This post is prompted by the Editorial: NZ needs to assure world of trust scrutiny.
It is one which I will forward along with other blogs to international agencies who may wish to question how one of the worlds least corrupt countries can make this claim and I wish to reveal how trusts work in New Zealand
In 2006 I questioned the lack of existence of trust , this trust just happened to be one of two private law enforcement agencies, this trust the animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ ) taught me all you need to know about NZ trusts and how loosely they operate
AWINZ operated as an equivalent to the RNZSPCA and enforced animal welfare law , It had powers of search and the ability to seize some ones prized pet .
I was asked the simple question , who is AWINZ ? when I discovered that it was nothing but a sham and questioned the existence of a sham trust being a law enforcement authority I was immediately sued, denied a defence and was told to pay some $100,000 dollars to the person who wrote the animal welfare bill and was independent adviser to the select committee in the process of making his business plan , law .
He then made an application , which in my days as a police officer would have been considered fraud . ( this is due to the fact that the claim that AWINZ was a trust was totally false the application made 22 November 1999 predated he formation of any organisation by that name the earliest trust deed and one which Mr Wells relies upon was dated 1.3.2000 and even those persons never met or passed a resolution )
I have for years been beaten up for blowing this whistle. Below I have a list of links of how I have beaten my head against a brick wall for many years but for now I will reveal how New Zealand trusts work
- You need a trust deed .. it doesn’t matter when you sign it or who signs it as long as there is a deed a bit of paper which looks convincing.
- you can have various copies of the deed they can all conflict and no one cares see here and here
- no one enforces the deed, no one cares if the so called trust complies with its deed
- If you want a new deed you simply write a new one and refer to an earlier deed which may or may not have existed , Ird does not care I rather suspect that most people at IRD are number crunchers and done understand the legalities of dates names and real persons being involved in a trust .
- there is more information on the deed with regards to the identity of the witnesses than with regards to the the trustees. you can use generic names and who could ever identify the trustees
- if a trust does not meet or hold any assets or pass any resolutions it is still considered a trust and its identity can be used to interchange with any other trust ( real or fictional )
- the charities commission are happy to grant charity status to anything whihc meets their criteria , the fact that there are no resolutions for the trust and big gaping holes in their existence is but a technicality
Let me explain in terms of the AWINZ trust
As stated earlier Neil Wells a barrister at the time made an application for law enforcement powers for AWINZ he claimed on 22 November 1999 that a trust had been formed
No executed trust deed existed and these people had not formally met together or passed any resolution
Maf and The dog control section of Waitakere council had signed agreements with the representative of AWINZ:- Neil Wells
in 2006 Neither MAF nor Waitakere city council had a trust deed or had seen one : basically no one had checked the existence of AWINZ
when I proved that AWINZ did not exist ( charitable trusts need to be registered ) a trust deed materialized dated 1.3.2000 whihc brings about the question how can you make an application before a trust is formed. ?
I was to get evidence that these people had never met never held any assets , never passed a resolution.
By the terms of the deed the trust ceased to exist three years after it was formed, continuance depended on reappointment of trustees and since they never met no one was reappointed.
Wells sought charitable status in 2006 when new legislation came in. IRD rejected the trust deed so he simply wrote a new one and they claimed to be a continuation of the bogus 2000 trust
this was totally acceptable to the lawyers charity commission and MAF ( and later the government )
AWINZ was finally removed as approved Organisation in 2010 . the fictional law enforcemnt organisation operated for 10 years re branding council property and using the Council staff under Neil Wells control as AWINZ officers .
Neil wells still consults for government and makes submissions strange that he does not refer to the 10 years where he was the only person involved with AWINZ
this is how what I considered to be a fraud worked
I have brought it to the attention of the prime minister , Transparency International NZ , Auckland Council and again here , here , here, again here , here, here , here ,Auckland Mayor, the CEO of council , council lawyers and again here and here , here, here.
Maf and now the ministry of primary Industries repeatedly fobbed me off and actively concealed the fraud, after all they never checked to see if the trust existed before supporting the application for law enforcement status , I was later to find that the current lawyer for Maf was involved int he process earlier on when he was working for crown law so I guess his own work came under scrutiny therefore concealment of the fraud was an act of self defence complaints to Maf Here , here, here , here, here,here, here, here and here
attorney general here
notable blogs of the past touching on the corruption which exist in New Zealand
Conclusion : Fraudulent trusts are condoned in New Zealand , I was silenced because I was exposing how slack our trust administration was .
more to come Court is used to silence exposure of abuse of overseas trusts
Our view is yes to both depending on who you are
Please click on the link above or here to make a submission prior to Monday 1 feb http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/make-submission/0SCHE_SCF_51DBHOH_PET63268_1/petition-of-hon-maryan-street-and-8974-others
Submission of Grace Haden
I am a former police officer and work as a private investigator. I have been sued for speaking the truth on corruption. My marriage was attacked and all sorts of cruel legal tactics came into play.
Things became so bad that at one stage I considered suicide and therefore believe that I am qualified.
Legal tactics include attacking a person’s character and reputation , I considered myself as a strong person but the years erode your strength and you are repeatedly portrayed as a sinister being when in reality you are the opposite.
I have often wondered how many people who are involved in litigation ae pushed over the edge , there are no apparent surveys done on this , no public money is made available. Yet for those who drown we have bucket loads of research and we actively strive to reduce the road toll and enforce all sorts of measure and throw tons of money at prevention.
The annual road toll and he drownings are far smaller than the annual suicide rate. And let’s not forget that some of the figures in the road toll and drownings will be suicides .
On the one hand our society is reckless with regards to suicide and encourages those who are healthy but stressed commit suicide because of the apparent lack of justice while those who have no hope of ever living a life without pain and suffering are denied this right due to lack of physical capacity.
In our current civil litigation system there is “a win at all cost mentality” this takes no consideration of a person’s mental health and wellbeing and is aimed to ensure their entire life collapse around their ears and isolate them from support and loved ones , even he very strong will eventually feel that they are just a very bad person .. these are mind games
For the past 10 years I have studies the tactical methods which seek to bully and undermine good people involved in the judicial system part of this is giving them an appearance in the eyes of others to be sinister and when the court supports the opposition few will believe that this person is a victim of a screwed up justice system which relies on ancient protocols instead of evidence.
If we were to interview the relatives and friends of a suicide victim I believe that a disproportionate number of incidents would show some kind of legal issue in the background.
Our primitive justice system does not consider emotions and the civil jurisdiction does not have to comply with the rules of fairness like our criminal jurisdiction does.
On the other hand those who live life without hope and lack the capacity to take their own life but have the mental capacity to know that future life is futile and will not improve must sit and wait till nature takes over.
If you have a pet and allow it to continue to live in those circumstances you would be prosecuted under the animal welfare act
If you have a pet and bully and torment it so that it shys away from others and finds itself unworthy you could also face prosecution but these tactics are totally acceptable if the victim is a human.
The reality is that we would have far more rights and protection if the animal welfare act was to apply to us
Those with a terminal illness have a right to die, those facing litigation should not be pushed into it
We need proper research into the causes of suicide and we need to have as much money spent on suicide prevention as we spend on the reducing drownings and road toll and if the government will not fund lifesaving medication for those suffering illness or if no remedy is available they should not be forced to die a slow agonising death
Amazingly such an approach will actually reduce our suicide rate by keeping healthy people alive and allowing those terminally ill the right to die .
I wish to be heard on my submissions
The herald reported in an article headlined
Stonewalling and strange deals: Has NZ become more corrupt? that New Zealand’s public sector is the most corrupt it has been in almost 20 years
On the other hand we believe that the public sector is very corrupt but we are now getting more exposure on that which has previously been carefully concealed.
Transparency Intentional New Zealand published a Media Release Document in which Susan Snively states
“Our government must act immediately to reestablish New Zealand’s stand-out reputation for a trusted public sector”. says Transparency International New Zealand Chair, Suzanne Snively. “New Zealand trades on its corruption free reputation.”
Snively’s comment proves the short sighted focus of Transparency International New Zealand inc of keeping the corruption free appearance alive.
We can only hope that Transparency International NZ is encouraging our government to take a hard line and enforce the law against those who are corrupt rather than pretend it is not happening.
We support Transparency internationals statement that ” Not one single country anywhere in the world is corruption free ” so why does Susan Snively wish to give New Zealand the apparition of being corruption free? As an economist she apparently sees this as a good move for the economy. We see her efforts as encouraging the concealment of corruption there by making the country a very dangerous place to trade in .
There are two ways to improve the corruption perception index
- convince every one that there is no corruption by suing those who are whistle blowers or show any hint of exposing corruption .
- prosecute those who engage in corrupt practices so as to discourage others.
From and economist point of view it is much cheaper to conceal corruption and in New Zealand transparency International NZ incorporated in our opinion appears to play a vital role in the concealment of corruption as its members include the very Public sector agencies whose performance is being rated.
We encourage the truth and transparency when it comes to corruption but Transparency International NZ ‘s Susan Snively appears to have a severe conflict of interst see www.kiwisfirst.com
At Last NZ ratifies UN Convention Against Corruption but is this an empty gesture or will corruption be dealt with seriously and not just concealed like it has been in the past ? Time will tell .
We fear that it will be business as usual in the Axminster system operated in NZ where corruption is habitually swept under the carpet.
News of the ratification received virtually no publicity at all instead we had a video and an article of a South Auckland man finding a live caterpillar in supermarket salad bag. Those of us who have grown up with fresh vegetables know that this a possibility if you don’t like bugs in your food go for GE .
So what are we going to do now that the necessary law changes have been made are we going to ignore them and continue to allow the courts to silence those who have asked lawyers to act according to law ? ( more on that later ) .
We are still asking questions with regards to the former crown law lawyer who is now acting in a situation of conflict of interest by turning a blind eye to the corruption of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand a fictional organisation which was given wide law enforcement powers because no one checked.
And transparent International New Zealand what are you going to do? provide more statistics to show how well we do while ignoring the elephant in the room ? we must keep the perception alive imagine if people were to embrace reality ? Disaster !
More to come in the mean time here are some links so that you can investigate what the ratification of the UN convention against corruption should mean .
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) is a multilateral convention negotiated by members of the United Nations. It is the first global legally binding international anti–corruptioninstrument.
read about the convention here
Text of the United Nations Convention against Corruption English
STATUS AS AT : 05-12-2015 07:03:18 EDT
|New Zealand 8||10 Dec 2003||1 Dec 2015|
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (from this link)
The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (external link) requires countries to take action in both the public and private sector to prevent corruption.
New Zealand signed the convention in 2003. It creates:
- arrangements to strengthen international co-operation
- arrangements to prevent the transfer of funds obtained through corruption
- ways of monitoring a country’s compliance with the convention.
The convention requires countries to criminalise corrupt behaviour such as:
- bribery and embezzlement of public funds
- trading in influence
- concealment and laundering of the proceeds of corruption.
When dealing with the proceeds of corruption, a country must be able to trace, freeze, seize and confiscate those proceeds.
New Zealand is compliant with most of the convention’s provisions. The Ministry of Justice is working on the final necessary steps to bring New Zealand into full compliance.
|United Nations Convention against Corruption Tools and Publications:|
Our post MUSE ON ALLEN we reveal the secret to Samuel North’s success. Has met with total acceptance of Malcolm and Samuel North but no so of the lawyer for Muse on Allen XXXXXXXXXXof Johnston Lawrence limited
XXXX immediately filed documents in which he again made very serious and incorrect allegations . see Third Urgent Memorandum of Counsel – 090715 and Affidavit of Judith Louella Jane Burge sworn 9 July 2015
this response was sent to court people have the right to defend themselves against false accusations.
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 12:04 p.m.
To: xxxxxxxx’; ‘Stack, Michaela’
Cc: ‘Jozsef Szekely’; ‘malcolm north’; ‘Samuel North (firstname.lastname@example.org)’; ‘The Norths’
Subject: RE: CIV 2013-485-9825: Szekely v Muse on Allen Ltd
Good Morning Michaela
I refer you to the latest post on Transparency New Zealand . Open letter to the minister of small business
I also advise the court that Mr xxxxxxxxx is willfully misdirecting the court as per His honour Justice Collins minute the documents which were provided under rule 8.30 (4) are held in the offices of Duncan Cotterill . They have not been made available to me .
The documents on Transparency were provided by me and as shown in the attachment that Mr xxxxxxxx attached to his legal secretaries affidavit the documents came from the following sources
Page 1. Direct from the plaintiff he had this document in his possessing from the time he purchased the assets.
Page 2 this is available on line from the companies office free of charge and available to the public
Page 3 this is a copy of a document which Jozsef has had in his possession from a date prior to the court proceedings .
Page 4 -10 these are available on line from the companies office free of charge and available to the public
Page 11-54 . these are the documents for the district court proceedings in Which Muse on Allen , whichis currently in liquidating court took against Jozsef for the losses which were incurred in the company based on the 63.4% share holding which the SOC alleged he has , being the majority shares in Muse On Allen the very shares which were unlawfully transferred by Samuel north from Jozsef to himself.
Page 55 a document available through the land transport register
I have repeatedly made Mr xxxxxxxxx aware that the documents did not come from discovery in the high court and indeed it is self evident that they were served free of confidentiality By Malcolm North in the district court .
I appreciate that this may not be convenient for Mr Abricrossow but he should not be using his office to conceal fraud and the evidence is obvious that a fraud has occurred in that Jozsefs shares have been deceitfully removed and withheld using the court.
I remind Mr xxxxxxxxxx that he should be acting in accordance with Section 4 of the lawyers and conveyancers act.
We have not breached the discovery in the high court and it is an abuse of process form Mr xxxxxxxxxx that allege that .
From: malcolm north [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2015 6:10 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: CIV 2013-485-9825: Szekely v Muse on Allen Ltd
Thanks for the update you haven’t taken any notice of me at all about your grammar ,punctuation and spelling.
Response :Thank you Malcolm did I mention that English is my second language .
On 9 Jul 2015 9:19 pm, “malcolm north” <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Thanks for that .Probably why you can’t understand Szekely walked out of the Restaurant after eleven weeks .Funny how you haven’t told anyone this.
Response :Did he walk or was he pushed. I suspect he walked just like pirate’s made their victims walk the plank. Yes its all Jozsef’s fault because he wouldn’t put up with the bullying. Bullies always blame their victims.
On 9 Jul 2015 11:01 pm, “malcolm north” <email@example.com> wrote:
Response : Yes he walked….. Straight to his lawyers see letter here letter from lawyer 16Jan
Note: Samuel did an interview in Concrete Playground these are extracts show how he started Muse on Allen the reality is reflected in the fact that he transferred the share holding of another chef into his own name and then denied Jozsef any rights . The accounts in 2014 show that there were two share holders in the accounts although Samuel was listed as the 100% share holder on the companies office site .
Jozsef had $64,118 equity in the company while Samuel owed the company $6420 yet Samuel went out a bought a 207 BMW SUV loaned against the company BMW
Remembering this read the article below and remember that Samuel is being acclaimed as begin the youngest Chef in Wellington to OWN a restaurant .. He actually OWNS NOTHING and OWES it all to Jozsef
This is the real secret to opening your very own restaurant. its called other peoples money .
In our professional opinion it is fraud when you get a person to invest in a company they are the majority share holder and then you move all their shares into the name of a person who makes a living off the company . At the same time the majority share holder is excluded and is sued for the losses incurred by the company.
to put the icing on the cake the losses include the purchase of a 2007 BMW which the person who has no share capital in the company but who has claimed all the shares as his own, uses as his own .
Any way back to Concrete playground
Yup okay that was impressively disastrous. You’ve certainly picked up from there though, you established this place at 21, which is ridiculously young, what gave you the confidence to do that?
SN: My parents gave me really good support, they’ve supported me the whole way through it. Especially my dad, he’s been in business before and really wanted me to do this I think. Probably not so young though. I could have waited a few more years but I was just too keen, too eager to own my own place, even if it was going to be something else. This place actually wasn’t even supposed to be a restaurant – I just wanted to have a bar but it turned out completely differently.
What was behind that huge need to have your own place?
SN: I just really hated working for people to be honest. I hated getting told what to do all the time. It was driving me crazy. I was just like fuck, what am I doing? I just wanted to do my own thing.
Starting a business so young, was it kind of hard to get people to take you seriously?
SN: Yeah it was really hard, especially in the first year. I’d hired all these young people who were like fuck it, he’s 21 what the fuck does he know? It made me realise that I needed to be hiring the right people who were going to support me and who wanted to listen to me. I find that actually hiring older and more mature is better. I’ve got a lot of older staff now. They’re still in their like, thirties and twenties and stuff but they are passionate about the restaurant, the food and the service.
We also include the some real feed back with Samuel’s responses which we captured before it was removed .. they
speak for themselves..click to enlarge they originate from Trip advisor
A Ted talk has been forwarded to us by a member , it is extremely relevant it is only 10 minutes long and a must see
Last week I made submission to the select committee on the anti corruption and money laundering bill
I note that in the bill we do not define corruption
This makes our anti-corruption initiatives extremely effective as you cannot have something which is not defined.
As such the following are NOT examples of corruption in New Zealand
1. Having a business plan to amalgamate local government duties with those of central government for private pecuniary gain then writing the bill for and advising on legislation to facilitate this
2. Making an application for law enforcement powers under that legislation pretending to be a trust when no trust exists .
3. Deceiving a minister by making false claims so as to get the law enforcement approval
4. Getting law enforcement powers for a fictional body by pretending that it is a legal person when it is not.
5. Operating that Fictional law enforcement body from council premises using the staff vehicle and infrastructure for private pecuniary gain
6. Setting up a pretend trust in 2006 to pretend to be applicant and issuing court action to cover up
7. Deceiving the court through lawyers and denying the defendant a hearing or the right of defence of truth and honest opinion so as to re write history using a court judgement obtained through deceit
Through the journey I have found that we effectively try to Kill off Whistle-blowers , through stress financial hardship and making their life hell on every front as such a simple question of “ why does that law enforcement authority not exist as a legal person ?” has cost me my family , my marriage, nearly 10 years of my life well over $400,000 hard cash and goodness only knows how much in lost earnings.
I took on a lawyer who has since been found by the courts to have been “ incompetent “ he is now suing me because I complained of double billing. I made a complaint about a billing issue 4 years ago , it is still not resolved and instead the lawyer has taken me to court in a series of actions seeking to bankrupt me when he has overcharged me some $28,000.- message- don’t complain about your lawyers double billing – he will sue you and make your life hell .
I am a licenced Private investigator and former long serving police officer , I know a thing or two about fraud and corruption and I know that it is impossible to report fraud and corruption in New Zealand because it damages our clean green image.
I have found the greatest issue to be that lawyers are not held accountable to the rule of law, and crooked lawyers have a licence to use our legislation in the most convoluted manner to cover up fraud and corruption . The law society has conflicting roles of member society and lawyers authority , nothing is going to change until those conflicting roles are separated .
The so called public watchdogs, are under resourced and under staffed by competent personnel and we function be throwing up walls for people to bang their heads up against until they either drop dead or go away.
My matter is well researched, I have a ton of documents, from the government’s own files , No government authority has ever looked at them , they all claim it has been through court and it is therefore settled.
This proves that using the court to conceal fraud and corruption in new Zealand works and makes this even more serious.
I have even gone to the extent of filing a petition for a commission against corruption only to find that Mike Sabin, who was on the wrong side of the law himself , threw it out because my evidence disclosed fraud.
It appears that peoples reputations are paramount, that is their reputations not mine – My crime is to have exposed corruption and I have paid a very high price .
I request that you use my scenario as an investigation into corruption in New Zealand , it proves that it exists at every level and that we would sooner shoot the messenger than deal with the real issue.
Are you the minister who will turn corruption in NZ around ? I hope so for all our sakes
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2015 2:20 p.m.
Cc: ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘email@example.com’; ‘Kelvin.Davis@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘firstname.lastname@example.org’; ‘Mahesh.email@example.com’; ‘KanwaljitSingh.Bakshi@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Andrew Little’
Subject: Petition for a commission against corruption
Last year Andrew Little presented my petition for a commission against corruption
I am a former police officer and now a private Investigator who has found herself at the fore front of corruption In New Zealand because I believed the spin that NZ was corruption free.
I thought it was the proper thing to do, to draw attention to the fact that a man had written legislation for his own business plan, advised on it at select committee level and then using a false name applied for the coercive law enforcement powers which he had helped create.
The powers were under the animal welfare act and he claimed that he made an application on behalf of a trust called the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand(AWINZ ) . The trust was fictional, the minister was misled and no one checked that the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand existed.
In 2006 a lady working at the Waitakere city council dog control unit asked me if I could find out who or what AWINZ was. The council vehicles and the buildings had been rebranded to have the appearance of belonging to AWINZ, the council officers were required to Volunteer their council paid time to AWINZ and prioritize animal welfare over dog control . The prosecutions were performed by the council dog control manager who was one and the same as the person who had written the bill which ultimately became foundation for the law. This was a classic case of public office for private pecuniary gain – which is deemed to be corruption by international standards.
Through my journey with corruption many people have come to me and have told me of the brick walls which they , like me have encountered. The police say they had no time , the SFO say not serious or complex, the ombudsmen took 2 ½ years to get a document then went quite ,the office of the auditor general total ignored it .. IT HAS NEVER BEEN INDEPENDENTLY INVESTIGATED except by the society for promotion of community standards , who confirmed what I had alleged.
In having my petition rejected, I have struck yet another brick wall and again things are done with an appearance of legitimacy but without any real legal foundation and ability.
Mike Sabin rejected the evidence of my petition on the basis of standing order 236 b . this quite clearly states that the evidence is considered to be an irrelevant or unjustified allegation can be expunged. It does not state that all of the evidence can be thrown out and indeed there are various issues raised in my evidence not just that of AWINZ .
236 Irrelevant or unjustified allegations
When a witness gives evidence that contains an allegation that may seriously damage the reputation of a person and the select committee is not satisfied that that evidence is relevant to its proceedings or is satisfied that the evidence creates a risk of harm to that person, which risk exceeds the benefit of the evidence, the committee will give consideration—
(a) to returning any written evidence and requesting that it be resubmitted without the offending material:
(b) to expunging that evidence from any transcript of evidence:
(c) to seeking an order of the House preventing the disclosure of that evidence.
It concerns me that Mike SABIN was so actively involved in the removal of this petition and in light of the events of the last week it is entirely possible that a conflict of interest existed.
Mr SABIN does not state that the allegations are irrelevant or unjustified , and 236 b clearly states “to expunge that evidence from any transcript of evidence “ this does not give open licence to dispose of all of the evidence.
Additionally my evidence does not make it clear that the matter has been” thoroughly investigated” my evidence is that it has never been investigated by the proper authorities .
As a former Police officer Mr Sabin is well versed at writing complaints off but this is a matter before parliament , it needs to be dealt with according to the rules and I do not see that 236(b) can have all the evidence expunged.
Additionally standing Orders have ways of dealing with evidence which could have impact on persons reputation . I have deliberately not named any one however the evidence in support which were obtained from government and council files show who the players are in the game. The Animal welfare institute of New Zealand does not have legal existence hence does not have any legal rights and therefore cannot have a reputation .
It is precisely the use of such fictional personas which makes fraud prevalent in new Zealand , this practice is being condoned and this is exactly why we need a commission against corruption . It is a huge elephant which is being ignored.
I request that the committee review the manner in which this petition has been disposed of and ensure that it was done lawfully if they up hold the decision. I am happy to resubmit eh evidence with names removed if that assists .
Additionally under the OIA I request the names of those who sat on the committee with Mr SABIN and voted on dumping the petition and writing the letter attached above and the minutes pertaining to this .
I will be publishing this letter on www.transparency.net.nz as the public have a right to know .
Phone (09) 520 1815
mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at www.transparency.net.nz
Transparency International are running an excellent campaign called Unmask the corrupt .Ironically this is what we have been doing and have been sued for , that is because we have been doing it on our own.
There is a vast difference between Transparency International and their NZ branch , The New Zealand branch dedicates it web site to showing how well we are doing at being ” corruption Free” while the rest of the world actually fights corruption.
We often point out that if you ignore cancer you will succumb to it , the same is true of corruption.
We have New Zealand companies involved in international trade, not all of it legitimately see this news item.
Naked Capitalism a web site operated overseas by a number of top class journalists and connected to the international consortium of investigative journalists have published a number of articles with regards to the activity of Money laundering in New Zealand see this post entitled “New Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords, Helps Out the Russian Mafia” and a more recent onesNew Zealand’s GT Group in Romania, Moldova and the UK,
What is significant is that the Government thinks that they have closed down the GT group but many of the companies once administered by a new zealand company .Just one such example is GT GLORIA TRADING
This company overseas companies and has a disproportionate Russian representation .
Even many of the people involved are what we call name shifters and so are the companies themselves , this is so that you never really know who you are dealing with .
Alex Bushe of equity law also appears to be one and the same as Alexander BUSHUEV, who is the director of a number of Equities companies SEDLEX LIMITED (5058320) – Director & Shareholder GLOBAL WEALTH GROUP LIMITED (5433544) – Director & Shareholder FIDELIS INTERNATIONAL TRADING LIMITED (5318101) – Director & Shareholder BLACKLIST DEBT RECOVERY LIMITED (4361899) – Director & Shareholder STEIGEN MAKLER LIMITED (5170404) – Director & Shareholder DRAGON GROUP LIMITED (5433581) – Director & Shareholder
another such person is Gregory Shelton who also appears to be the one and the same as Grigori CHELOUDIAKOV who took over the shareholdings of several companies including IMEXO PRANA and CRESTPOINT TRADE
So needless to say we whole heatedly support the initiative of Transparency International in the UNMASK THE CORRUPT CAMPAIGN .
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 .