Archive for June 2013

We don’t have bribery in New Zealand – because we condone it

briberyI refer to the news paper story by Rob Stock  listed on the Verisure web site .   and  on the  SPCS  web site

The man involved  Terry Hay   is an American  who has lived in New Zealand a number of years and in my opinion  is  well versed at using  his money  to get him out of a fix and  getting what he wants .

there are background stories about him at this link

While he does not mind  causing depression in other peoples lives and  financially ruining those  who are less  fortunate than him it is quite a different  story when he has to face  criminal charges.   In this case there were a mere 22  offences  of Fraud. see them here hay charges.

I found that  He had offered the National enforcement unit $80,000 to drop the charges  but they had refused

I discovered that he  had returned to New Zealand   and the charges were dropped Terry Hay. because amongst other things the poor man, who had my life hell and had  cost me some $50,000,  was depressed.

I had been to a conference where Nick Patterson of the SFO spoke about facilitation fees and how this was a bribe.

I took the matter to the SFO and have   had a response from them   view letter SFO HAY

I have responded as follows

Thank you Steve

 I guess this is why we do not  have   bribery in new Zealand    we condone it.

 bribe is defined  in the crimes act “ bribe means any money, valuable consideration, office, or employment, or any benefit, whether direct or indirect”

 “official means any person in the service of Her Majesty in right of New Zealand (whether that service is honorary or not, and whether it is within or outside New Zealand), or any member or employee of any local authority or public body, or any person employed in the education service within the meaning of the State Sector Act 1988.”

 In the context of section 105 crimes act

105 Corruption and bribery of official

  • (1) Every official is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, whether within New Zealand or elsewhere, corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for himself or any other person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted, by him in his official capacity.

(2) Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who corruptly gives or offers or agrees to give any bribe to any person with intent to influence any official in respect of any act or omission by him in his official capacity.

As a former  Police prosecutor it appears to me   that Mr Hay though his lawyer   offered a bribe to the national  enforcement unit after having been a fugitive from New Zealand law for many years knowing that a warrant was out for his arrest   that to me is one offence of offering a bribe..   or does  a bribe done through a lawyer become legitimate some how?

   How is that different  to   the example given on

 Offering a customs officer a payment for approving the import of a product produced by your company.- a fast track facilitation fee ? 

 I was at the   fraud conference a few weeks ago and heard Nick Paterson talk about corruption

So straight  on from that   I find that the SFO     speaks  but empty  and meaningless words.

There are many  directors and persons   currently in jail   for fraud..  If they had paid  the SFO  or whichever prosecution agency for   the cost of investigation  they  too presumably  could have had the charges dropped.

 So what is the  criteria  for  buying your way out of having the charges dropped.  By way of OIA please advise  why one  person  would qualify and another would not  and what influences  this decision and how are the  costs calculated   .

Could you also please advise by way of OIA  how the ingredients  of 105 (2)  crimes act are not  fulfilled …  I would think that  it would set  good case law to define  corrupt

 I could not find a definition for corrupt in  the crimes act and   therefore revert to the dictionary meaning  “-Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain”

Dishonest  is   defined as  “Intended to mislead or cheat “

 In this instance we have a man  who has been charged with 22 offences of fraud.  His  co offender has  been sentenced  and   due to her guilty plea the  case against him is  already as much as proved.

For this reason he has   stayed out of the country   and lived in Honolulu . 

 He knows his option is to front the judge  but  he knows that  this  will result in a criminal conviction.  He still has the same options available to  him as  any other person  and that is to  seek a discharge without conviction,  but because of his co offenders penalty he also knows that this will not be an option.

 He makes an offer to the NEU   and was rejected  he then  made an offer to crown law.

   Do we know  if money was offered  to crown law ?  do we know that  the money went into a specific account?  if  so  please enlighten me by way of OIA  to the process which  kicks in when money is paid to prosecuting authorities  such as    say the SFO ?

 Also By  way of OIA please advise  What provision in law is there for  someone to  pay for the cost of prosecution to prevent an appearance before  the court.  In this instance we know  that a conviction  was a fore gone conclusion as the co offender had  entered a plea of  guilty .

 And if cost cutting is an objective   why has some  one not considered  not doing any investigations at all?

 Mr Hay  knew what his fate would  be  his only option was  to  cheat  and do a deal  before it goes to court.

 Section 105

Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who corruptly- proved

 gives or offers or agrees to give any bribe to any person Proved  ( the person being  Brian Hickey  crown solicitor  )

with intent to influence – proved   he  wanted the charges withdrawn

any official in respect of any act or omission by him in his official capacity-  the  withdrawal of the charges   proved.

 I have great difficulty in rationalising  that this man was able to pay $80,000   to get  22 serious fraud offences dropped.

 I personally have paid out  somewhere about $300,000  because I questioned   why someone could write legislation for their own business plan and then use it to set up a fictional  body which became  a law enforcement authority and then ran it from public resources for private pecuniary gain .

 It is unbelievable  that  things such as this  are left un  addressed in this purportedly the least corrupt country in the world  , that  could be  why I  am  getting a visit  from a Chinese delegation to   see the reality of  corruption in New Zealand .. I will make sure this is used as an example.

 I note that  the  SFO is a member of transparency International.. the government  department is a member of  a so called watch dog on corruption

 As a further OIA  please advise  how much the SFO has contributed to the national integrity survey  which is being   conducted by transparency international  and advise how much per annum your membership fees are. And what conflict of interest has been considered in the SFO becoming a member of a society which  gives a false clean  image on corruption in new Zealand.  

 I will be posting this on      and I will be alerting he world  as to how soft NZ  is on bribery and actively conceals corruption and bribery. 

 We  only look the best because we cheat.

 I look forward to the OIA response.

I just have to  wonder  how this Terry hay incident   is not a facilitation fee aka Bribe    and how we can  on one side  question  why New Zealand   does not  have bribery   and on the other  we see the very same people  turning a blind eye to it.. I would love to know what their definition of bribery is.

In the mean time   we remain the lest corrupt  because    we don’t have bribery in new Zealand

and this is not a red  dot red  dot