Archive for October 2014
Submissions to Auckland Council
Delegation, calculation of penalties and applying penalties to Rates A dogs Breakfast
By Grace Haden
I ask for these notes and the attachments to be appended to the minutes.
I have been assisting Penny Bright in making sense of her rates demand, this has given me cause to look at the processes involved and the manner in which the penalty regime has been approached. In doing so I have noted a number of issues which require resolution.
Delegation
Serious issues arise with the delegation of the powers under the Rating act
The annual plan in 2013 & 14 both state
Delegation of decision-making
Decisions relating to applying the rates under the rates related policies will be made by council officers.
The legislation Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 however states
132 Delegation
(1) A local authority may delegate the exercise of functions, powers, or duties conferred by this Act on the local authority to—
(a) its chief executive officer; or
(b) any other specified officer of the local authority.
(2) A local authority must not delegate—
(a) the power to delegate; or
(b) a function, power, or duty conferred by subpart 2 of Part 1 or subpart 1 of Part 5.
The question therefore is who ultimately has the delegated powers and who can lawfully make decisions with regards to the rates and consequently the penalty regime.
It is important to resolve the matter of delegation before we consider whether or not rating polices are legal
Applying penalties to Rates
The sequence of events is also crucial
1. The person who holds the delegated powers or powers has to be identified.
a. I have been unsuccessful in getting this information Mr Town responded this morning Rates and their setting is not delegated but is adopted by the Governing Body as required by law. Therefore no staff member has this delegation. However, delegations for different parts of the implementation of the rating system rest with different staff members depending on what is required.
b. It appears to me that what we have in the annual report and what is required by law is not expressed clearly also the act makes it clear that responsibilities can be delegated to A specified officer not “different staff members depending on what is required”
2. A resolution must be made to authorise penalties to be added to rates no later than the date when the local authority sets the rates for the financial year, It follows logically that this resolution must be available to be produced and one would think in this day an age available for public inspection on the internet. And
a. It has to stipulate how the penalty is calculated
b. the date that the penalty is to be added to the amount of the unpaid rates
c. and must not exceed 10% of the unpaid rates.
3. Section 58 sets out the various types of penalties which the council can impose and it would follow that these are the only penalties which can be imposed .
4. This penalty regime MUST be conveyed in the assessment notice. see assessment notice
There is much confusion as to who really holds the responsibilities as to setting the penalty regime and there is also confusion as to the regime itself.
The annual plans all state: The council must use the special consultative procedure set out in the Local Government Act 2002 to adopt and amend the rates related policies.
The act on the other hand is specific in that it states that the policy must be set “By resolution no later than the date when the local authority sets the rates for the financial year “
This implies that this policy must be set or adopted by resolution annually
In the annual plan 2013-2014 states
The council will apply a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of rates assessed under each instalment in the 2013/2014 financial year that are unpaid after the due date of each instalment. Any penalty will be applied to unpaid rates on the day following the due date of the instalment.
and 2014-2015
The council will apply a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of rates assessed under each instalment in the 2014/2015 financial year that are unpaid after the due date of each instalment. Any penalty will be applied to unpaid rates on the day following the due date of the instalment.
A further 10 per cent penalty calculated on former years’ rate arrears will be added on the first business day of the new financial year (or five days after the rates resolution is adopted, whichever is the later) and then again six months later.
The words applied to do not necessarily mean that the penalty will become part of the rates and incorporated into the rates. The wording is not specific as to how the rates and penalties are calculated.
Further :The act requires the invoices to show the amount of the penalty on any unpaid rates for the rating unit and the amount of any unpaid rates owing from a previous financial year for the rating unit. The connotation is therefore that the rates and the penalties are two separate amounts and not one.
This brings about the question of whether or not penalties can be applied to penalties, if there is no resolution that penalties are added to the previous year’s rates then the next lot of penalties applied can only be applied to rates and not rates plus penalties.
The next issue which arises is the rates due for the financial year.
The invoices tates Total rates payable for 2014-2015.
Unless the resolutions to set dates for instalments can be shown to have been made legally and with the proper consultation they cannot be enforced.
The invoice shows the sum due for the year but nowhere on the invoice is there a date by which that sum is due .
There an ability to pay a reduced sum in one payment and getting a hefty 1.1% discount if the payment is made by the first instalment date, the other options available are to be penalised or to pay instalments.
Every one paying their rates on time effectively pays a full month prior to the end of the financial year. Nowhere does it state that the full rates are due by that date.
Penalties are not equal
People living in higher priced areas pay higher penalties as can be seen by the two different invoices I have produced. The penalty for late payment in Epsom is $112.70 per quarter and In Kingsland $58.10 per quarter. This is significant and a flat penalty fee should be considered due to the ever increasing property prices.
calculation of penalties
Unlawful penalties
The act allows penalties of up to 10% of the rates to be added, it does not say per annum and this allows the council to continually add 10% the rates at 6 monthly intervals if an amount is a year old. This is in excess 20% and makes loan sharks look good.
While 10 % is legal the e reality is that a penalty in excess of 10% is added.
10 % is being added to the GST inclusive price, this price is already 15% more than the set rate.
While council through legally set penalty regimes can charge up to 10% penalty on rates they have no legal ability to charge 10% penalty on GST.
This also raises the question of the GST which the council then declares to IRD as having been received but that is a matter for you.
Taking Penny’s rate bill for example the rates instalment is $581 of which $75.78 is GST by charging 10% on the GST inclusive sum a further $7.57 of unlawful penalties is charged per quitter.
In the Epsom example the sum is an extra $14.70 per quarter
It would appear that the rates are a dogs breakfast , they are hap hazard and not done according to the legislative requirements.
While Council appear to ignore the law which they have to comply with, they enforce penalties which have been imposed without any legal basis and against the rule of law.
Council is required to act according to section 14 Of the local government act
a) a local authority should—
• (i) conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner;
I have not even been able to get questions answered let alone find relevant documents on the council web sites which would enable me to follow the tail of consultation, delegation, resolutions and implementation.
If this is what happens in the process of collecting rates, then we really do have to wonder about the process of spending them.
I have personal experience of seeing the council allow council officers use council resources infrastructure for self-enrichment. There is a deliberate turning of a blind eye to his while rate payers are seen as a bottomless pit of revenue. Questioning this has cost me more than $300,000 . we have persons in council on wages of $600,000 per year what are they being paid for. I would hope it is to get this kind of thing right.
This will also be posted on www.Transparency.net.nz
Grace Haden
Council rates- Is the council delegating authority legally – part 4.
In this the final instalment of the Auckland council rates investigation we explore delegation.
The Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 states
132 Delegation
(1) A local authority may delegate the exercise of functions, powers, or duties conferred by this Act on the local authority to—
(a) its chief executive officer; or
(b) any other specified officer of the local authority.
Now lets look at the annual plan again, it states
Delegation of decision-making
Decisions relating to applying the rates under the rates related policies will be made by council officers.
The question we need to explorer here is whether “council officers.” is the same as specified as required by the act. .
There appears to be no definition for Council officer in any legislation
Is the lady on the front desk there is a receptionist, she is a council officer , the guy who overseas the council car park he is a council officer , I guess you could say that any council employee is a council officer.
Further the annual plan states that it is “Decisions relating to applying the rate” that is delegated to “Council officers ” but the act is specific that Council cannot delegate the power to delegate . So without a specific person being handed the responsibility the delegation is left rather wide open . There is only one thing for certain and that is that the responsibility still rests with the governing body .
The slack wording of the annual plan and the lack of specificness brings about the question whether or not the penalty regime set by council is even legal in the remotest sense.
But wait there is more
The rates assessment is sent out at the beginning of the financial year and is a document which is produced to comply with section sets out the details as required by legislation , in this case section 45
So we have gone back to the rates assessment notice that we have before us and start ticking off the requirements as set out by the legislation.
Item
(k) the total amount of rates payable on the rating unit for the financial year:
we have already seen that the total amount payable is $4510.81 .
But if the payment is made by instalments and each instalment is one day late then the amount paid by the end of the financial year ( paid up by 28 May 2015 when due date is 30 June 2015 ) will be $4961.61 , an extra $450.81 under the councils penalty scheme which is not supported by legislation .
On top of that the $450.81 includes a total of $58.80 penalties on GST
(l) whether or not the local authority has a remission policy, a postponement policy, or a rates relief policy for Māori freehold land and, if so, a brief description of the criteria for rates relief under each policy:
There is nothing on our notice which refers to this at all .
(l) whether or not the local authority has a remission policy, a postponement policy, or a rates relief policy for Māori freehold land and, if so, a brief description of the criteria for rates relief under each policy:
There is nothing on the rates assessment notice which states when the rates must be paid by , the installment dates are given but there is no indication that the payments must be made by those dates it simply states ” amount payable by “.
(n) if applicable,—
(i) the penalty regime of the local authority; and
(ii) a warning that, if rates are not paid on time, a penalty may be added under that regime:
There is nothing on the rates assessment notice with regards to penalty regimes and there are no warnings with regards to failing to pay by any due date .
(o) if an early payment of rates has been made in accordance with a policy adopted under section 56(1),—
(i) the rates paid and any balance remaining to be paid; and
(ii) the amount of any discount allowed for the early payment of the rates; and
(iii) any credit balance remaining after payment of all rates due, adjusted for any discount allowed:
None of the above are shown on the rates assessment notice .
(p) the right of ratepayers to—
(i) inspect the rating information database and rates records; and
(ii) object to any of the information included in the rating information database and rates records.
There is no mention of these details either .
The Rates assessment notice which we have before us does not comply with the legislation Contents of rates assessment.
Perhaps the council should tidy up its act with regard to rates
- Have penalties which are fair and reasonable based on the ever increasing value and ever rising rates of our homes
- Have a rates penalty regime which makes sense and can be interpreted in the same way by every one reading it.
- Apply Penalties legally and only to the portions which penalties can legally be applied to
- Live by the law which council so strictly imposes on the rate Payers.
I would like to Acknowledge Penny Bright . It is because we looked at the rates bill she had that these issues have been raised. Her penalty bill is now significantly larger than her rates demands . While Auckland council wants to sell her house for effectively $13,000 in arrears rates and more than $20,000 in penalties.
Auckland council the time to be open and transparent with your rates penalty regime is now.
Council rates- How legal are council penalties – part 3.
As if the past two days have not given you enough to think about, here is another major issue for council
The Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at section 58 provides for the ability to impose penalties
(2) The amount of unpaid rates to which a penalty may be added includes—
(a) a penalty previously added to unpaid rates under this section; or
(b) additional charges added to unpaid rates under section 132 of the Rating Powers Act 1988; or
(c) rates levied under the Rating Powers Act 1988 that remain unpaid.
Going back to section 57
(1) A local authority may, by resolution, authorise penalties to be added to rates that are not paid by the due date.
(2) A resolution made under subsection (1) must—
(a) be made not later than the date when the local authority sets the rates for the financial year; and
(b) state—
(i) how the penalty is calculated; and
(ii) the date that the penalty is to be added to the amount of the unpaid rates.
In the 2014-15 resolution in the annual plan there is no mention f penalties being cumulative or added on to the rates so as to attract penalties on penalties. it simply states .
Penalties on rates not paid by the due date
The council will apply a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount of rates assessed under each instalment in the 2014/2015 financial year that are unpaid after the due date of each instalment. Any penalty will be applied to unpaid rates on the day following the due date of the instalment.A further 10 per cent penalty calculated on former years’ rate arrears will be added on the first business day of the new financial year (or five days after the rates resolution is adopted, whichever is the later) and then again six months later.
The resolution is actually quite specific it states that “A further 10 per cent penalty calculated on former years’ rate arrears” it does not say including penalties , and rates has not been redefined to mean rates plus penalties.
In going through this exercise we have come to realize several things.
- the rates penalty policy is not very clear and the average person will struggle to sort it out, We did, and we are not even sure if we got it right.
- Give it to half a dozen accountants and we are sure that you will get as many variants in calculations
- Give it to a dozen lawyers and you will get a dozen interpretations possibly more depending on case law
- The legislation is 12 years old , House prices in Auckland have gone up massively yet council has not reconsidered its rating penalties either percentage wise or in line with the legal provisions. 10% on or rates when we paid $1,000 per year is very different to 10% when you are paying $4,000.
- Just because we allow the world to buy up Auckland to get rich quick , launder money, land bank etc does not mean that the residents need to be bankrupted so that their houses can be put on the market.
- You would do better going to a loan shark than to default on rates.
- Live alone pensioners based on the rates demand referred to above ( receiving live alone super of $21,931.52 would be parting with nearly 25% of their super to live in the family home . We are being forced out of our homes by rates and penalties .
It is therefore most important that rates and penalties are applied in a open transparent democratic manner and above all Compliant with the law.
Dare I say it .. yes there are other issues.. more tomorrow
Auckland Council Rates.. does the law apply to Council as it does to you ? part 2
Yesterday we discussed the ability for council to charge penalties on installments today we take it a step further – what legal right do they have to charge penalties on GST which they are collecting for the government ? We believe that they don’t have any right to do this at all below is how we come to that.
Taking a rates notice which we have here for example
The rates for the financial year 2014-15 are $4510.81 this has a content of $588.36 GST
The current instalment is $1127 and has a GST content of $147
The rates notice states
Pay on time to avoid penalties
“‘ It pays to pay your rates on time, as you will be charged a 10 per cent penalty on any part of your current instalment that is overdue.
You will also be charged a 10 per cent penalty on any part of your rates (and penalties from previous years) that have not been paid by 5 July, and again by 5 January, of the current financial year. Any payments that you make towards your rates will be credited towards the oldest amount due first”
The operative words are any part of your rates. The Gst is the GST portion of your rates. The rates is what is set and what the GST is payable on .
The the act states penalties Must not exceed 10% therefore they can only charge a penalty of 10% on the rates being 1127-147, the penalty on the rates to be lawful can only be 10% of $980 being $98 .
By charging penalty of $112.70 they are charging a penalty rate of greater than 10% (11.5% in this case ) which is and $14.70 over charge per instalment and not made lawfully .
This is of course also subject to the ability for council to charge penalties on instalments as discussed previously
If council can only charge penalties once the years rates are due being 30 June 2015 then by imposing penalties on rates which are inclusive of GST ,they will be collecting a further $58.80 per year ( presuming that you then pay just prior to the 30th June )*
Strangely enough this sum is more than the sum which they give you for early payment .
Where this really gets tricky is in compounding penalties on the Gst of previous payments/ years .
Then there is also the question is GST Payable on the penalty or is GST Payable only on the rates portion ?
We will put that to council to work out, they have an obligation to us after all to be open transparent and accountable and presumably that is why we pay crazy high wages to those at the top so that this kind of thing does not happen ???
*based on instalments being 29 August 2014,26 November 2014, 26 February 2015,27 May 2015 note that even by instalments all rates due are paid a month early .
Open letter to Greg Stewart Lawyer and director of Equity trust International
Open letter to Greg Stewart
Dear Greg
I respond to your letter sent by email on the 22 September but dated 4 September 2014
- I am uncertain as to what you mean by the comment “ my behavior” I have at all times promised Transparency , is that what you are objecting to ?
- I am unaware of any “damage” and no one has provided any evidence of damage, which Transparency NZ or I have caused. If there is any damage caused by reporting facts it is purely unintentional.
- your client/ business partner was a Human Rights lawyer and your client law firm promoted Human Rights. Even recently your client used the Bill of Rights to defend his own right to express his opinion of High Court Judges.
- He cannot possibly promote the concept, and you could not support the concept, that there is one law for him and that we cannot be afforded the same rights.
- You allege that there are many web sites which are connected, you are being vague and we have no idea which web sites you are referring to, if you make allegations please be specific.
- If you or your client considers out material to be offensive please tell us where it is, what it is called and what makes the article guilty of any offending.
- There has at all times bene an offer on the table to you and your clients to make corrections/ alterations and state why the matters are wrong , you have never availed yourselves of this but want a blanket take it down.
- We have tried to appease your clients and yourself, ( you are a director of one of one of your clients, Equity trust International ) and in an attempt to resolve the matter we took down everything which we had control over , however this gesture of good faith and assurances from us that we would not put anything back up if we had finality , did not appear to satisfy your client who singularly appears to have the ability to negotiate for all parties including the company which you are director of.
- Negotiations require gestures of good faith from both sides and there was none forth coming and no resolutions in sight by the dead line we set, we have been true to our word and reposted all materials as we stand by the truth which is contained in them and the honest opinions expressed. As you would be aware truth and honest opinion are never defamatory.
- Your clients solution offered in your letter is not acceptable to us because
- You are attempting to obtain undertakings from legal entities which are not involved in the proceedings in favour of your clients as well as yourself, your wife and the proxy lawyer Julia Leenoh who acting out ofyour clients office and as indicated by your letter working from the premises of yourthe client law firm.
- The fact that you are seeking to cover yourself in the undertaking shows that there is no independence on your part and that you are acting in gross conflict of interest and you must cease acting on all matters before the court where you are conflicted.
- We hereby give notice that in all proceedings we will be calling on you and Ms. Leenoh to give evidence, by affidavit will be sufficient.
- From your self -that you wrote the letter
- By Ms Leenoh that she is employed by you and asked you to ask for those conditions on her behalf, attaching the employment contract.
- We will also require your wife to give evidence that she instructed you to include her in the request. – You might wish to add what right she has to do this.. Why not include the world oops you have “about our clients or any structures or persons associated with the Plaintiffs, nor myself, Ms. Leenoh or my wife.”- Wee bit wide and non-descript don’t you think?
- A public retraction and apology which we are happy to give is “sorry for speaking the truth we are truly sorry that truth is inconvenient to you. We had no control over the fact that UNIHOLD Limited which was involved in international money laundering was ultimately owned by y0ur clients wife,. In tracing UNIHOLD back to its origins through public record we had no control over the outcome.
- We also apologize to your wife Alice Marjorie Steward previously known as Alice Marjorie Murrell for the connections we have made between the company she is director of ,to the renowned Money laundering facilitators GT group and company Net ( 69 Ridge road ) as posted on Transparency International Finally uses the C word. She should read the news item about a previous Proxy director Lu Zhang. She has to know what she is getting herself into.
- There will be no liquidated damages clause, we have given an agreement which we are prepared to sign and we have acted in good faith and kept our word at the deadline.
- drafted a document it is here Deed of Settlement , it appears to us to be too much of an attempt to hog tie us than beat us up , it is a total gaging order one which persons who know they are engaged in dodgy activities would use.
- Your statement “We do however require some discussion with you about the damages you have caused to our clients” confuses us the claims in the statement of claim are pretty wide and we cannot see how any truthful comment by us could have made a difference given that your clients are mentioned in a massive number of publications un related to us and in court action unrelated to us.
- We removed all material as a gesture of good faith but as mentioned earlier it appeared to be a tactic of impairing our freedom of speech and there was no reciprocation.
- The entire matter could have been resolved but it appears that your client does not trust me for my word , those who know me well will tell you that I am true to my word.
- We consider your settlement offer to be bullying and oppressive and as such cannot accept it. we will be filing papers to object to the restraining order. This letter will form part of the evidence.
- To that end please advise who the new instructing solicitor is to be, it is also not appropriate for Mr. Bogiatto to be involved as he has been part of the issue and will also be called on to give evidence with regards to the court order which he failed to serve and he one he had sealed despite knowing it was wrong.
- It may as such be appropriate for me to deal with the newly appointed solicitor as by not being personally involved they may have a better and Independent view of the issue and he she may be able to act independently and as an officer of the court as the law requires.
- You also included in your “ settlement offer “ that we provide “a full description of all the parties you have written to about the Plaintiffs including, but not limited to, government organisations, government agencies, international press, etc. so that the Plaintiffs are fully aware of the complaints, emails and campaigns you have engaged in.”
- Please provide a legal basis for this?
- Now that we know that this is your clients fear we will initiate enquiries far and wide to establish why this is.
- BTW a complaint will be forwarded to the companies register with regard to fraudulent signatures of proxy director’s associates to the plaintiffs and in the interest of transparency we have included a distribution list at the bottom of this letter.
- On the issue of costs, we have not instructed a solicitor as we are aware that your client has his house on the market and the indication on the advertising was that “ owner is moving overseas “ he is already indebted to me due to the false invoices , he is just trying to make me incur costs and hardship . My way of fighting back is by doing it in a way which counts. We are all allowed to defend ourselves and I do it publicly.
- All of your clients assets are owned by his wife and in court this week he spoke of the need for the Law society to bankrupt him if they wanted their costs further in court documents he claims to be impecunious and has asked for legal aid. He also advised the court that he is leaving the country in November.
- We also notice that under his former name that he went missing from Fiji in 2003 and 2004 when discussion of debts that he had the arose. You can find the relevant judgments on the internet. here and here
- According to our chronology his name change came into effect at about the same time when a court noted “The company attempts to shoulder its responsibility onto one Eugene Narodertsky who may well be a person living in some remote part of the world.” Little did they know that he was right here in NZ living under his new name and practicing law.
- We hope that by our response, you have a better understanding of our perspective. It is nothing personal with your client, we are transparency and anticorruption lobbyists and I have just had my petition for a commission against corruption presented in parliament.
- The fact that New Zealand companies are involved in international money laundering is a serious matter which affects us all.
- The manner in which your company and your clients have been involved indicates that they are well aware of their involvement in the international money laundering business and I will not become party to such a plot by concealing it as to me that makes me complicit to international crime.
- It is your choice to use the very same proxy directors as those who have been proved to have been used by the money launderers and Russian Mafia.
- Those who run a legitimate operation would make certain that they would steer clear of such associations. The services which my company Verisure supplies is due diligence , you may wish to avail yourself of our services to prevent such embarrassing connections.
- I wrote a letter to your client along a similar vein , his lack of concern would indicate that he knows who and what he is dealing with and does so willingly but would probably not like the spotlight shone on it .
- I similarly bring the connections of your company and the companies which your wife is associated with to your attention. If you were not aware of what has happened then I suggest you read New Zealand: The Shell Company Incorporation Franchises: Round-Up and look at the news items relating to those companies by way of indication this is what your wife is tied up with .. does she know ?
EUROSTONE HOLDINGS LIMITED directed by Alice STEWART owned/owns
- ALTON SYSTEMS LIMITED (2187863) (Struck off) – originally part of the GT group
- AVALON BUSINESS LIMITED (3053634) – about to be struck off also originally part of the GT group
- BISTRANS INVEST LIMITED (3340091) – originally part of the THE COMPANY NET TRUST-Glenn SMITH
- DIRECT SOLUTIONS LIMITED (3768614) (Struck off) – set up by equity trust after the identically named GT Group company was stuck off
- DITEC UNION LIMITED (3265215) – originally part of the THE COMPANY NET TRUST-Glenn SMITH
- IMTRADE GROUP LIMITED (3221791) (Struck off) -originally part of the THE COMPANY NET TRUST-Glenn SMITH
- INVESTA AGRO LIMITED (3658591) (Struck off) – set up by equity trust after the identically named GT Group company was stuck off
- KORPTECH SERVICES LIMITED (3682662) (Struck off) – set up by equity trust after the identically named Glenn Smith company was stuck off
- LANGTRANS LIMITED (2388545) (Struck off) – originally part of the GT group
- MILL TRADE LIMITED (3213854) (Struck off) – originally part of the GT group
- NASORO LIMITED (1601001) (Struck off) – originally part of the GT group
- PRIMAX TRADING LIMITED (3155726) (Struck off) – originally part of the NZCI part of the GT group
- RENTON PROFIT LIMITED (3682635) (Struck off) – set up by equity trust after the identically named Glenn Smith company was stuck off
- THW GROUP LIMITED (3539594) – set up by equity trust after the identically named GT Group company was stuck off
- We trust that this clarifies our concerns , if you are concerned with what we have provided you with and was unaware of the implications before now then you will no doubt act in a manner which does not bring any adverse comment on your profession.
- If you are asking me to conceal such serious matters you need to take a good hard look at yourself.
- We will agree to the offer we have made to your client or welcome negotiations. While the matters are before the court we will continue to investigate for our defence and anything obtained from the public realm will be published.
Grace Haden For defendants
Copy to law society, company’s office, OFCANZ, international press, local press
Copy posted on www.transparency .net.nz
Transparency International Finally uses the C word
Transparency International New Zealand has tried so hard to ignore the corruption in New Zealand but has finally conceded that we have it. In their latest news letter they mention no less than three items .
New Zealand Shell Companies Involved in Huge Money-laundering Operation
New Zealand shell companies may have played a part in the biggest money-laundering operation in Eastern Europe. A recent investigation by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) exposed an enormous US$20 billion ($24.4 billion) transfer of dirty Russian funds, dubbed ‘the Laundromat’. Read the story by Richard Meadows in stuff.co.nz.
Evidence of corruption a National scandal – Harre
Internet Party leader Laila Harre will take evidence of corruption to international forums if there is not a full Royal Commission to investigate the growing evidence of the systematic use and abuse of democratic institutions and processes for political gain
Money, politics and scandal in New Zealand’s election
Post election, Washington based Lisa Rosenburg of the Sunlight Foundation, and former legislative assistant to Senator John Kerry, suggested that New Zealand will need to address weaknesses in its political finance system to retain “its squeaky clean reputation and its first place as the least corrupt nation…” sunlightfoundation.com/money-politics-and-scandal-in-new-zealands-election
The article by Richard Meadow refers to web site Naked Capitalism. In a recent article on that site Richard Smith states
GT Group was linked to the biggest money-laundering operation in US history.
It does not take much searching to find that a variety of GT group companies which survived being struck off have found a new registered office at the EQUITY GROUP , others have been registered again using the names of the struck off companies as shown below.
Companies registered to the premises of Equity group frequently use the very same directors identified as proxy directors in international press . In this case we look at Leah Toureleo of B.p. 1487, 1 Port Vila, Pot 540208, Port Vila , Vanuatu who is as is mentioned in the Richard meadows story NZ firm named in huge European scam
Leah Toureleo has the following active companies
PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED (3934638) Registered Company
— Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 27 Jul 2012 overseas registered company about to be struck off the address 24b Moorefield Road
Seems to be another busy little office it is a medical center see this interesting post http://www.blakjak.net/node/1312
GOLDAGE GROUP CO., LIMITED (3934658) Registered Company
—Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 27 Jul 2012 overseas registered company about to be struck off reg office Room 4, 221a Dominion Road, Auckland, only two companies registered here and both about to be struck off
IRVINESTON LIMITED (3239028) Registered Company
—Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 14 Nov 2013 Registered Office
TROPIC ALLIANCE LIMITED, 7 Rose Road, for more on this address see naked capitalism
DORNOCK LIMITED (3239007) Registered Company
—Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 14 Nov 2013 Registered Office
TROPIC ALLIANCE LIMITED, 7 Rose Road,
the director of tropic alliance lives in Inga 9a-31 Zaubes, Riga, LV1013 , Latvia
Now these next four companies have something in common they all had the receptionist at this former law firm as their director , she resigned last year when she was warned her about the dangers of being a proxy director ( see news links below ) these companies continue to exist with Leah Toureleo as their director
WELKIN BUSINESS LIMITED (3665631) Registered Company
— Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Trust NZ holdings – director xxxxxxx
SELBY LIMITED (3665671) Registered Company
— Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Trust NZ holdings – director xxxxxxx
This is a phoenix company of SELBY LIMITED(2466848) (NZBN: 9429031562881) Struck off NZ Limited Company it was registered to 1504 B, 363 Queen Street, Auckland, New Zealand which was pat of the Taylor group. the new company was incorporated by EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED just a few months after the companies office struck the other off
4-WAY LOGISTICS LIMITED (3589351) Registered Company
— Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Trust NZ holdings – director xxxxxxx
MAXIMUS CORPORATION LIMITED (3589616) Registered Company
— Leah Toureleo appointed as a director on 29 Mar 2013 owned by Club property (xxxxx) this company is a phoenix company for
MAXIMUS CORPORATION LIMITED (2454570) (NZBN: 9429031578738) Struck off NZ Limited Company Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand, this company was originally set up by the Gt Group
The receptionist had one further company that she was director of this company now has the wife of the director of this this companies director who is also a lawyer this company is Eurostone Holdings Limited
- AVALON BUSINESS LIMITED (3053634) – about to be struck off also originally part of the GT group
- BISTRANS INVEST LIMITED (3340091) – originally part of the THE COMPANY NET TRUST-Glenn SMITH
- DIRECT SOLUTIONS LIMITED (3768614) (Struck off) – set up by equity trust after the identically named GT Group company was stuck off
- DITEC UNION LIMITED (3265215) – originally part of the THE COMPANY NET TRUST-Glenn SMITH
- IMTRADE GROUP LIMITED (3221791) (Struck off) -originally part of the THE COMPANY NET TRUST-Glenn SMITH
- INVESTA AGRO LIMITED (3658591) (Struck off) – set up by equity trust after the identically named GT Group company was stuck off
- KORPTECH SERVICES LIMITED (3682662) (Struck off) – set up by equity trust after the identically named Glenn Smith company was stuck off
- LANGTRANS LIMITED (2388545) (Struck off) – originally part of the GT group
- MILL TRADE LIMITED (3213854) (Struck off) – originally part of the GT group
- NASORO LIMITED (1601001) (Struck off) – originally part of the GT group
- PRIMAX TRADING LIMITED (3155726) (Struck off) – originally part of the NZCI part of the GT group
- RENTON PROFIT LIMITED (3682635) (Struck off) – set up by equity trust after the identically named Glenn Smith company was stuck off
- THW GROUP LIMITED (3539594) – set up by equity trust after the identically named GT Group company was stuck off
for News items on Glenn Smith 69 Ridge Road, Lucas Heights, North Shore ( Company Net ) see
Web of intrigue – crime – national | Stuff.co.nz
New Zealand as a rogue financial state
NZ shell companies in Kyrgyz corruption | Stuff.co.nz
New Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords …
Complaint – Securities and Exchange Commission
Traseks Ltd., is a corporation incorporated under the laws ofPanama on
February 9, 2009, with its principal place of business located at 69 Ridge Road, Albany,
Auckland, New Zealand. Traseks, Ltd. received $976,302, wired during April through
July 2009 from Rockford’s Bank ofAmerica and Banco Popular Bank Accountsto an
account in its name at JSC Multibanka in Riga, Latvia.
Reserve Bank warns public – money – business | Stuff.co.nz
RBNZ warns on dodgy ‘Bancorp’ pyramid scheme claiming …
Reserve Bank warns public – Stuff
1766 defunct New Zealand companies at 69, Ridge Road, Albany,
News items re proxy directors and activities of companies of Leah Toureleo see below and at this link click here
Sep 2, 2010 … Lu Zhang, 28, is accused of 75 offences of making false statements in company registration forms after she declared her office address was her …
www.stuff.co.nz/…/Company-director-with-alleged-arms-links-in-court
|
Sep 3, 2010 … Lu Zhang, 28, is charged with 75 counts of making false statements in company registration forms – by the seemingly minor act of declaring her …
www.stuff.co.nz/national/4090241/Mystery-arms-firm-director-revealed
|
May 29, 2011 … Lu Zhang, below, is its director. launder2 . launder3. Stella Port-Louis, of the Seychelles, is director of four Queen St companies linked to illegal …
www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/latest-edition/…/Web-of-intrigue
|
Jan 11, 2010 … The signature over it has no resemblance to the signature of Lu Zhang in the New Zealand incorporation documents. The cost of the charter is …
www.stuff.co.nz/national/3218894/Papers-confirm-arms-going-to-Iran
|
Nov 5, 2010 … Former fast-food worker Lu Zhang, 28, was the sole director of Queen St registered SP Trading Ltd, a company that hired a plane discovered at …
www.stuff.co.nz/dominion…/Chinese-warning-on-court-case-angers-judge
|
Feb 13, 2010 … Police National Headquarters in Wellington said it was still investigating SP but would not discuss individuals, including Lu Zhang.
www.stuff.co.nz/business/3323439/Change-of-director-for-shell-company
|
Oct 20, 2010 … SP Trading former director Lu Zhang was later charged with 75 counts of making false statements in company registration forms, and appeared …
www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/…/NZ-a-target-for-arms-traders-Oxfam
|
Jan 15, 2010 … SP’s director is Lu Zhang whose registered residential address is 369 Queen … that on December 21 detectives here interviewed Lu Zhang.
www.stuff.co.nz/national/3231635/Police-given-details-of-arms-flight-client
|
Feb 12, 2010 … Police National Headquarters in Wellington said they were still investigating SP but would not discuss individuals including Lu Zhang.
www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/3318708/Thailand-drops-gun-running-charges
|
Jan 13, 2010 … SP Trading Ltd – formed last year with a woman, Lu Zhang, who cannot be located, as its director – is part of a web of hundreds of companies …
www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/…/Director-breach-punishable-by-jail
|