The South Canterbury Finance trial has been adjourned until February and the five people charged with what the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) maintains is New Zealand's biggest ever white collar crime, will keep their name suppression until then.
The five people, who didn’t appear in the Timaru District Court today, were granted a registrar’s adjournment until Feb. 13 to allow for disclosure, and Judge Joanna Maze let name suppression continue until then.
The five face 21 charges relating to fraud worth NZ$1.7 billion, including NZ$1.58 billion from the lender entering the government’s retail deposit guarantee scheme.
The SFO filed the charges in early December after a 14-month investigation.
10 Comments
More on the details of the charges from the Timaru Herald:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/6260876/Details-of-SCF-trial-char…
The charges include entering the Crown Guarantee Scheme by deception in 2008 (which cost $1.58b), omitting to disclose a related party loan of $64.185m from SCF to Southbury Group and Woolpak Holdings in the 2008/2009 prospectus, failing to disclose related party loans of $19.1m from SCF to Shark Wholesalers in the 2004/2005 prospectus, and, in 2008 and 2009, breaching the crown guarantee by lending $39m to Quadrant Holding Limited.
The media have completely misread/misinterpreted the charge sheets in relation to the value of some of the alleged omissions. The values are, in fact, significantly less (millions!), but this will become clear to the public in due course, as will the woeful media comprehension of this case.
I have to laugh at "entering the Crown Guarantee Scheme by deception"...just wait until you hear what the Crown's "requirements" were to enter the scheme! This too will become clear in due course.
In my opinion, it should be the Crown on trial here. Hold on to your hats folks, this could be a humdinger of a trial, and the Crown and SFO could well end up with egg on it's face!
So by far the biggest part of the 'supposed' fraud, was entering the Deposit Guarantee Scheme, which itself was one of this country's biggest frauds, a fraud perpetrated on New Zealand taxpayers by politicians, a mechanism and the unintended consequences of which ensured SCF would fail.
It should be the politicians and bureaucrats in the courts. Surely, they had all the relevant information to be checking on the firms entering the scheme, and they were auditing thoroughly all the information they were receiving, given the huge sums involved? How did all that supposedly fail so grandiosely? If in the private sector, heads would've certainly rolled. How come the government administrators of the Deposit Guarantee Scheme get to walk away with not only their freedom, but their careers, unscathed.
How farcical.
The sad thing is , Alan Hubbard never stood a chance to save his business , and to clear his name ....
.... the moment that John Key sent his goons from the SFO in , SCF's fate was sealed . As was the taxpayers' of NZ ...
We will never know if Mr Hubbard was correct , in that he could've remedied the situation .
An addendum to my above post:
All the media beat-up about this being the biggest corporate fraud in history, and what we're really talking about is simply a firm entering a government scheme, into which, at the time, they were being virtually romanced by the bureaucrats because they ignorantly believed it would save the company by stopping a run of SCF's funds - that was, after all, the entire rationale of the Guarantee Scheme. (As opposed to the truth in which by the government recklessly offering risk averse investors a risk-less higher rate than bank term deposit, it destroyed more than twice the investor funds it would have done if the Guarantee Scheme had never been instituted in the first instance. Although it didn't destroy investor funds, did it. It destroyed my tax money. Yeah, there's criminality here all right.)
Politicians and bureaucrats; you wouldn't want them running your life for you.
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.