OECD and United Nations action against corruption

Muse on Allen – Samuel North and the Convention against corruption

Muse on AllenOpen 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

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 anticorruptioninstrument.

read about the convention  here

Text of the United Nations Convention against Corruption EnglishUNCAC English

STATUS AS AT : 05-12-2015 07:03:18 EDT
CHAPTER XVIII
PENAL MATTERS
New York, 31 October 2003
Entry into force
:
14 December 2005, in accordance with article 68(1).
Registration :
14 December 2005, No. 42146
Status :
Signatories : 140. Parties : 178
Text :
United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2349, p. 41; Doc. A/58/422.
Note :
The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 31 October 2003 at United Nations Headquarters in New York. It shall be open to all States for signature from 9 to 11 December 2003 in Merida, Mexico, and thereafter at United Nations Headquarters in New York until 9 December 2005, in accordance with article 67 (1) of the Convention. The Convention shall also be open for signature by regional economic integration organizations provided that at least one member State of such organization has signed this Convention in accordance with its article 67 (2).
New Zealand 8 10 Dec 2003  1 Dec 2015
8.Upon ratification, the Government of New Zealand notified the Secretary-General of the following:
“… consistent with the constitutional status of Tokelau and taking into account the commitment of the Government of New Zealand to the development of self-government for Tokelau through an act of self-determination under the Charter of the United Nations, [the ratification by New Zealand of this Convention] shall not extend to Tokelau unless and until a Declaration to this effect is lodged by the Government of New Zealand with the Depositary on the basis of appropriate consultation with that territory…”

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.

Beehive

Law  society 

Transparency International 

United Nations Convention against Corruption Tools and Publications:
Rules of Procedure for the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption

Rules of Procedure

UNCAC Legislative Guides

Legislative Guide

UNCAC Technical Guides

Technical Guide

Travaux Préparatoires of the negotiations for the elaboration of the United Nations Convention against Corruption

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

  1. State capture
  2. 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

  1.  That managers  in  public office  can contract to themselves
  2. That  trusts are used and that there is a general   naivety  and lack of understanding of requirements when  dealing with various forms of  trusts  .
  3. The use of public resources to derive a  private income and the lack of  awareness to prevent this
  4. The inability of  Councils and government departments to verify alleged facts , instead relying on trust and being deceived.
  5. The ability for people to write legislation, and advise on it for  their own business plans.
  6. The ability of interested parties to write caucus papers  to see their own project be accepted by cabinet.
  7. The inability of the charities commission to  administer their act .
  8. The ability to manipulate the process of law.
  9. 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.

  1. Privacy act request – Please provide me with all  personal information   that you hold on me   .
  2.  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    .
  3.  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  ..

  1. Had written the bill for the legislation which enabled him to set up  this  law enforcement authority in accordance with  his own business plan
  2. advised on the  legislation   select committee as “independent” advisor to the select committee.
  3.  Used the privileged information  at select committee level to circumvent the intention of the new law
  4. 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.
  5. Misled the minister as to material facts during the    review process and gave  false assurances  while  failing to provide evidence of the “ organisations” existence
  6. Wrote his own caucus papers  so as to  have the application for the fictitious organisation pass through cabinet.
  7. Ran the “ organisation “ which was just him ,from a territorial  authorities premises using public  assets ,resources and staff to derive a personal income.
  8. 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.
  9. 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

Whistle -blowers can play an essential role in detecting fraud, mismanagement and corruption. Their actions help to save lives, protect human rights and safeguard the rule of law. To protect the public good, whistle-blowers frequently take on high personal risks. They may face victimisation or dismissal from the workplace, their employer may sue (or threaten to sue) them for breach of  confidentiality or libel, and they may be subject to criminal sanctions. In extreme cases, they face physical danger.” etc

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

www.oecd.org/corruption

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