Herald confirms trust not set up at time of donation
October 28th, 2008 at 6:55 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald reports:
Mr Henry – who has a close relationship with Mr Peters – said yesterday that the money was held in a lawyer’s trust account until the Susan Couch trust was set up properly and incorporated in September.
The trust account was that of Dennis Gates, another trustee of the Susan Couch trust and also a solicitor for Mr Peters.
So the money owed to the taxpayer went into a trust account of Winston’s solictor and then months later transferred (with interest) to the Susan Couch trust account controlled by Winston’s solictor and barrister.
Mr Henry said he asked for the money for the Susan Couch trust.
“Heaps of idiots turned down donations so I rang up Winston and said ‘hey, I’ve got a charitable trust here which won’t turn you down’,” he said.
Not idiots Mr Henry. People who realise that there is a moral component to this issue – the money is owed to the taxpayer and shouldn’t be given away to pet charities. Also these “idiots” probably calculated that they would lose more money in the long term by accepting the donation.
The setting up of the trust was not yet complete and final clearance from Inland Revenue was required.
So four months after the donations were made, the charity that got half the $158,000 isn’t yet registered as a charity.
I guess they couldn’t find any established charity to take their money.
Related posts:
- The Susan Couch – Crime Victims Charitable Trust
- The Susan Couch Trust
- A deeply cynical act
- Dom Post on Couch Trust
October 28th, 2008 at 7:48 am
The CORRUPTION of the CLARK/PETERS AXIS continues.
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Is it possible for anyone to bring a private prosecution to impel them to repay the money they owe to the taxpayer?
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 7:58 am
The person I feel for most is Susan Crouch, here is a woman who does deserve our sympathy and help if the government wont (maybe if she was a gay whale??) and Winston has just made her trust something I won’t donate to due to his tainting association.
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Richard Nixon Lives on in Winston Peters under the protective watch of Gang Boss Heleban Clark.
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Given that this money is a donation from the Vela family, is the transfer of this money to a trust established by Brian Henry set up so as to account for part of a debt of 158k, is this a prima facie case of money laundering?
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Imoportant little side issue here, the Speaker was given a list of the charities that recieved these “donations”.
We now have an either/or situation. Either Winston Peters lied to the speaker of the house OR the speaker of the house KNEW that no such donations had been made and Peters was holding on to our money.
As a contributor to that $158:000 I would like an explaination please.
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am
The interesting thing here is whose money it was when transferred to the trust account. Who was the client who owned the money? Under whose name was the money credited for? The trust was not set up, so it cannot have been the trustees. It can’t have been Couch as she is not a beneficiary nor was she settlor of the trust. When lawyers receive money into a trust account it must be credited against the client who owns the money. Who was this?
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Of course the whole business is just a smokescreen. Peters and his cronies can set up shonky trusts and give them money till the cows come home if they so desire. The issue is- when is he going to pay the money he owes the taxpayer, and if it is apparent he has no intention of paying it, why the hell isn’t he facing charges???
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 9:13 am
“Heaps of idiots turned down donations so I rang up Winston and said ‘hey, I’ve got a charitable trust here which won’t turn you down’,” he said.
Vote:I often wonder how Brian Henry has ever managed to be a barrister for so long. How is it that the MSM hasn’t been able to ask the most obvious question – how could he say “i’ve got a charitable trust” when the thing hadn’t even been set up at that point?
It seems more like – “hey, if you can’t get rid of that money, i’ll set up a charitable trust”, to which they then chucked some money, which would then pay for Henry’s “legal costs” once the furore had died down.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Has anyone asked where the fucking other half of the $158,000 is, or are they still waiting for that ‘trust’ to be setup?
Can we request a set of books on the current expenses regarding the S. Couch Trust?
When can we expect the IRD to conduct investigations into money laundering and most likely tax evasion from our own Mr Capone???
Can we at least hope for the weasel to come down with a dose of the POX???
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 10:48 am
While Susan Couch has the sympathy of all NZ’ers, it must be hoped that a responsible (and non-political) person advises her to go public and tell Peters she doesn’t want to be exploited for his dreadful purposes. In other words, reject the money.
Susan Couch does not deserve this. Is there no end to this vile man’s hypocrisy?
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Given that Susan Couch received her injuries entirely due to a failing of a government agency, it is only fitting that government funds are used to assist in her rehabilitation, but the fact that this happens unofficially, through dodgy deals, secret trusts and back channel donations sickens me.
What needed to happen was that the Officials responsible needed to be publicly identified and subjected to the fullest media scrutiny. These officials have been permitted to exist outside the media spotlight for far too long. Although they are known, I have not seen any of them called to account in any way, shape or form.
Once the government was identified as the party reponsible, and how could they not be, then a fair and reasonable compensation should be made to Susan Couch, along with a full accounting of how that piece of human refuse was able to do what he did!
But instead, now we have Winston ‘soundbite’ Peters haraunging young and old, (mostly old) and the possibility that come post election he will still be there!!
Sometimes I despair at the idiocy shown by some of the voters in this country, how anyone could manufacture any sort of intellectual process that allows you to vote for this man is completely beyond me!
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
You beat me to it Right of Way…I agree wholeheartedly with every word of your comment…….What is also lamentable is that she hasn’t yet received a cent from this Trust. She probably never will.
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
JUst read that
she didn’t know about the trust
she isn’t a beneficiary of the trust
she has nothing to do with the trust
she wasn’t even asked if the trust could use her name.
How lame is that? Isn’t this fraud? i.e. purporting to have a charitable trust for the benefit of a particular person, and using their name for the trust, without their being a beneficiary or even knowing about it?
Is there a lawyer out there with an opinion who isn’t associated with NZ1st or W.Peters?
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
the following persons should be questioned by the useless MSM
Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Registrar of Incorporated Societies
Charities Commissioner
States Services Commissioner
All have questions to answer as regards the NZ1 issues and to date none have given an account of their actions
This is totally unacceptable but par for the course as none are accountable nor have the will capacity or capability to carry out their statutory duties as required by the law.
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
If the comments allegedly made by Henry are indeed true, then it is no wonder he claims to be a ‘blood brother’ of Peters. The legal profession are already regarded as one of the least trusted profession, and these two do nothing to enhance its reputation. Furthermore, it is my view that the low public standing of the legal profession, also relates directly to the lack of confidence NZ society has in its courts, and members of the judiciary.
Vote:October 28th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Perhaps it’s opportune to relate anotehr of my run-ins with the law. Be patient, the point will become apparent at the end.
In the late 1980s I chaired a charitable trust which used government funds to train young people (what was known at the time as “Workskills Training Schemes” and “Voluntary Organisation Training Programme”. Many charities used the schemes, including the Salvation Army which, at the times, was NZ’s largest training provider). I was also the Director of the scheme, co-signing the cheques with another trustee.
Because payments were made in arrears the trust ran an overdraft. Since I was also Director of the program, and co-signee of the cheques with another trustee, I felt it beholden upon myself to act as guarantor on that overdraft, along with a third trustee.
Long story short, the hierarchy at the local Labour Department office changed and the new boss decided to can the training programmes we were running. The other trustees and I did not want to abandon the trainees and we saw the potential for the programme to perhaps be self-sustaining, supplemented by some private sector support. So for several months we kept it afloat using left-over government funds (we’d been very frugal) and some private funding. However by the time the period we’d guaranteed the trainees employment for had expired, it was apparent it was uneconomic and we reluctantly closed it down, figuring most of the trainees had budgeted on 6 months and so it wasn’t such a hit.
As a result, the trust owed the bank money on the overdraft. We’d spent it all on keeping the training programme going, so the bank got nasty (this was the BNZ… they needed to recoup the money they’d given away to speculators somehow). As one of the guarantors, I was under pressure to pay the debt myself, and was just coming to terms with that when the police turn up with a search warrant.
Spending the government’s money on something other than the precise purpose for which it was allocated was strictly forbidden, I was told. I was to be charged with a bunch of offences, basically amounting to allegations of fraud.
But surely, I pointed out, as guarantor the “victim” of this “fraud” was me? Didn’t matter… when the funding was pulled we should have immediately sacked the trainees and presumably handed the government’s money to the bank.
Months of stress and a suitcase full of legal fees later, a judge told me that I was essentially a soft-hearted (and soft-headed) idiot, but certainly not a fraudster.
So (and yes, we’ve reached the point at last)… if Mr Plod takes a “better to prosecute than not” attitude when there are questions over public money and charities, and insists on dragging it all through a court even when offered a reasonable explanation, why are they sitting on their hands now?
To hell with all this “transparency index” nonsense. At least if the Police were susceptible to cash bribes everyone would start off on the same basis… provided you could raise the cash you could buy some “justice”. But there’s only one price they’re interested in extracting – power and more power – and so only one class of people who can give them what they want – politicians. Is it any wonder that class is above the law?
Vote: