OECD and United Nations action against corruption
Muse on Allen – Samuel North and the Convention against corruption
December 8, 2015 | 
Author 
Open letter to the registrar of companies
On 1 December 2015 the NZ Government ratified the UN Convention against corruption
We have written to you and your minister in the past and published several articles with regards to the Muse on Allen and the so called Owner Samuel North who according to the latest accounts we have does not hold any equity in the company yet claims to be the 100% share holder.
We have identified the fact that Josef’s shares were transferred to Samuel North without consent and without any corresponding change in equity . It has also been acknowledged in court that the required documentation was not completed. For good measure the shares of the majority share holder were taken in two steps and then even after it was alleged in court that this was done in error Jozsef was sued as a 62.4% share holder when he is denied all share holder rights.
We compiled a list of offences which have occurred, there were about 30 of these Offences but the registrar of companies appears to condone these offences by failing to act.
We wish to draw your attention to article 22 of the United nations convention against corruption a treaty to which we are now a full signatory
Article 22.
Embezzlement of property in the private sector
Each State Party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally in the course of economic, financial or commercial activities, embezzlement by a person who directs or works, in any capacity, in a private sector entity of any property, private funds or securities or any other thing of value entrusted to him or her by virtue of his or her position.
Malcolm North in an email stated “we are not going to get locked up for stealing shares”
There can be no doubt about the embezzlement of shares by Samuel North and since share transfer is done under the supervision of the directors both Samuel’s parents Debbie North and Malcolm North appear to be complicit . They and Samuel admitted to having reduced Josef’s shares in Error and now it appears that asking for errors to be corrected by their lawyer is more of an offence than the actual act of misappropriation.
The second least ( perceived ) corrupt country appears to be out of wack with reality .
Now that we have signed the convention will the registrar of companies please act to correct this criminal actand prevent the asset stripping of the equity which Jozsef has invested into the company and from which Samuel North has profited.
In the mean time Samuel North has become the only director with Janine Corke resigning on 23 November and Malcolm North resigning 6 December
Samuel north has now set up a new company Catering limited on 3 December ,this was right after we had Trade me take down the posting for the sale of the chattels. see the trade me ad here Chattels, lease, fitout for sale _ Trade Me
this is what Samuel wrote in reply
Samuel North <samuel@muserestaurant.co.nz
Hello Rosie
I have been passed on your questions about the premises.
So the business is not for sale, it has been very successful and I am relocating it to a bigger venue.
The lease has around 5 years remaining with a further 6 years right of renewal ( I have asked the landlord for a copy and should have it within the next couple of days)
I recently fitted out the restaurant (not kitchen) so all chattels in the front are all brand new, kitchen equipment has been well maintained and ranges from 3 years to 6 years old.
Attached is a chattels list
We turned over 800k the last financial year, the street is very busy during the night, we operate Tuesday to Saturday – Friday and Saturday are our busiest.
Muse on Allen is a fine dining restaurant with a bar, our average spend is $90 however you may want to make it more accessible as the street is busy but not everyone spends $90 on a dinner these days.
Please let me know if you have any more questions or you would like to view the premises, it is price to sell and I’m open to offer as I’m moving in January.
Thanks
Samuel
so what is the bet will he liquidate Muse on Allen ? when changes occur something is up . Muse on Allen has been in liquidation court already this year .
We further draw your attention to the provisions of the convention in
Article 52. Prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime.
The chattels are being disposed of there is an attempt to pervert the course of justice and there can be no doubt that many crimes including misappropriation of assets have occurred crime has been committed but our authorities will not act. there appears to be a ping pong game between police and Registrar in the mean time Jozsef has paid out $50,000 to lawyers and needs to find $10,000 more . If he drops out of the court action his lawyers advised him to commence before bleeding him dry then he will be cleaned out with costs and as victors the offenders will walk free.
We request that the registrar of companies urgently intervenes as required by our new obligations to the convention and ensure that the crimes which have been identified are not left unprosecuted and the assets secured.
This letter is an open letter as this is now a matter which is not just in the national interest but in the international interest. New Zealand wither condones corruption or it does not. If it does not condone corruption then the government officers cannot sit on the side line when we have signed up to this important treaty
Posted in 
NZ ratifies UN Convention Against Corruption
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: |
Resource Guide on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and Capacity
Self-assessment of the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption |
State capture. does the Auditor General know what it is ?
In reply to my request for investigation I received the following reply from auditor general
I have responded as follows
From: Grace Haden
Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012 12:11 p.m.
To: ‘Jude Hutton’; lyn.provost@oag.govt.nz
Cc: j.key@ministers.govt.nz; ‘j.collins@ministers.govt.nz’; johnhayes.mp@xtra.co.nz; d.carter@ministers.govt.nz; david.shearer@parliament.govt.nz; info@winstonpeters.com; ‘pita.sharples@parliament.govt.nz’; Chester Borrows (Chester.Borrows@parliament.govt.nz); a.tolley@ministers.govt.nz; ‘peter.dunne@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘russel.norman@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘lianne.dalziel@parliament.govt.nz’; david.parker@parliament.govt.nz
Subject: refusal to investigate and privacy act request.
Open letter in response to the Auditor General
Thank you for your response Jude.
This is not an Individual matter but one which goes to the heart of corruption In New Zealand
The AWINZ matter involves two distinct types of corruption
- State capture
- Public office for private pecuniary gain
These issue are very serious and of public concern.
I have given you a lot of evidence which shows that
- That managers in public office can contract to themselves
- That trusts are used and that there is a general naivety and lack of understanding of requirements when dealing with various forms of trusts .
- The use of public resources to derive a private income and the lack of awareness to prevent this
- The inability of Councils and government departments to verify alleged facts , instead relying on trust and being deceived.
- The ability for people to write legislation, and advise on it for their own business plans.
- The ability of interested parties to write caucus papers to see their own project be accepted by cabinet.
- The inability of the charities commission to administer their act .
- The ability to manipulate the process of law.
- The propensity to cover up rather than expose wrong doings within councils and government departments
It would appear to me that the tactics used in the AWINZ scenario are wide spread .Vast sums of tax payers and rate payers funds are being lost and here we have a perfect example which provides many lessons but we cast it aside and say we prefer not to remain ignorant .
By learning lessons from the AWINZ matter better procedures and process could be put into place and the billions being syphoned off from the public will instead go for the betterment of society as a whole.
In the AWINZ matter the council never considered if it wished to provide “ animal welfare services “ to the rate payers and the council never gave approval for their staff to be used by a third party organisation yet it happened, legal opinions for this private enterprise were also obtained at a cost to the rate payers.
I would have presumed that the audit office would not have approved of council managers using the staff under their control to use the councils vehicles, infrastructure and resources to prioritise non council work. It could well be that there are no policies for this and that you simply assume that “ that doesn’t happen”
There is much to be learnt from this very well documented matter and it proves that there are no safe guards against corruption and that you do not intend to have any in place.
I have three requests.
- Privacy act request – Please provide me with all personal information that you hold on me .
- Please provide a definition for both State capture and public office for private gain and provide copies of the policies which you have in place to deal with those forms of corruption .
- Please advise if you have ever uncovered or investigated matters involving state capture or public office for private pecuniary gain.
I am the lead petitioner in a petition calling for an independent commission against corruption, the reply I received from you today will become part of the evidence as to why we need such a body.
This letter will be published on www.Transparency.net.nz
Regards
Grace Haden
Why there is no corruption in New Zealand
Sent: Friday, 13 July 2012 3:12 p.m.
To: ‘aosterhaus@transparency.org’; ‘ti@transparency.org’
Cc: ‘executive@transparency.org.nz’; ‘ituke@deloitte.co.nz’; ‘AsiaPacific@acfe.com’; ‘president@ACFE.com’
Subject: Corruption in New Zealand Whistle blower seeks assistance.
Good afternoon
I have recently applied to join transparency International New Zealand and was turned down.
I am a licenced Private Investigator , Former Police prosecuting sergeant and am a whistle-blower who has endured 6 years of attack through the court system for questioning corruption in New Zealand which involved the following.
Six years ago I asked questions with regards to one of only two private law enforcement bodies in New Zealand. I found that it did not exist.
We had had a big song and dance about John Davies , and later Marianne Thompson and Steven Wilce using false CV’s but somehow having a non-existent law enforcement authority involved in ,what apart from me ,would have been a perfect public fraud is condoned.
I found that the person who ran this law enforcement authority which had coercive statutory rights of search and seizure ..
- Had written the bill for the legislation which enabled him to set up this law enforcement authority in accordance with his own business plan
- advised on the legislation select committee as “independent” advisor to the select committee.
- Used the privileged information at select committee level to circumvent the intention of the new law
- Submitted an application to become a law enforcement authority using a fictitious name and making false claims as to its structure existence and intentions to the minister.
- Misled the minister as to material facts during the review process and gave false assurances while failing to provide evidence of the “ organisations” existence
- Wrote his own caucus papers so as to have the application for the fictitious organisation pass through cabinet.
- Ran the “ organisation “ which was just him ,from a territorial authorities premises using public assets ,resources and staff to derive a personal income.
- When I asked questions with regards to the nature and existence of this “ organisation “ he used the court to cover up his corruption by using underhanded legal tactics to win a victory over me, the whistle-blower who was deprived a defence of truth and honest opinion and in proceedings where the was no formal proof and no evidence was produced.
- Used charitable funds to fund the litigation which only he could profit from.
I have not been able to get an investigation into this matter despite having a ton of information.
This has come at a huge personal cost to myself and I have just had $91,000 extorted from me to pay for the cost judgement which now with new evidence has been shown to have bane fraudulently obtained.
This matter and the way it has been dealt with at every level is proof of just how corrupt new Zealand is.
I have been reading the transparency International web site http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/activity/our_work_on_whistleblowing
It appears to me that the support offered internationally and the views expressed by Transparency International are not shared in New Zealand. In New Zealand the local chapter apparently gives Whistle-blowers the cold shoulder
In a transparency International publication it states
Yet here in New Zealand supposedly the least perceived corrupt country in the world, not only have we not ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption but transparency International supports corruption by slamming the door of support firmly in the face of whistle blowers.
If the document which is listed on the transparency web site at http://www.transparency.org/files/content/activity/2009_PrinciplesForWhistleblowingLegislation_EN.pdf was supported in any way by the New Zealand Branch I would have been welcomed as a member due to the vast experience and information I have with regards to the treatment of Whistle-blowers in New Zealand.
But Transparency International New Zealand simply does not wish to know about me or my matter despite the fact that many of its members attend the certified fraud examiners meeting with me.
On the transparency web site at http://www.transparency.org/getinvolved/report it states
1. Corruption is an abuse of entrusted power. It hurts real people every day. True
2. Victims of corruption need support. There’s nothing worse than suffering in silence. True
3. our Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres (ALACs) operate in more than 50 countries. But not in New Zealand the least perceived corrupt country in the world
4. We offer free advice to victims of corruption and push for changes in the system. But not in New Zealand the least perceived corrupt country in the world
5. No one should have to confront corruption alone. We are here to help you. But not in New Zealand the least perceived corrupt country in the world
The New Zealand chapter is not doing anything with regards to corruption and Whistle blowers except exclude them .
You will find the evidence relating to this corruption here http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/2012/07/11/the-perfect-fraud-public-money-for-private-gain/
Is there any accountability to make transparency International New Zealand adhere to the values of transparency International?
Can I work through someone in transparency International to educate the new Zealand chapter as to what corruption is, new Zealand is rife with it !
I would very much welcome your help and support. New Zealand does not deserve its least corrupt status.
If you don’t define it , if you don’t acknowledge it then you have not got it.. that is the only reason NZ is corruption free!
Regards
Grace Haden
What is corruption?
There are many excellent articles on the topic of corruption and the one which stands out today is this one http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/233/What_is_corruption_.html
It commences..Corruption is talked about openly in most countries these days and few countries deny they suffer from it. Which is a good thing, since it provides politicians, business and labour leaders, journalists and civil society with a rare opportunity: that of agreeing on the urgency of stamping it out…. more
Now if corruption is a dirty word in New Zealand and people who question corruption risk losing it all, then we are not one of the countries the article refers to.
In reality it is not surprising as New Zealand has not ratified the UN convention against corruption . we don’t have fraud and we don’t have corruption because we simply deny that it exists.. simple end of story.
But is it so we need only look at the news paper articles or worse still try to report fraud to the police and you will become aware just how hopeless your task will be.
In New Zealand we have our heads in the sand , but who are we kidding? When you deny the existence of something as big as fraud and corruption you are giving it invisibility and the ability to grow.
So the question is how big does fraud and corruption need to get in New Zealand before we get angry and call for an independent commission against corruption? Between now and then how many more victims will there be when will we say we have had enough?
OECD and United Nations action against corruption
The oecd has a website devoted to corruption and a paper relating to public procurement
At transparency NZ we are concerned about the manner in which things are done, changes made without consultation, or consultation which is carried out because the box has to be ticked but any thing that comes out of the consultation won’t make the slightest bit of difference.
Penny Bright is actively dealing with public Private relationships such as water privatisation and the super city. Her blog is http://waterpressure.wordpress.com/
Grace Haden is now focused on the privatisation of Dog and stock control . her blog shows how privatisation of this began as long as 20 years ago . Her blog is at http://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com
Vince Siemer our press officer has a news web site Kiwis First located at http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz he provides the news that others seek to suppress.
In comparing notes we have discovered that there are similar trends. that is how Lobbying is carried out and how those with business interests appear to have more say than those whose lives and well-being the nation should be considering.
New Zealand has moved from a country with caring leadership to one which is driven by business , the people have become a commodity and greed is rife.
In short we have lost integrity the ECD has a definition
Defining integrity
Integrity can be defined as the use of funds, resources, assets, and authority, according to the intended official purposes, to be used in line with public interest. A „negative‟ approach to define integrity is also useful to determine an effective strategy for preventing „integrity violations‟ in the field of public procurement. Integrity violations include:
· Corruption including bribery, „kickbacks‟, nepotism, cronyism and clientelism;
· Fraud and theft of resources, for example through product substitution in the delivery which results in lower quality materials;
· Conflict of interest in the public service and in post-public employment;
· Collusion;
· Abuse and manipulation of information;
· Discriminatory treatment in the public procurement process; and
· The waste and abuse of organisational resources.
This could be the reason why New Zealand has not ratified the united nations convention against corruption because we can almost certainly tick all of the above boxes .
Our aim is to provide the information so that New Zealand can move closer to ratifying the united nations convention against corruption so that New Zealand can become the lesast corrupt with integrity rather than achieving that statistic by attacking and silencing those who attempt to expose corrupt practices.
further reading
Public Governance and management
OECD Guidelines in the area of public service ethics
Policy brief: Keeping Government Contracts Clean
The united nations convention against corruption pages are at http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/index.html