The Financial Markets Authority has started civil legal proceedings against the former 'directors and promoters' of finance company Hanover.
More than 16,000 investors lost more than $500 million when the company collapsed in 2008.
Sean Hughes, the CEO of the FMA told TV ONE's Q&A program papers were filed in Auckland on Friday.
Here is the FMA statement:
On Friday March 30 the Financial Markets Authority filed civil proceedings against directors and promoters of Hanover Finance Ltd, Hanover Capital Ltd, and United Finance Ltd.
Proceedings under the Securities Act have been filed against Mark Hotchin, Eric Watson, Greg Muir, Sir Tipene O’Regan, Bruce Gordon and Dennis Broit.
They relate to statements made in the December 2007 prospectuses, subsequent advertising, and the March 2008 prospectus extension certificate.
FMA is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalty orders and compensation for investors who made investments during the period 7 December 2007 to 22 July 2008.
During this period new investments and reinvestments totalled $35 million.
The Serious Fraud Office investigation into matters relating to the Hanover Group is continuing.
This action follows hot on the heals of a successful criminal prosecution in the Lombard case.
The private NZgambling casino and it’s state protection.
So, another legal court case, which cost tax payers millions already in the past. What about the Kiwis, who invested their money wisely, but most time for less. The careful investor is no paying for thousand’s of greedy idiots, who have taken too much risks.
Yes – where is the financial state reward/ compensation for all Kiwis, who work hard and pursue an honest, inconspicuous daily life ? We are living in a society, where doggy and criminal activities not only take over, but are constantly and increasingly rewarded by some of the public/ media - even by the law.
A civil action by a government department, such as this, flies in the face of the rule of law and is completely inappropriate. Hotchin now enters his sixteenth month of life frozen by an out-of-control State, and it appears the State never had a criminal case of fraud. That is the only point of consequence to take from this action. The abuse of power of the State.
And for the record, no, I'm not defending Hotchin. I'm defending something much more important: my freedom ... and your's.
I'm right now packing the computer up for six weeks off ... have to get back to this then.
But, I believe in limited government: that's where a State provides the framework for civil actions only, but is itself restricted to policing just the non-initiation of force and fraud. With no criminal charge, yet, Hotchin's situation is whim of State / arbitrary, not objective law ... catch you in six weeks.
Didn't think you'd be a fan of arbitrary government Iain? Oh no, wait a minute, you're the bloke who believes in bureacrats as angels or something equally absurd.
In relation to the specific argument I give on my SOLO link, vis a vis the rule of law lost to an arbitrary State, I'm arguing nothing else 'here', explain to me where my argument wasn't rational?
Apparently, when the SFO put the asset freeze on Hotchin 16 months ago, they didn't even have a criminal case of fraud. What happens in a society when the State rules on whim, not objective law?
For this once, Iain, I've got my Komodo Kamado smoking ribeye roast with mesquite, a bottle of wine open, and from now, six weeks off. So I don't care ;)
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.