facilitate his business plan )
  4. Made a number of false statements as to the nature and existence of the organisation
  5. Made n application for approved status in the name of an organisation which did not exist beyond an undefined name being an impressive string of words being  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand.
  6. Failed to provide verification of the existence of the organisation to the minister of Agriculture when requested.
  7. Worked with a council manager ( his associate )  to mislead MAF as to the consents from  two councils
  8. Used council  staff “voluntarily” whilst they were  being  paid by council
  9. Used the councils  Logo to solicit  donations which were banked into an account only he controlled
  10. Became employed in  a situation described by the  certified fraud examiners associations as  occupational fraud   being “The use of one’s occupation for personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of the employing organization’s resources or assets.”
  11. Used charitable funds to pursue me through court  in a process where he would personally benefit from the outcome.
  12. Misled the court in his evidence to the point that I believe was perjury   but despite   volumes of documentation ( the originals being on file at MAF )    contradicting the   transcripts of   evidence given by the plaintiff , I am told that I have no corroboration.

What it boils down to is that the  level of proof  for criminal charges  has a very high threshold  but  on the other side court action can be taken without any evidence at all   and by people  who have no standing. There is no requirement of accountability to the truth or requirement of he who asserts to prove.

There appears to be an approach  that while you are before the court on civil  proceedings the  various  agencies will not act for fear of  providing you with an evidential edge. This also serves very well for the  other party   who   then uses this time to  cover up  the offending and in some cases  extend the time frame so that the offence is in a time bracket where it is no longer prosecutable thereby avoiding  conviction  .

As an example of how the court is used to beat up     and financially drain  persons one needs only to look at the  matter  involving  Fresh prepared Limited. Terry Hay and Lynne Pryor  , lawyer Peter Spring  of  Keenan Alexander.  Read judge Harrisons judgement.  They then went on to  repeat this  process with me  to conceal the fact that they had fabricated  a  director and Liquidator.

Lynne Pryor   has now been convicted and fined $18,000 . Hay is a fugitive from our laws ( 22 charges fabricating evidence ) , Peter Spring  appears to be  protected by the Law society which will not act on my complaint  and conveniently   did not send me the letter which  gave me  a time frame to  appeal  so that  this time frame had passed before I became aware of the situation.

I am a Former Police officer, a Private Investigator and a member of the certified fraud examiners association. I am a verification specialist and an anti fraud and corruption campaigner.

I Note  that we have simplified the prosecution of many offences, ironically those under the animal welfare act which this   now retrospectively formed ‘organisation” administers.  The offences are generally strict liability   requiring no Men’s Rae. Similar many of our traffic offences are also in this category  and a momentary slip is enough to  attract a fine.

Fraud on the other hand is undefined in our statutes and we rely upon the 1961 Crimes act to deal with such matters.

Britain has similar problems  and   in   THE LAW COMMISSION report  the Lord Chancellor subsequently is quoted at   ( 1.2.) “We recognise that, in recent years, the public has at times felt that those responsible for major crimes in the commercial sphere have managed to avoid justice. Even when fraud is detected, the present procedures are often cumbersome, and difficult to prosecute effectively.”

New Zealand  has similar issues  and Britain’s Fraud ACT 2006  would go a long way to addressing the issues we have here  details of the act is located  at this  link http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#a05

If we had a fraud act  similar to that of the UK  this man would have been  charged four years ago  with  three charges at least ,  which  are  created  in  section one of the act being

  • false representation (Section 2);
  • failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so (Section 3); and
  • abuse of position (Section 4)

My request for information  under the official information act is

Please provide copies of any research reports or investigations which have been conducted into the ever increasing incidence of   Fraud  ,

  1. its ability to be prosecuted ,
  2. the effect on its victims   and
  3. the  recommendations for  fraud prevention  on a national basis.
  4. Consideration for a fraud act
  5. The cost of fraud on society

Also  have any of the following been considered in any official research if so please provide the documentation.

  1. The number of Fraud victims who suffer depression and or commit suicide.
  2. Victim support for fraud victims.
  3. Consideration to  a  recognised definition   for fraud.
  4. Research into the use of the court to conceal corruption or to silence those who speak up .
  5. Research into depression and   suicide of persons  who  have  suffered financial loss due to fraud scams and  civil and or criminal court action against them.
  6. Efficiency of the  so called public watch dogs  .

With regards to  courts particularly the civil   jurisdiction

  1. What  reports and research exist on the requirement of the court to verify that  the evidence before it is factual
  2. What  reports and research exist on the requirement of the court to verify that  the plaintiffs  have standing.
  3. What research has been undertaken and what reports exist which show that case law and  process are of more significance that  the  rights to fair  hearing,  truth, facts and honesty.
  4. What  research and recommendation have been considered  to    make perjury  easier to prosecute  to ensure  accountability to the truth in   statutory declarations , affidavits and  sworn evidence

Fraud is a growth industry   is New Zealand wants to keep the perception of being least corrupt alive  it needs  to actively  punish fraud  and not allow its courts to  conceal  corrupt practices.

We are part of an international trend  we need to look overseas and see what is  happening.. copy cat  processes occur here and our laws  are not  able to cope with  these scenarios.

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815

mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. As Rodney’s representative I know well what Grace is talking about. There does appear to be something wrong with our legal system.

    However I now understand that at the very top the people who rule us take great pride in being legally correct in everything they do and they appear to achieve this by making sure that we are always in the wrong.

    As you will see from Section 29 of the Crimes Act 1961 (Irregular warrant or process), the offender is the party who acts on a defect (that is known or ought to be known to him) and as a result of this, the moving party who created the defect (be it accidental or deliberate) gains a position of moral high ground when the defending party argues the claims before sorting out the defect.

    This high ground appears to allow the moving party to bring charges (or false charges) unrelated to the above offence.

    Through becoming embroiled in defending the charges the defendant either overlooks the defect or loses sight of its importance and relevance to the outcome.

    Unfortunately for the defendant, Section 25 of the Crimes Act says: “Ignorance of law is no excuse”, and through this he ultimately loses.

    On the other hand, a moving party bringing charges under this method, particularly when the charges are false, indicates that it knew about the defect and through this the moving party would appear to be the first offender in the matter.

    This would surely mean that it was the moving party rather than the defendant who misled the Court.

    Was there not a time when Court Registrar’s complied with the rules and returned applications to the parties for ammendment (for heading pages to be the same) and is this not where a failure in our legal system is occurring? In the past 10 years has this not become a nation wide problem?

    rod (Rodney’s legal representative)

    Comment by rod — 29/08/2010 @ 6:28 am

  2. […] High   just don’t question it  except if you want your life destroyed. Questioning fraud gets higher penalty than those who are convicted of fraud […]

    Pingback by Transparency International again lists New Zealand as the least corrupt on the perception index. « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 27/10/2010 @ 5:55 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: