The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is launching an investigation into donations made to the Labour Party in 2017.
It will not however say exactly what it is investigating.
Labour Party President Claire Szarbo said the party hadn't been told "the specifics of the inquiry", but would fully cooperate.
The SFO said: "The fact that the SFO has commenced an investigation is not an indication of guilt. In order to commence an investigation, the Serious Fraud Office Act requires that the Director must have reasonable grounds to believe that a relevant offence may have been committed. The Director does not have to be satisfied that an offence has been committed."
Its Director Julie Read said: “We consider that making the current announcement is consistent with our past practice in this area of electoral investigations and in the public interest.”
While Szarbo wouldn't make further statements while the investigation is underway, she said: "For completeness however, we note that we have already made statements to media in February confirming that two men who were then being investigated by the SFO and had made donations to the National Party, had also made donations to Labour."
Shijia Zheng (Colin) donated $1,940 to Labour in 2018, and Hengjia Zheng (Joe) donated $10,000 in 2017 by buying a piece of art at an auction. Labour said both transactions were included in the party's returns.
Zheng and Zheng have been charged alongside former National MP, Jami-Lee Ross, and Chinese businessman, Yikun Zhang, in relation to donations made to the National Party Botany Electorate in 2017 ($100,000) and 2018 ($100,050).
The case will go to trial in September 2021.
The SFO also has investigations underway in relation to donations made to the New Zealand First Foundation, as well as in relation to Auckland Council and Christchurch City Council mayoral electoral funding.
53 Comments
So the same men who gave National over $200k gave Labour $12k but somehow this is a slight on JA personally? I think perhaps we should wait for the investigation before jumping to conclusions that she was personally aware of a $12k donation that she agreed to some corrupt agreement for.
I think we should perhaps consider that there is something more broadly wrong with NZ politics and its relationship to Chinese money and that they are all in on it and whilst Labour are far from perfect, clearly National have their snouts much more firmly in that particularly trough.
An interesting point to make and likewise an interesting photo selection to caption as this is surely more of a question for the Labour Party itself, than the PM. Still it is natural, and she is very good at being that in my opinion, compared to some of her predecessors that is.
It was a man dressed as a homeless bloke, who was seen dropping a paper bag; obviously stuffed full of illegal donation cash, at the front entrance to the Labour Party headquarters. I can't tell you who the source of that information is on the grounds of confidentiality. But it's someone whose an impeccable source who has never lead me astray. But it needs looking into. Isn't that right, Michael?
"However, the SFO did not elaborate on the particulars of the investigation, which appears to have blindsided the party.'
Good point upthread; it's a sad day when Int.co has to trot out a picture of a Parliamentary leader, to represent a political Party. Speaks volumes.
As to the 'news'- it appears they are all trying to push the boundaries. As are those who would influence by donating. Time we funded and capped campaign advertising, completely.
I don't understand what "speaks volumes", powerdownkiwi. When you write breaking news, you use whatever picture you can source in about 30 seconds from your database, which best suits the story. This story is about Labour, and the picture selected is of the party's leader. Alternatively, I could've used a Labour Party logo, but didn't have a current, properly formatted one on file. There's no conspiracy here.
You shouldn't have to defend yourself on the choice of picture. Particularly when it is the leader of the Labour party being used. As with all leaders - ultimate responsibility sits with her. Her photo is used enough for all the "good" news stories without issue, so I see no problem with this in the slightest.
Further, Labour was openly struggling with donations up until she was annouced as leader. When she came on board so did the donations. So I think it is entirely relevant to the story.
True. Am glad it's being investigated across all parties. Auctions have been used for years to record donations coming in. I guess the concern is that if people are donating massive amounts for trivial items then much more transparency is needed. I would heartily agree.
Parties have had to record the results of these auctions for decades, at least, so wonder what the specifics of the issues are these days.
Another smokescreen, more distractions. Give everyone a hug and it's all good, smile for the camera, and let's have an enquiry.. As far as I'm concerned we should just not vote en masse, as a protest.. This country is slowly but surely slipping into mediocrity, championed by the retards we have been saddled with thanks to this absolute bastardization called MMP. "Goodbye and thanks for the fish" has some relevance.
"Slipping into mediocrity" man you got that right. We're working on several rma land use applications. Heaps of lengthy reports to pay for and more than likely will not be approved. On one, we've been strongly "advised" by council to have discussions with the local hapu/iwi. Does that mean that if the iwi say no then council will oppose... What exactly is the point of having a council.
Down here in ChCh our family building a replacement EQ home 40mm one corner over the recession plane, $3,500.00 to get approval under existing rights. Yet a new school in the same district is 2 metres over. Oh no one checked, noticed or reported and the council says it doesn’t really matter now because the building is up and who cares. Go figure, hells bells was not not the site surveyed, who interpreted that? We had to get ours done twice. Ref J.C. post as above at 4.50pm.
Surely it is time to finance our political parties. The idea of giving my hard earned money in tax to pay for our political parties goes against the grain but (a) either we do or the CCP does (b) the cost of subsidizing our political parties is likely to be less than paying for the SFO and its multiple investigations.
Certainly not based on opinion polls. I would leave it to voters - when I vote I'm given a voucher that can only be cashed by a registered political party. That way I can vote Lab or Nat to run the next govt and give my $10 voucher to say TOP or ACT or Cannabis Now (if there is such a party) or even Destiny NZ - all parties with no hope at the election but maybe deserving encouragement.
Getting rid of bribes (let's face it, that's what the donations are intended to be by the large donors) is the single biggest improvement we could make to New Zealand. Think about the improvement in policy and the the life of the average Kiwi Battler that would result.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.