Glenn to co-operate
August 21st, 2008 at 8:08 am by David FarrarVery pleasing to read in the Dominion Post that Owen Glenn has said he will co-operate with both the Privileges Committee and any SFO investigation:
Mr Glenn last night revealed that he had already provided written statements to both the SFO and parliamentary privileges committee, which is conducting an inquiry into whether Mr Peters breached Parliament’s rules by failing to disclose the donation.
Mr Glenn would “cooperate with each body, as may be necessary”, a statement from his office said.
Good to see him doing the right thing.
But in a new development on Monday, Mr Henry disclosed that he personally footed the bill for $40,000 in costs awarded against Mr Peters after the electoral petition failed – which might also be considered a gift that should have been disclosed.
In a twist yesterday, however, Mr Peters said Mr Henry had now had a chance to check his records – and discovered that he had since been reimbursed by Mr Peters.
It would be useful for a copy of those records to be given to the Privileges Committee. If it was all reimbursed within the same year, then indeed there may not be a debt paid off on Peters’ behalf. If it was not all reimbursed within the year, then there may be issues.
Related posts:
- More details likely from Glenn
- More on Peters and Henry
- The myth that the Privileges Committee will decide who is telling the truth
- Media on Henry and Peters
August 21st, 2008 at 8:12 am
More like the next choreographed move, designed to prevent the corrupt becoming impaled by the truth.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 8:22 am
>In a twist yesterday
In other words: They spotted a straw to grasp. They’re hoping no one works out it is yet more bullshit.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 8:27 am
This would be the same $40,000 that Peters said it was the first time he had heard about Henry paying it just the other day but for some reason he had reimpursed him for it previously in suddenly uncovered records?
Anyone elses bullshit detector burnt out?
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 8:36 am
OHHHH, that great fat fucking forty grand.
THAT will be where it came from. Silly me, I just thought ASB had made an error.
It’s like watching your kids telling porkies, being caught out, changing the story a little, corroborating with each other.
Except you can give them a smack for it, oh, hang on. No you can’t. Lying is ok.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 8:38 am
You have got to be shitting me….
Can these guys treat the public like any bigger Muppets?
Is Flinstone Peters some multi billionaire that $40k just slips your memory.
Someone slap him…. Pretty please with sugar on top.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 8:44 am
Peters strategy seems to be to fill his thin smoke screen with a laser light show, dancing girls, and now, six pimped-out elephants showing a montage of images from Punch Drunk Love on a DVD loop. He’s hoping that the spectators will be so hypnotised by the absurdity of it all that they’ll forget what they’re looking at and happily go back to the Polls and vote him in again. I suspect they may do it too.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 8:48 am
Why on earth do our bloody useless media let Peters get away with it?, I know some incredibly wealthy people and not one of them would “forget” about a $40,000 debt.
The public should be made aware of this, they should also be reminded that both Labour and the Nat’s are going soft on Peters simply because they MIGHT have to work with the crook after the next election.
When the next “what occupation do you trust the least” survey comes out I do not want to hear one single politician piss and moan about being ranked at the very bottom, it is nothing more than the wankers deserve.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 8:48 am
goodgod – how are those drugs..?
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 8:48 am
I got excited when I found 5 bucks in my pockey that I didn’t know I had. If Peters can foregt about 40k is Doc Sullen going to be calling him a “rich prick” any time soon?
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 9:12 am
Sometime, some place, somewhere Peters is going to find he has been too clever by half. This lawerly accounting is peculiar. If Henry paid the 40K costs, Henry paid them. If Henry does not care to bill his work appropriately Peters can hardly claim that the occasional payment to Henry is in settlement of a debt. If Peters owed Henry, even though unbilled, before the costs were awarded then a 40K payment by Peters is automatically applied against the oldest amount owing. The role of the instructing solicitor needs close scrutiny here too.
At the least, we have a litigous character exposed who expects others to pay his legal costs while he (and they?) takes the benefits of the actions. This conduct has been improper if not unlawful for centuries.
If accounting entries have just been made now applying a payment or payments by Peters against the 40K paid by Henry this would suggest comtempt and deceptive behaviour . If records have altered it may even be criminal.
The serious question here is, what’s in it for Henry or possible his associates? Is the Spencer Trust involved too? As a former Income Tax Inspector one didn’t find such peculiarities in the singular. The scope of the investigation needs broadening.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 9:15 am
As Murray said “This would be the same $40,000 that Peters said it was the first time he had heard about Henry paying it just the other day but for some reason he had reimpursed him for it previously in suddenly uncovered records?”
Surely even Winstone Weasel can’t slip out of that lie?
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 9:31 am
Dr Robotnik
I was thinking exactly the same thing as I scanned the Dom-Post this morning. Makes you wonder how thick Winston really is if he thinks he can get away with this…. Oh hang on – he’s part of the Labour-led govt – he’s fine – move on.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 9:33 am
DPF
This seems to be a de-ja-vu moment…..
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/07/clark_distancing_herself_from_peters.html
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 9:38 am
I actually have no doubt there will be no consequences from all of this for Winston, other than a very slim chance of a voter backlash. History tells us that even if he has blatantly broken numerous laws and rules that there will be no case to answer under the rule of the Labour-led govt.
IMHO the most likely outcome from all of this is more retrospective validations or perhaps, just possibly, a slap on the back of his hand with a wet bus ticket.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 9:47 am
You know what burt?
You are probably correct and that is the saddest thing in this whole farcical, theatrical freakshow.
Not the lies, not the stupid and blinkered public, not the pathetic excuses for journalists that seem as amused by it all as much as the rest of us.
The saddest thing is that the fucking scumbags who are totally above the law and expect us to follow their rule are, in effect, untouchable. Because their peers are as crooked as them and will hold no one to account.
Absolutely disgusting.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 9:48 am
I wonder if he’ll go the same way as Bertie Ahern earlier this year. At a minimum the committee needs to put more of Peters’ and Henry’s office staff and secretaries on the stand to get to the truth. Bertie did not have actual records like invoices either. Perhaps it’s time a commission, rather than committee took this matter further. Public confidence needs to be restored pronto.
“Bertie Ahern has announced his resignation as Ireland’s Prime Minister following sleaze allegations centring on a series of allegedly secret payments that he received from businessmen in the 1990s.
Mr Ahern said he would leave office on May 6 following months of damaging publicity about his financial affairs, which, for many, brought uncomfortable reminders of the corruption that marked the Republic’s Charles Haughey era.
Despite presiding over the unprecedented economic growth of the Celtic Tiger and receiving plaudits for his role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland, the career of the Irish Republic’s most enduring modern politician ended in ignominy.
For over 10 years the Mahon Tribunal has been investigating allegations of corruption involving Mr Ahern, who has always denied any wrong-doing. In recent months the tribunal has looked into the apparently bizarre nature of Mr Ahern’s finances in the 1990s when he served as Ireland’s Finance Minister.
Last month his reputation was fatally wounded when his former constituency secretary was reduced to tears in front of the tribunal as she struggled to explain his financial arrangements.
In the 1990s, Mr Ahern, a trained accountant, did not hold a personal bank account preferring to cash his salary cheques in his local north Dublin pub.
Eventually, the investigation uncovered four cash lodgements, which totalled more than £85,000. Mr Ahern claimed that the payments consisted of goodwill loans from friends known as “the circle” or the “Drumcondra Mafia” when he was separating from his wife Miriam.”
Telegraph 2008
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 10:11 am
KevOB
I can see it now, Helen will announce that she has launched an inquiry with wide wide terms. The Inquiry is to determine if Owen Glenn spelt “One Hundred Thousand Dollars” correctly on the cheque he wrote to
Winston Peters,The Spencer Trust,Cash, somebody.Edit: Special consideration is also to be given to the use of “only” following the dollar amount or the use of ” and zero cents”.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 10:24 am
What I don’t get is how any of the donors can know that their money ended up paying Winston’s bills, as it should have. It seems to me that the situation is that:
1. Brian Henry hasn’t raised any invoices, so nobody knows how much Winston “owes” him (in quotes because it isn’t clear it is a debt, although logically it must be)
2. Brian Henry solicits money from donors, who believe that they are paying Winston’s legal bills, or may believe they are donating to NZ First (and arguably most of them don’t care too much which)
3. The money donated may be more or less than Brian Henry’s costs.
4. If less, then there is still some unpaid for services left over that are either an in-kind donation from Brian Henry to Winston, or an unstated debt that Brian Henry has just chosen not to raise an invoice for. It must be one or the other, despite the sophistry
5. If more, then Brian Henry has effectively stolen money from the donors, or is holding money in trust for future costs, which I believe is illegal for a barrister
So, a question I’d be asking is whether Brian Henry has sufficient records to be able to prove whether the donations exceed the total amount of services provided, and therefore whether he has stolen money. I presume he can, but of course, if he has such records, then those records establish a debt that Winston owes to Henry – even though it is not invoiced. And the donations that reduce that debt must logically be gifts to Winston. If he does not have those records, then surely he should be struck off for suspicion of “theft as a servant” or some such?
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 10:52 am
Hey I found a $2 coin down the back of my couch last night, I looked and looked but I couldn’t find a $100,000 cheque I knew nothing about. Guess I’m not as lucky as some.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 10:58 am
Here’s a scenario…… I wonder how true it is?
1) Winston incurs debt to Clarkson.
2) Henry pays dept.
3) time passes
4) even more time passes.
5) Winston is hauled before privileges committee, $40k embarrasment is raised…
6) Winston writes $40k cheque
7) Henry checks his records to “discover” that he was re-imbursed.
It “fits” the public statements….. no lies have been told…
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 11:14 am
FletcherB – The PC could check bank records, including Henry’s account looking for the deposited cheque and, and on the claim that the cheque was never deposted, the dates of presentation of Winnies cheques before and after the one Henry just ‘discovered’.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 11:18 am
getstaffed
You seem to be making an assumption that the PC want to clear all of this up in an open and transparent manner?
Are you very young or perhaps new to politics under the labour-led govt ?
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 11:28 am
burt, they say to be old and wise one must have first been young and foolish. i guess i’ve mixed those attributes non-optimally!
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 11:29 am
FletcherB: That’s the most likely, most credible series of events. Well articulated.
PaulL: You’re right to highlight Henry’s pivotal and highly questionable role in this fiasco. There are few clear rules that apply to politicians like Peters, and integrity is not expected. But there are specific rules that apply to barristers, as well as professional and ethical standards. There is more damage being done to trust in the legal profession than there is to already sullied parliamentary processes and personalities. When will relevant professional organisations decide that it is time to do something about it?
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Rodney Hide (10) +22 Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:24 am
The situation is now clear
As MUD mate
Some random thoughts:
GST becomes a payable liability on one of two dates – the date a payment is received or the date an invoice is issued; irrespective of which date is the most appropriate, a tax invoice must be issued showing the GST number of the invoice. ON this basis, given that Mr. Henry insists in his NBR interview that all GST and income tax liabilities have been met, Mr Peters must have been issued an invoice for services (rendered or to be rendered – more on that next). AS no service has been provided to Mr. Glen by Mr. Henry, that invoice cannot have been issued to Mr. Glen as it would be untruthful and unethical, UNLESS Mr. Glen has specifically undertaken to pay Mr. Peters’ bill for him to a maximum of $88,888.88 plus GST, in which case it is clear that Mr Peters received money (as gift or donation) from Mr. Glen, irrespective of his knowledge of the receipt of that money. In this situation the legal axiom that ‘ignorance is not innocence’ must apply, especially in a situation where the ignorance was expressly premeditated by agreement.
If the payment was for services rendered, then it is reasonable that the money be paid into Mr. Henry’s personal account and be treated as income by him, with the normal expenses for tax purpose and tax payable ramifications. If it was for services not yet rendered, then there is, as I understand it, an ethical issue with significant impact on the Law Society. If a lawyer can render an account, and/or take monies on-account of services to be provided at a future time, GAAP says that the amount must be shown as a liability in the enterprise’s (in this case the individual’s) balance sheet, not as income on the income and expenditure account. The normal approach for a solicitor here is to render the funds to their trust account; an approach not available to a barrister sole, as they are not allowed a trust account. (One of the reasons most of us have to pay a solicitor as well as a barrister when there is something legally complicated to be done.) If, in the case of the payment by Mr. Glen, no invoice for services rendered had been issued, and the payment was, indeed, on account for services to be rendered, it is difficult to see how the monies could have been deposited into Mr. Henry’s bank account without a breach of the Law Society’s ethics.
While there are many phrases such as ‘I am allowed’ and ‘it is legal’ being bandies about, it is clear that the situation is far from clear. The most appropriate action for the Privileges Committee to take would be to establish a small commission (three people, one lawyer, one accountant and one ‘independent person of unimpeachable integrity’ say David McGee, the ombudsman,) to undertake an investigation, of no more than two weeks’ duration, of the paper and ethics trail of this and any other transactions of interest, and report to the committee on their findings. Thus would probity be both done and seen to be done; a vital necessity if this Parliament is not to be seen, as is the law, as an ass!
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Section 59 of the Crimes Amendment Act applies here:
“To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints … where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”
Clearly the case here, unless you’re caught smacking a child and don’t have the right (oops, left) political connections.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Donating to the labour party doth not an evil corrupt madman make, then…?
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
FletcherB 10.58am:
I wonder if a slightly different sequence of events might have taken place:
1991: Winston and Brian H. become Blood Brothers (blood “donated” to Winston by an elderly supporter, RIP)
1991-onwards: Winston sends money (not necessarily his own) to Brian H. on a regular/occasional basis, to be allocated by Brian H. as and when required to legitimize any particular deal.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I’d like to see the Law Society go after Henry with an investigation an comprehensive audit. When the inevitable irregularities are exposed ensure that he is unable to ever raise an invoice for services rendered again. Oh, I forgot he doesn’t raise invoices.
Vote:These pair of bastards are a blight on our society. John Key needs to state unequivocally his refusal to cut anykind of deal with such a venal lying prick as Peters. I am not amused by any of this and outraged doesn’t even come close.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Dave Strings
Vote:Good detailed explanation – thanks. Gst is however due when the services are provided and payable either by invoice date or receipt of payment depending on if you are on invoice or cash basis so hopefully these revellations will prompt the IRD to audit Henry “just to be sure” as the Irish would say.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Rule 3.02 from the Law Society’s rules for barristers and solicitors make interesting reading. Could the Secret Commissions Act 1910 be in play in this case? Henry seems to have accepted a reward he didn’t have to accept, the giver (glenn) wanted a diplomatic post and the eventual benefactor of his gift had the pulbic power to make that happen, and the principal allegedly knew nothing about anything until July 2008. Did Henry know Glenn wanted a post when he took the money? Perhaps he should have alerted Peters when middleman/woman X suggested Glenn. Who’s investigates this sort of stuff?
3.02 Rule
A practitioner must not receive a reward, whether financial or otherwise, of which a client is unaware, in respect of services rendered to the client.
Commentary
(1) Practitioners must at all times observe the provisions of the Secret Commissions Act 1910 and make appropriate disclosure to a client.
(2) Where a practitioner sends an account to a client and that account includes a payment which has been, or is to be made to an agency company or other body in which the practitioner or members of the practitioner’s family has or have an interest, then that interest must be disclosed on the account; and for the purposes of this Commentary the term “practitioner’s family” shall include:
(i) The spouse of the practitioner or of any of the practitioner’s partners;
(ii) Any child of the practitioner or of any of the practitioner’s partners.
(3) Where disbursements are included in an account sent to a client, the disbursements should reflect only actual payments by the practitioner and must not include any undisclosed fee charged by the practitioner.
(4) Practitioners are referred, in relation to inducements to or from third parties, to Rule 4.04.
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Wow. So Bagehot, FletcherB, PaulL and dave strings do a little bit of thinking, perhaps some idle detective work at the computer, draw on a bit of experience and manage to draft what could easily be the terms of a thorough and professional inquiry into the activities if Messrs Peters and Henry.
Meanwhile journalists poke fun but miss the point, Rodney Hide thinks “the situation is now clear” and we’re all excited that at the “powerful” Privileges Committee Russel Norman asked one pathetic “tough” question. And even Sir Bob Jones seems not to be banging on the desk of the head of the SFO demanding to know where his money went but is content to await the manufacture of an excuse by obvious charlatans.
The problem here seems to be the Peters and Henry are being tried by a jury of their peers, where such behaviour might mean they’re snubbed in the dining room at the Law Society for a few weeks till the next big fee cheque comes along.
When what’s clearly needed is for them to be brought before a Tribunal of ordinary citizens, who aren’t deliberately blinding themselves to the real questions. Vive le Revolution, anyone?
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Rex
You make a very valid point. The whole process is a circus and we already know the outcome will be “not in the public interest to prosecute – move on”. Like always the longevity of the Labour-led govt is more important than anything else.
Where is the accountability? How do we have confidence in parliament?
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 3:22 pm
My question to the Priviledges Committee is
Are you going to seek out and demand the same forensic evidence that the Police and Inland Revenue do in their investigations
If not Why not
Vote:August 21st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
If not why not….
Because it’s not in the best interest of Winston or the Labour-led govt….
I suspect the answer would be a bit more verbose than that, some ramble about legality, laws being confusing, other parties also doing it, made no difference to the outcome of the election etc etc.
Vote: