The Hubbard charges
June 21st, 2011 at 9:00 am by David FarrarStuff reports:
Allan Hubbard’s supporters have vowed to fight on for the 83-year-old financier facing 50 charges of fraud.
Yesterday the Serious Fraud Office laid the charges against Hubbard after a year-long investigation into his investment company, Aorangi Securities.
Aorangi has about 400 investors in the South Island who are owed $96 million and Hubbard has pledged up to $60 million of his own assets to help pay them back.
The charges come exactly a year after Hubbard and his wife Margaret, known as Jean, and their investment company Aorangi Securities and seven charitable trusts were placed in statutory management by the Government. Two other companies and two more trusts were added to the statutory management three months later.
The charges were laid under three sections of the Crimes Act which deal with theft by a person in a special relationship, false accounting and false statements by a promoter.
It’s very sad news. There is little doubt that Allan Hubbard is a compassionate, caring and modest man who has done a lot of good for many people.
But as I said to someone the other day, good people can do bad things. It doesn’t make them a bad person, just flawed (as we all are to varying degrees). The Serious Fraud Office has obviously concluded that Allan Hubbard broke the law, and that the offences were serious enough to warrant charges. The fact Hubbard is a nice well intentioned man is a factor in sentencing (if found guilty) rather than guilt.
Related posts:
- Allan Hubbard
- The Allan Hubbard supporters
- SFO alleges $1.7b fraud with South Canterbury Finance
- Bernard Hickey’s open letter to Allan Hubbard
June 21st, 2011 at 9:14 am
I really don’t understand the apologist perspective you’re trying to push here, DPF. Because he was a nice guy he’s a “good criminal”? Surely you should be baying for both whoever approved SCF under the bailout scheme and hubbards blood, after all they have cost the govt. a healthy 1.5 billion that it was under no obligation to spend.
Regardless of his charity work he’s an arrogant criminal who deserves everything he gets and is showing no remorse. You know black power leaders do good things in their respective communities too sometimes?
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 9:28 am
@somewhatthoughtful “he’s an arrogant criminal”. No, he’s been charged, not found guilty. He will get a fair trial. A lot of the possible charges in this field are of a technical nature that don’t involve or necessarily even suggest fraud. But perhaps that will come out in time. So there’s no need for hysterics. Just a dispassionate prosecution, and if he has broken the law must be held fully to account like everyone else.
Labour set up the Crown guarantee bailout scheme. It is unfair to blame them in hindsight for this. It was politically supported at the time and similar to what other countries were doing.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 9:29 am
somewhatthougthful
Vote:I think that’s a bit of an overreation. The post merely points out that Hubbard’s character and good works would be a factor in any sentencing, if found guilty. The scale of the SCF disaster and Hubbard’s responsibility for it suggests to me, however, that he should not expect too much leniency.
June 21st, 2011 at 9:33 am
Just after the Hubbard investigation started a financial industry expert told me that Hubbard would end up being charged with some technical breaches to justify the investigation.
I suspect that he was correct.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 9:35 am
“The charges were laid under three sections of the Crimes Act which deal with theft by a person in a special relationship, false accounting and false statements by a promoter.”
Whilst Hubbard is innocent until proven otherwise, the fact that the SFO decided to lay charges despite the fact that he is in his 80′s, says it all. Fraud is fraud and if the charges are proven, Hubbard needs to accept the consequences.
But like others, I’d like to know who decided that SCF / Aorangi etc should be included in the Government’s Guarantee scheme in the first place, because the rumours long before the appointment of any statutory manager, were similar: SCF and Aorangi were in deep financial trouble. If so, who made the decision and why?
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 9:36 am
“I really don’t understand the apologist perspective you’re trying to push here, DPF. Because he was a nice guy he’s a “good criminal”? Surely you should be baying for both whoever approved SCF under the bailout scheme and hubbards blood, after all they have cost the govt. a healthy 1.5 billion that it was under no obligation to spend. ”
The SFO investigation does not, as I understand it, relate to SCF. It relates to his other trading entities none of which were covered by the guarantee.
I have not yet seen any reliable information that SCF folded as a result of Hubbard’s activities. He was not the only director and he was not CEO during what appears to have been the reckless times.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 9:37 am
Mikenmild, perhaps you can explain Hubbard’s responsibilities in the SCF disaster paying particular attention to Hubbard’s relationship to SCF when the disastrous decisions were made.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 9:42 am
“MT_Tinman (1,441) Says:
June 21st, 2011 at 9:33 am
Just after the Hubbard investigation started a financial industry expert told me that Hubbard would end up being charged with some technical breaches to justify the investigation.
I suspect that he was correct”
I have the same thoughts.
Before anyone including the papers get all worked up about this
WHAT ARE THE CHARGES?
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 9:42 am
There is the saying.
….”Don’t let your money be looked after by righteous Christian Business Men. When the times comes they need to steal your money. They still know they are ‘doing the right thing.”……
I would be interested if anybody has a source for that quote. Or can give it exactly correctly. I think it makes the point well.
Well I remember Alan Hawkins (while certainly not Christian ) coming out of the court where he had been convicted and sentenced. Saying very righteously. “I’m not going to let this set me back.” So convinced of his own superiority that he still was unable to see the problem. Weird.
Maybe in a weird way most criminals think they are doing the right thing. And Hubbard is not free of that even if unusually, old, folksy, and provincial. There were a lot of people really harmed. Evil people can still wearing slippers.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 9:42 am
DPF, I don’t see much “modesty” evident in self-proclaiming you deserve a knighthood…..!
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 9:43 am
MT
Vote:I’m happy to leave that explanation to the High Court, which will hear Hubbard’s defence to the charges.
June 21st, 2011 at 9:57 am
The charges are certainly not of a technical nature. Some of the stuff that have come out in the Receiver’s Reports is mind-bogglingly bad.
1) Some people invested money in him in what they thought were personalized accounts. Instead the money went into a general account and became pretty much untraceable.
2) Hubbard invested other people’s money in a charity that made interest-free loans.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 10:02 am
I would like to know why the Crown guaranteed the deposits when it was suspected there was trouble. What should have happened was rather than provide a guarantee the finance companies should have been placed in statutory management immediately rather than eventually.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 10:47 am
The Hubbardites will still be screaming “innocent until proven mean!” even if he is found guilty on all 50 charges.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 10:49 am
On the related issue of the Serious Fraud Office, what I find so refreshing is that Adam Feeley, the Head of the SFO, fronts up to the media on these matters, instead of employing spin doctor PR consultants at exorbitant price, to hide behind.
Is there any other Government CEO who regularly shows this accountability to the public? Even Al Morrison, a former political editor at Radio NZ and now CEO of the Department of Conservation, is invisible.
The State Services Commission should make “front up to the media” part of every Government’s head’s job description, it would save the taxpayer millions of dollars.
Good on you Mr Feeley for being so accessible.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 10:56 am
Thank you Captain Hindsight.
Labour stupidly rushed out a shoddy deposit guarantee. We told them at the time that it was covering things that it shouldnt. SFC was picked up in guarantee (along with some other terrible businesses).
SCF was given an extension on the guarantee under National, though I reckon the extension was pragmatic rather than political like the original decision.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 11:00 am
There can be crimes of commission & crimes of omission. While I doubt that Hubbard actually set out to steal depositors funds the senile old fool created the same outcomes through sloppy accounting & unwise business practises. Either way the huge cost to the rest of NZ is made harder to shoulder because of the whacked out citizens of South Canterbury who seem determined to stick with their man against all odds.
Before they fast track him to sainthood a few words of mea culpa from Mr Hubbard might be in order.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 11:11 am
mikenmild (385) Says:
June 21st, 2011 at 9:43 am
MT
I’m happy to leave that explanation to the High Court, which will hear Hubbard’s defence to the charges.
Which of course means I have no idea, I’m just another quasi-communist halfwit wanking on without knowledge or facts.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 11:15 am
SOMEWHATTHOUGHTFUL must have had money invested in Aorangi. I haven’t heard HUBBARD described as arrogant by even his biggest detractors.
The SFO has done a good and necessary job though releasing the result to the media before telling Hubbard was a bit unkind even ARROGANT.
Hubbard if prosecuted couldn’t serve imprisoment he is old and ill. He couldn’t do community service he needs it himself. Pointless fining him he has committed his assets to repayments. All that will be achieved is ‘Process”, enrichment of lawyers, and less available for repaying creditors.
For 60 years HUBBARD enriched his depositors and his community while leading a HUMBLE life.
In his dotage I suspect that wiseguys of the same ilk as Hotckin, Watson, Briers and Co saw the modern day weaknesses in his organisation and ingratiated themselves with him. It surprises me that members of his Management who benefited from massive salaries and loans haven’t been found in anyway culpable by the SFO.
Punishment and revenge….surely satiated by his humiliation and disgrace at the end of a good life, satisfies me anyway, and I have lost money through other scoundrels, and hate crime and criminals.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 11:17 am
Wow, MT, excuse me for guessing that when a business goes spectacularly bust and the SFO charge a man with 50 counts of fraud that there might be something in it. And would the alternative be to pretend that St Allan of Timaru walks on water and is completely innocent.
Vote:BTW -keep a civil tongue in your head please.
June 21st, 2011 at 12:01 pm
There are a bunch of dreamers on this blog stream today. Including DFP trying to distingush good people and bad things and even brings in “flawed”.
Vote:Even the very wide boys who have done the major ponzi schemes in the most cynical way can be attractive to be with.
Stalin could do an exceptional dinner party apparently. Not that you neccessarily got home again and avoided execution.
Many are exceedingly popular, with exciting personalities. Which in some ways equipped them to rip people off and destroy lives.
Hubbard is no different.
I’ve been in oddly magnificent office premises. Realised it was a religious organisation. Noticed the plaque citing the Hubbard Donors. Am I to think all that makes it alright, although the victim was some little lady who previous had a single cash investment, and now it’s gone.
June 21st, 2011 at 12:13 pm
“Wow, MT, excuse me for guessing that when a business goes spectacularly bust and the SFO charge a man with 50 counts of fraud that there might be something in it. ”
SFO investigated Aorangi Securities Limited. This company is not South Canterbury Finance Limited. Even the least discerning eye might perceive that the names are spelt differently.
The charges do not relate to SCF ( at least not to my knowledge). There is no evidence that Hubbard is guilty of any wrong-doing in relation to SCF.
Why, therefore, should the failure of SCF be visited upon Hubbard should he be found guilty of offences relating to ASL? You (@9.29) specifically refer to Hubbards responsibility for the collapse of SCF. What is the basis for that assertion?
MT_Tinman’s question (9.37) seems eminently reasonable. You might be right, but if you are going to assert, unequivocably, that there is responsibility then I think people are entitled to ask why?
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Folks, everyone is too quick to judge – either way.
Does the SFO have a 100% (notwithstanding their draconian statutory powers (which have, I believe, YET to be Supreme Court tested)) success record in its prosecutions ?
No
Those charges relating to “offences” that are real, as distinct from technical or imagined, generally result in guilty pleas.
Those that DO NOT, the SFO more often loses.
Then there is the SCF issue. This is NOT conndected and to suggest otherwise is silly.
There is another issue which a lawyer as smart as Heron (son of late Heron J.) may yet exploit. That issue is SFO’s Feely’s increasing actions that replicate a US District Attorney by arguing his case in public rather than before the Courts. His use of the media does him no credit.
We should all stand back. This is only the beginning of Act 1of a 4 Act play.
Vote:It may well only conclude in the Supreme Court. No pre-ejaculation please!
June 21st, 2011 at 12:24 pm
As one who had some financial dealings with him in the 1990s I found him a very honest and trustworthy person. Sure his office processes and procedures were old fashioned ( was a bit of nostalgia for me) but he knew what he was doing.
I suspect it will be techincal stuff and the markets working against him with him trying to prop things up.
Not like the OTHERS ( you know who we mean) who deliberately set out to defraud citizens. These people employed unethical and immoral accountants and lawyers to devise schemes that were at the margin of the law and ensured the client could escape with their ill gotten gains.
The changes to the laws whilst not enough may at lest slow down the real crooks in the future.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Nookin
You may believe that Hubbard bears no responsibility for the collapse of SCF. Time will tell. Isn’t the SFO still investigating that as well, and the related transactions with ASL? Perhaps you will allow me to amend my 9.29 comment to ‘the SCF disaster and Hubbard’s involvement’? I’m surprised at the reaction to my comment, which was actually taking exception to people jumping in with extreme statements. Leave it to the court.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 1:34 pm
DPF says that Hubbard was ‘well intentioned’
Vote:Language issue. What does ‘well intentioned’ mean.
I guess Stalin was ‘well intentioned’ as he tried to get the nation on the right track. So Joe sent off millions to execution.
And dear old Adolf was ‘well intentioned’ and concerned to get his people a little elbow room.
June 21st, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Elaycee suggests:
Mmmm, because decisions about whether or not to lay charges are never political, just ask Helen Clark. Couldn’t possibly be about mitigating taxpayer anger at the disaster wrought by politicians by locating and punishing a scapegoat (remembering that sometimes a scapegoat deserves part of the blame, just not all of it). No, the guy at the wheel is the only one responsible, even if the politician in the back seat knew full well the potential outcome of what was going on.
I have no knowledge whatsoever of the Hubbard case, so no opinion as to his guilt or innocence, but I do know that decisions to charge aren’t made solely on the black-and-white facts, particularly in high profile cases. To trot out the hackneyed “where there’s smoke there’s fire” accusation in relation to a case like this shows astonishing naivete.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 2:18 pm
@KH
You have compared Hubbard to Stalin 2x, and Hitler 1x.
Piss off.
I don’t know Hubbard, I don’t know the ins and outs of this case. But it is patently obvious to me even, that this is a ridiculous comparison.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Rufus @2.18 pm — 1st. it’s a pity about your language.
We have people who think that because Hubbard is a pleasant old bloke. That changes the importance of his actions. Rufus, you choose to be unpleasant. I suppose their logic will be that you are more likely to be found guilty of something. And following conviction your penalty should be greater.
The post was about “good intentions”. And harmful people and how that is judged by bloggers here.
I admire the system we have. It will work to it’s conclusion and determine Hubbards guilt or otherwise. Hopefully without 2nd rate thinking about slippers and a quaint volkswagon.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Lastmanstanding (488) says:
“As one who had some financial dealings with him in the 1990s I found him a very honest and trustworthy person. Sure his office processes and procedures were old fashioned ( was a bit of nostalgia for me) but he knew what he was doing.”
Without slandering myself, I would have to concur with lastmanstanding, however Mr Hubbard is by all accounts an old school crook that will be judged by his peers.
Vote:Mr Hubbards offending is at the most extreme end of the scale and goes beyond that of a man who could not say no. The size of the SCF bailout $1.0 billion + would make this fraud the largest in New Zealand criminal history.
Mr Hubbard will take the wrap, but regretfully his co conspirators will walk with the cash.
June 21st, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Chris2 earlier on SOE CEOs fronting. Agree with you Both Adam Feeley and now Sean Hughes at FMA are fronting up and explaining their actions.
What a breath of fresh air. Other should follow or be made to follow their lead.
Instead of sending the little PR/Spin doctor girl straight out of Uni with the prepared scrip and no idea of what it says or means.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Rufus: “You have compared Hubbard to Stalin 2x, and Hitler 1x.”
That’s not a fair or balanced summary of what KH said. He was using Stalin and Hitler as examples of historical figures who arguably – in some aspects of their public lives – acted in pursuit of what they judged to be for their people’s welfare. Yet in other circumstances and policies each was notorious for sending millions of human beings to their deaths.
All KH appeared to be generalising was that being “pleasant” and “well-intentioned” does not absolve any person (e.g. Hubbard) of his legal responsibilities.
Hubbard’s actions relating to to the SFO charges that he now faces will be judged in due course by the Court. In the meantime, the public “character reference” game is meaningless and irrelevant, regardless of who chooses to play that game. And it’s drawing a very long bow to infer from KH’s comments that he considers Hubbard’s actions as being comparable with those of Stalin and Hitler.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 3:50 pm
@Rex says: “I have no knowledge whatsoever of the Hubbard case, so no opinion as to his guilt or innocence, but I do know that decisions to charge aren’t made solely on the black-and-white facts, particularly in high profile cases. To trot out the hackneyed “where there’s smoke there’s fire” accusation in relation to a case like this shows astonishing naivete.”
I’m not sure what has been added to your coffee, Rex, but you have assumed too much.
As you have admitted, you know nothing of the case. I said that the SFO had seen fit to lay 54 charges against Hubbard – this was confirmed last night by SFO’s Adam Feely. Not 1 charge. Not 10 charges. But over 50! Most people would be hard pressed to assume anything but the fact that the SFO has laid these charges based on evidence they consider will stand up in court. Hubbard is not a young man – apparently he is 83. Given the time it often takes for matters of this nature to come before the Courts, it could be years before this is heard. Indeed, Hubbard may not be around at all to answer the charges – who knows?
This aside, you have suggested that there may be outside influences behind decisions to lay SFO charges – please tell.
I’d love to hear about any such instance and how this could possibly apply to the Hubbard case.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 3:53 pm
At 12.23 I wrote:
“Folks, everyone is too quick to judge – either way.
Does the SFO have a 100% (notwithstanding their draconian statutory powers (which have, I believe, YET to be Supreme Court tested)) success record in its prosecutions ?
No
Those charges relating to “offences” that are real, as distinct from technical or imagined, generally result in guilty pleas.
Those that DO NOT, the SFO more often loses.
Then there is the SCF issue. This is NOT connected and to suggest otherwise is silly.
There is another issue which a lawyer as smart as Heron (son of late Heron J.) may yet exploit. That issue is SFO’s Feely’s increasing actions that replicate a US District Attorney by arguing his case in public rather than before the Courts. His use of the media does him no credit.
We should all stand back. This is only the beginning of Act 1 of a 4 Act play.
It may well only conclude in the Supreme Court. No pre-ejaculation please! ”
We have since been subjected to so much hot air that one wonders about the sanity of some participants.
And yet we continue to have this silly egotistical nonsense.
Please sit back and put your prejudices (either way) to bed. Let them go.
Elias (aka Fletcher) CJ., NOT Feeny will deliver the final verdict.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Elaycee
Vote:Maybe Hubbard will get Vince Siemer to appear as a McKenzie friend, like Siemer does for his mate Penny?
June 21st, 2011 at 4:04 pm
@KH and Calendar Girl
Oh really?
Why then state quite emphatically that “Hubbard is no different.” when he’s just described both Ponzi crooks and Stalin.
Hitler and Stalin were some of the worst mass murderers of recent history, responsible for the death and destruction of millions.
Compared to those 2, whatever Hubbard has done pales into insignificance, no matter how much KH can claim “There were a lot of people really harmed.””
“Really harmed”?! They lost money, some a lot, but no-one lost their life as a result of what Hubbard did or did not do.
The language and examples you use to make your point bear no relevance to this case and are absurd.
Godwin’s Law – tick.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 4:32 pm
We really should judge a man’s life in its entirety.
For decades he did good things for the regional economy and community.
Unfortunately, for several years he has been affected by severe ill health and old age. Recently he has been incompetent in his business dealings.
He can still be respected for the early bulk of his career.
The disaster of recent years is just sad and disappointing.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Rufus
Nice point, but don’t expect too many people to believe that no one was really harmed because Hubbard only took their money and not their lives.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Mikenmild
Sigh.
Hubbard did do harm, whether intentionally or not.
Just on a totally different scale to Stalin or Hitler.
KH seems to think what Hubbard did is comparable to what Stalin did. That’s what he infers by making the comparison. He uses the words “crooks” and “evil” when talking about people like Hubbard.
Others have pointed out that Hubbard has always displayed a great character.
Nothing like a “crook” who sets out to rob people and cheat them. Or someone who’s “evil”.
But then I guess words like that are losing their meaning because they are misused all too often these days.
My point was that it is not fair to suggest Hubbard losing people money is in any way similar to Hitler sending Jews to the gas chambers or Stalin executing millions.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 5:01 pm
How many people are heart surgeons allowed to kill when they retire?
Hubbard will be on trial for the bad things he did. He will be judged based on his misdeeds. The goods things will only count when it comes to sentencing.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Rufus @ 4.45. Good to see you have cleaned up your language. So it’s less time in the slammer for you. Following your logic.
Kimble @ 5.01. I guess according to Rufus, and heart surgeons ‘great character’ they would be allowed to murder about 6 people after they retire. (well maybe 8)
Anyway Kimble. A great point.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Mr Hubbards offending is at the most extreme end of the scale and goes beyond that of a man who could not say no. The size of the SCF bailout $1.0 billion + would make this fraud the largest in New Zealand criminal history.
Mr Hubbard will take the wrap, but regretfully his co conspirators will walk with the cash.
Dear Kevin H
The charges against Hubbard have nothing to do with SCF bailout, they relate to Aoriangi Securities,so your comment is redundant, at least read the post before jumping the gun.
Secondly, if you were to be brought before the Courts by any prosecuting agency on charges in New Zealand and anticipated walking free they would be charges brought by the SFO,. They who have fought tooth and nail not to get re-intergrated into the police.
They are desparate for a success to say “look at me.” They may get Hubbard on some minor shit like using a hand written ledger or some such, but it will be bugger and like “Tinnie” said above it is all just to justify the investigation.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Or, here’s a novel idea, they legitimately suspect Hubbard of having committed an offence and he will now be tried in a court of law? It’s not possible that he could have done something wrong, of course, and any charges they do land will be just things anyone could forget to do. Hell, this morning I got up and almost missed the dunny when I took my morning constitutional. Think of how many billions THAT could have cost the country! Oh wait.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 6:36 pm
To extend the analogy beyond breaking point: How many people can a self-proclaimed “heart surgeon”, who actually used other people’s skills and time but took credit for it himself (and only his mates got CABGs), kill.
It’s easy to be generous with other people’s money (see also parliament). That’s all Hubbard did. He seems to be a stupid old unscrupulous man, who’d give other people’s money to charities to make himself feel good about life.
Where’s the compassion and caring for his investors’ hard-earned life savings? He just didn’t give a shit.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Dog eat Dog
Off this topic just a mo, the govt bailed out depositors at South Canterbury Finance, in exchange they took control of a number of assets.
These assets have a value and some of them will continue to grow in value and will be worth a lot more eventually than 1.5 billion or what ever it was. What the government did was take over a ailling company that was asset rich, happens everyday in business.
The 1.5 billion was not pissed down a drain on a week of welfare payments to the samll percentage of those on benefits who are unemployable.
Now read the comment- the most that is up for loss here is about 36 million…,false statements by a promoter – I would imagine the maximum penalty for something like that will be a $2000 fine.. all window dressing, there is nothing mentioned like failing to account which means theft usually in legalise
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Pauleastbay
Stuff reports that “The charges relate to sections in the act covering false statements by a promoter, false accounting and theft by a person in a special relationship.”
Only $36 million – why isn’t he being offered diversion?
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 7:06 pm
KH You still don’t get my point do you?
He’s done wrong. No doubt about it. And if he’s done wrong, he should answer for it. So far we agree.
However, I argue that what he did or did not do is on a totally different scale of wrong than Stalin or Hitler.
Your language as used in your comparison is totally inappropriate. It’s ridiculous, and absurd. There is no comparing the two.
But let’s leave it at that…
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 7:07 pm
MM
220 Theft by person in special relationship
(1) This section applies to any person who has received or is in possession of, or has control over, any property on terms or in circumstances that the person knows require the person—
(a) to account to any other person for the property, or for any proceeds arising from the property; or
(b) to deal with the property, or any proceeds arising from the property, in accordance with the requirements of any other person.
(2) Every one to whom subsection (1) applies commits theft who intentionally fails to account to the other person as so required or intentionally deals with the property, or any proceeds of the property, otherwise than in accordance with those requirements.
(3) This section applies whether or not the person was required to deliver over the identical property received or in the person’s possession or control.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is a question of law whether the circumstances required any person to account or to act in accordance with any requirements.
Compare: 1961 No 43 ss 222, 223, 224
Section 220: substituted, on 1 October 2003, by section 15 of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003 (2003 No 39).
Check out section 2 (1) thats the guts of it and section 4 is worth reading well as well
What the SFO is doing is called the shotgun method and they use bird shot, put a lot of lead in the air hope some hits something.
Alan Hubbard may have offended but he is not Jeffrey Dahmer , too much indignation here
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Failing to send a weekly statement would not really be intentionally dealing with the property otherwise than in accordance with the requirement to account. As I read it, the miscreant would need to actually do something with the property (money) with which they have been entrusted.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 7:17 pm
MM
My point is that it is an esoteric charge, that they have trolled through the CA to find something appropriate. believe me there are a shit load easier charges to lay regarding fraud if you have the evidence
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Like Lastmanstanding who posted at 12.24 I have had business dealings with Mr Hubbard, but over the past ten years.
Vote:I have found him to be a scrupulous man.
These charges leave me perplexed.
I keep asking myself,
“Am I the worst judge of human character on the planet?”
June 21st, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Listened to Stephen Franks on Checkpoint last night, who was saying these charges require proof of mens rea (guilty mind). Apparently this could be a difficult ask.
It will be a shame for the new CEO of the FMA if his first big case turns out to be a fizzer.
I just hope he lives long enough to see it through, this is a hell of a way to end. I’ve never met him but despite that my gut tells me he’s OK therefore I’ve never joined with those here who’ve been quick to condemn.
No-one does what he has done over his lifetime, while possessing the persona that would make him guilty in fact even if not in law, of the charges that have been laid.
I suspect what he’s done is shuffle money around without completing the paperwork and the idiots responsible for investigating it, who probably don’t understand business cause they’ve probably never worked in it, don’t understand enough to discern the sometimes subtle and sometimes vast difference between not completing the paperwork and wilfully committing fraud.
He’s got the best lawyers in town. I imagine the FMA prosecution team aren’t going to get an easy ride.
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 9:11 pm
@Elaycee:
Grossly over-charging is a favourite technique of the police. It makes the judge or jury think that they’re letting the accused off lightly by convicting him of a couple of charges. Works especially well where the evidence is uncertain – the decider of fact ends up thinking as you do: “This is incredibly complex but look, there’s over fifty charges, he must be guilty of some of them!”
Not sure if the SFO favour the same tactics as (so far) I’ve managed to avoid having anything to do with them. However prosecutors tend to learn their strategies from the same place.
As I stated above, when the electorate is less-than-impressed with having their pockets picked by politicians to support “too big to fail” finance companies then the pollies are pretty keen to have that anger refocused on someone… anyone… else. Hubbard is starting to sound to me a bit like NZ’s answer to Madoff – someone who may well be deserving of punishment but who the public is being encouraged to see as somehow singlehandedly responsible for the entire mess.
“Look, you’ve had your sacrificial lamb… you don’t need the rest of the flock! And stop looking at the shepherds like that!”
Vote:June 21st, 2011 at 10:54 pm
TV1 is running the story “Fraud accused does not fit sterotype” Meaning Hubbard is not a Porsche driving flash Harry etc.
Vote:But maybe they have it back to front.
It seems to me many fraudsters are just those who nobody would have thought were the type. Possibly the majority are not flash Harrys.
So what then is the real sterotype?
June 22nd, 2011 at 12:18 am
reid your gut is lying to you because it is so full of shit.
You dont have a single fucking reason to call the investigators idiots. Nor do you have any reason to think that the people working at the SFO dont know what they are doing.
You dismiss “not completing paperwork” as a trivial offence. But if you dont complete the paperwork to take something as security, and then tell people that the loan is secured, you have committed fraud. The reason the investigation has taken so long is because Hubbards record keeping was such a fucking disgrace.
You make the claim that the SFO investigators have never run a business. But you have ZERO reason to assume that. In fact, because you think it is a trivial failure to ‘fill in some paperwork’ provides a great deal of proof that YOU have no idea how to properly run a business.
Its obvious you picked your guy and you are sticking by him. Any new evidence that comes up against him, you will twist to make support him. Dont insult us by pretending you have an informed, unbiased opinion.
Vote:June 22nd, 2011 at 3:02 am
Even if he is guilty (and I have no idea) the stress of the legal proceedings is going to kill him and possibly his wife. He’s in his eighties and on dialysis, if he is found guilty he would be too old and sick to send to prison. As it is he only has a few years of life left.
Vote:June 22nd, 2011 at 6:14 pm
“My point was that it is not fair to suggest Hubbard losing people money is in any way similar to Hitler sending Jews to the gas chambers or Stalin executing millions.”
Rufus, nobody said it was. KH’s language was colourful, but he simply didn’t allege what you claim.
Vote: