Archive for June 2013
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 http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/b/publication/bribery-and-corruption-saying-no
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 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10883495
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.
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 Transparency.net.nz 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