Brash on Banks

June 7th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

writes on Facebook:

So the court has found guilty. Three observations. First, I have known for 30 years and have not found him to be anything other than an honest man. Second, it is a huge tragedy for a man who has overcome great personal difficulties; served with distinction as a Member of Parliament, as a Minister, and as the mayor of Auckland; and helped to raise three Russian orphans.

But third, when I contrast what John Banks was found by the court to have done with what Helen Clark’s Labour Party did in 2005 – without the slightest attempt by the Police to call her to account – the offence of which he has been found guilty is utterly trivial.

In 2005, the Labour Party spent Parliamentary funding to the extent of more than three-quarters of a million dollars on explicit electioneering, despite having been warned against doing so by both the Auditor General and the Chief Electoral Officer just weeks before the election. Yes, they eventually repaid that money, but only under strong protest. And of course by that the time the election was won.

And what they could not undo, and were never held to account for, was grossly overspending the legal limit on spending in that election. The Police, in a disgracefully biased decision, decided not to prosecute, despite the Labour Party’s own auditors finding that the Party had unambiguously breached the legal spending limit if spending on their infamous “pledge card” was election spending. And did anybody who saw that “pledge card” think it was NOT part of Labour’s election campaign?

Whatever John Banks did in trying to raise money to finance his mayoral campaign in 2010 did not affect the outcome of that election. By contrast, Labour’s illegal behaviour almost certainly did affect the result of the 2005 election.

Excellent points by Don Brash. Banks was wrong to break the law, but Labour’s law breaches in 2005 were much more significant and did have an impact on the election result.

Tags: ,

72 Responses to “Brash on Banks”

  1. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    Not “utterly” trivial.

    So labour broke the law? Charge them.

    banks has been found guilty in a court of law.

    All this oh ,ah he’s hard done by ,leaves this pleb with the feeling that the political classes think they’re above the law.Not a good look.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Southern Raider (1,831 comments) says:

    All he needed to do was put them in a secret trust like Cunliffe and Brown

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    John Banks kept donations secret. So did Len Brown. So did David Cunliffe. We still don’t know who donated to Cunliffe’s leadership campaign or Brown’s mayoral campaign. Only one of these three men was charged and found guilty by a court. Why? Surely the key public interest is secret donations, in which case all three are equally guilty and morally wrong. Other than that, the only reason Banks was in front of the court is because he didn’t set up a donation-hiding trust like Brown or Cunliffe did. Why would you prosecute or punish someone for not setting up a trust?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Inky_the_Red (761 comments) says:

    As I remember Labour finally repaid the money.
    When National over spent their Broadcasting allowance instead of under spending the next election (the only way they could legally repay the money) they didn’t.

    The problem is that Parties like companies are hard to prosecute while individuals can.

    [DPF: National gave the amount owing to the broadcasters, but in exchange for advertising time for some charities – which was the only legal way they could do it]

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 29 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ross411 (881 comments) says:

    Another day, another reminder that Labour has no regard for the taxpayer or the spending of their money. How long is the list of illegal and not acted upon by the police activities by the Labour party?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Aunty Helen will need a lot more than NZ$850,000 to buy her way into the Secretary Generals job thank goodness! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    When National over spent their Broadcasting allowance instead of under spending the next election (the only way they could legally repay the money) they didn’t.

    They paid it back straight away out of the party funds. I recall it was an honest mistake, ordering x amount of advertising without specifying that x was inclusive not exclusive of GST. They were also upfront about it.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. thedavincimode (6,877 comments) says:

    I do not see how liebour’s appalling behaviour in Government has anything to do with Banks’ law-breaking and gob-smacking stupidity.

    When we start to benchmark poor illegal or behaviour against liebour’s standards of behaviour then we have arrived at a pretty low ebb.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    kowtow: All very well saying “charge them”…What do you do when the Police decline to do so?

    Most people are too busy earning a living to copy the obsessive Mr McCready and try and do it themselves …

    Clark’s painting was found to be a prima facie case of fraud by both the policeman investigating the original complaint AND the Commissioners’ Office, to which the file was referred…Then when it gets to Crown Law, suddenly it is “not in the public interest” to prosecute…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. gazzmaniac (2,307 comments) says:

    ACT MPs are pretty good at fraud, hey.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Inky_the_Red (761 comments) says:

    As for Cunliffe’e’s leadership campaign. I think someone objective needs to look out whether it is some sort of benefit.
    Labour changed their rules so it’s membership chose the leader and allow candidates to spend money to campaign for this.

    The situation is is different to any thing done by other Parties. I don’t think it was anticipated when Labour changed the rules.

    The situation is different. As for Brown even though he had a Trust contribute to his fundraising, he did declare funding from Sky City, Banks did not.
    Personally I would not allow funding for secret trusts at all. However as the main political parties use them (to hide something) I doubt that will happen.

    Maybe just vote for Parties who don’t use Secret Trusts. I doubt many here would do that as I’d guess the options would be Social Credit, the Alliance, CCCP or ALC

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Inky_the_Red (761 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac they did not pay back out of party funds as it is illegal to pay for Broadcasting over the allocations. So the Broadcasters were never paid

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    The DotCunt party is up front on funding. Herr Schmitz is footing all the koha bills! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chuck Bird (4,928 comments) says:

    DG, Once the painting was destroyed it would have been hard to prosecute. That is a demonstration how evil and corrupt the Clark government was.

    Maybe when JK is playing golf with Obama he could ask him for details about the 14 year old boy who was molested at a public bog in California.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Quick off the mark today Minus (for a slug)! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Warren Murray (314 comments) says:

    To those who say that all Banks needed to do was use a Trust- yea nah. Trusts are ideal when the donor wants to be anonymous. But in this instance the simpler option would have been to declare the donation. After all, it was Banks who asked it to be anonymous. Banks was ashamed of his association with KDC. KDC actually wanted everyone to know who he was giving money to.

    Agree that there is an unresolved issue around transparency of political funding, but thats not the central issue with Banks’ verdict. He deliberately committed electoral fraud. Given his long political career and the people he had around to help him, he actually took a deliberate risk. It’s a shame he stuffed Act along the way.

    You would think with all the trouble experienced with yesterday’s men like Douglas, Banks and Brash, the Act Party might have thought better of reaching into the past, but no, now they have Prebble at the helm. Idiots!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. GPT1 (2,123 comments) says:

    Incompetent and disinterested rather than biased but the point remains.
    Then again ‘they did it worse’ is never the greatest defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. IC5000 (125 comments) says:

    “ACT MPs are pretty good at fraud, hey.”

    Not necessarily. In this case I would suggest it was biological since his father was a crim then Banks was staying true to form. Biology is destiny in this case. I used to admire him given his background but even after hearing how he solicited money from another criminal on the lam and then deliberately attempted to conceal its source I gave him the benefit of the doubt. No more. Just another rich feral crim who thinks because he’s got some money and political connections that he’s above the law.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. GPT1 (2,123 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac they did not pay back out of party funds as it is illegal to pay for Broadcasting over the allocations. So the Broadcasters were never paid
    National did a contra for memory. Bought charity advertising to the equivalent of the debt owed.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Gulag1917 (1,026 comments) says:

    “In his judgment, Justice Wylie refused to accept Mrs Banks’ testimony. He said he “did not consider Mrs Banks to be a reliable witness” in relation to events that transpired at the Dotcom Mansion.
    Mrs Dotcom, in contrast, was “reliable and credible”.
    Something is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Warren Murray (314 comments) says:

    GPT1, thanks for clarifying that, now I know where Winston got the idea from that it was OK to rip off the taxpayers and when caught, give the ill gotten money to a third party. Yea makes sense now. thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Kowtow, Papers were lodged in the courts naming Clark in a lawsuit for this very matter, but the prosecution never went ahead. Do you know why? I’ll tell you, in October 2006, the then Labour government CHANGED THE LAW to make the illegal cations of 2005, RETROSPECTIVELY LEGAL.

    At that point, any private prosecution against Clark was doomed to fail, because even though Clark and Labour were in breach of the law at that time, they used the legislative powers that they gained through this misappropriation of public funds to vote themselves a get out of jail card.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. NK (1,258 comments) says:

    Any bright spark here like to tell me who the victim was in Banks’ “crime”? Who has been harmed? Did anyone lose money? No. Was someone hurt? No. Did Banks benefit by winning the race? No.

    And this statement needs challenging:

    After all, it was Banks who asked it to be anonymous. Banks was ashamed of his association with KDC. KDC actually wanted everyone to know who he was giving money to.

    Banks did not ask for an anonymous donation. How can you ask for an anonymous donation from a donor you knew and met? He asked for the offered $50,000 donation to be split into two $25,000 donations. That’s all. He had no idea how the money was going to appear. Indeed, the evidence was murky on this: KDC said he told Wayne Tempero to “get the chequebook” (i.e. pay him now); the accountant said they were deposited a few days later into the Team Banksie account in Queenstown; when the actual truth was they were deposited some days later into the Team Banksie account in Albany. They could have appeared on the statement as coming from Megastuff Limited, or KDC, but they didn’t. Instead they appeared as simple deposits of $25,000, along with about 12-14 others (or thereabouts). The payer wasn’t shown on the bank statement – he didn’t actually know who had made them. He asked hundreds of potential donors for $25,000. It could have been any one of them. If Banks had completed his return by saying those two $25,000 deposits were from Megastuff or KDC that would have been false as he didn’t really know.

    The Judge found he manufactured a system to avoid knowing. If that’s illegal then the whole donations system over the last 30 years has been corrupt.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Colville (2,300 comments) says:

    DotCon wanted the donation to be public so he could put pressure on Banks afterward.
    Banks refused to help the kraut and now Banks has paid for it.

    Harre and Hone should be very very afraid :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Scott1 (577 comments) says:

    If a person is found guilty of an honesty related crime and you come out and say that you think they are an honest person the rational assumption from anyone hearing you say that (all else being equal) is that you are a poor judge of character.

    NK,
    the law is the law you are not supposed to break it, or you face the risk of being caught and punishment as stated in that law. This “rule of law” is kind of an important thing. John Banks knows that better than most, he took that gamble and it didn’t pay off.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ross411 (881 comments) says:

    Colville (1,879 comments) says:
    June 7th, 2014 at 3:43 pm
    DotCon wanted the donation to be public so he could put pressure on Banks afterward.
    Banks refused to help the kraut and now Banks has paid for it.

    You don’t need to invent a conspiracy. Dotcom wanted to hedge his bets by making a few friends. He didn’t get the kind of friendship he was hoping for, so he took advantage of how it looked (whether Banks’ was complicit or not).

    He’s no genius. He’s an opportunist. Create a file sharing business, monetising sharing of other people’s intellectual property (whether you believe god lay down the copyright laws as they are, and as lobbyists ask for them to be or change, or not). Creating a political party business, to avoid extradition. The first hasn’t worked out too well for him, at least not in the long run. The second, well grab some popcorn, strap in your seatbelt, the ride is going to be fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    Sounds like a bit of sour grapes really. Don knows that life isn’t fair doesnt he? That you don’t always get what you want and the court has the final say. I mean, otherwise, is he suggesting that there is prejudice? Does he have evidence? If not, well the court’s decision is the court’s decision – as always and as will be in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. itstricky (1,904 comments) says:

    I think kowtow said is better and in fewer sentences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. NK (1,258 comments) says:

    Scott, I completely agree with what you say. I’m just puzzled by a lot of ignorant comment. As I said to John myself “there but for the grace of God go I”. If you want to know why Trevor Mallard was so nice about John in the Herald this morning then that saying is why. The Judge said Banks engineered a system so he could be wilfully blind on his anonymous donations. Len Brown did the same, as have hundreds of candidates and MPs in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Sporteone (52 comments) says:

    NK. I whole heartedly agree with your comment. This sort of thing goes on all the time with all the parties. While John Banks has been caught, he has only done what many have done before him.

    I can think of an even worse example and that is of the leader of NZ First. He was found guilty of misleading the house/government and should have been kicked out of Parliament. There is nothing worse than that and he is still sitting in the benches. What is the difference.

    And as for the court case and John Banks, Dot Com and co could not even get their stories straight. I smell a rat but in saying that we are not allowed to criticise the judges

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    If you were to look up the word Convict you will find that an overwhelming number of dictionaries give the definition as

    Convict 1. Declare (someone) to be guilty of a criminal offence by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law.

    Convict 1. Law To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court:

    con•vict verb (used with object)
    1.to prove or declare guilty of an offense, especially after a legal trial: to convict a prisoner of a felony.
    2. to impress with a sense of guilt.

    Why it matters
    Electoral Act 1993 55 How vacancies created

    The seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant—d) if he or she is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or by 2 or more years’ imprisonment or is convicted of a corrupt practice, or is reported by the High Court in its report on the trial of an election petition to have been proved guilty of a corrupt practice;

    The offence with which Banks was charged is an offence punishable with imprisonment of 2 years .
    Definitions

    It is interesting that currently our legislation does not have a definition for convicted but up until 1 July 2013 the crimes act 1961 carried such a definition which was repealed on that date this definition read.

    3. Meaning of “convicted on indictment’‘—For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be convicted on indictment if—

    (a) He pleads guilty on indictment; or

    (b) He is found guilty on indictment; or

    (c) He is committed to the Supreme Court for sentence under section 44 or section [153A or section] 168 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; or

    (d) After having been committed to the Supreme Court for trial, he pleads guilty under section 321 of this Act.

    I have no idea why this was removed from the legislation 1 July 2013, by section 6 of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 4) 2011 (2011 No 85). But it appears that a huge hole was left in the legislation

    The scenario used to be convicted – sentenced.

    Now it appears to be found guilty – convicted – sentenced.. Yet there appears to be no legal precedent or legal foundation for this.

    The interpretation act gives no definition for convicted or guilty.

    Since our legislation no longer defines Convicted we have to rely on the interpretation of the legislation and the common dictionary meaning

    There are many examples in legislation which point to the fact that convicted still means guilty e.g.

    Criminal Procedure Act 2011 section 147
    4) Without limiting subsection (1), the court may dismiss a charge if—
    • (c) in relation to a charge to be tried, or being tried, by a jury, the Judge is satisfied that, as a matter of law, a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict the defendant.

    So how could a jury convict any one if this is something that is only in the realm of a judge and done after being found guilty?

    The reality is that this makes sense only if to convict and to find guilty are one and the same thing.

    The plot thickens when you read the judgement R v BANKS [2014] Paragraph 6

    [6] The information against Mr Banks was laid on 10 December 2012. Sections 105 and 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 apply to Judge-alone trials. However, those provisions only came into force on 1 July 2013. Pursuant to s 397 of the Act, this matter has been determined in accordance with the law as it was before that date.

    The crimes act definition of convicted still existed at that time as it was not repealed until 1.July 2013

    The criteria for section 3 crimes act Print/Download PDF (5.5MB)or see it on it own Crimes Act 1961 S 3 are therefore the criteria which apply to this decision and he question is was he found guilty on indictment.

    The answers to that are again in the decision

    [2] The indictment reads as follows…

    [3] I have found Mr Banks guilty of the charge

    The only possible outcome in that case is that John Archibald banks is convicted

    We Penny Bright and my self have brought this to the attention of the court by way of memorandum, this was filed at about 3.15 pm Friday 6 June 2006

    We will keep you posted.
    http://www.transparency.net.nz/2014/06/07/guilty-or-convicted-the-john-banks-dilemma/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Scott1 (577 comments) says:

    I don’t think they will win this one courts do appear to sometimes delay “convictions”. If the judge intended to do that then it is delayed although I guess the legal guys here might be able to say more.

    Of course I suppose it is possible that he didn’t intend that (which seems unlikely considering the timing) or that he didn’t quite do it right…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    Conviction and Guilty are synonymous for matters relating to the law before 1. July 2013. which his case is.

    it is a matter which every one has overlooked .

    can some one give me a definition of convicted and give the relevant legal precedents which show that convicted and guilty are not the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Inky_the_Red points out:

    The problem is that Parties like companies are hard to prosecute while individuals can.

    Well thanks to Widerstrom & Stevenson v Peters, Woolerton et al (HCNZ, 1997) political parties have been held not to exist at all… they’re “unincorporated societies” which can therefore change – and breach – their own internal rules at will, and cannot be held accountable in any court.

    The simple answer would be a law change which set two qualifications to contest an election – 500 members and a recognised, legally enforceable structure.

    The behaviour of its office holders would then be delineated by statute and they could thus be prosecuted for breaches of the law, as could the organisation itself. They, and it, could then also be sued.

    Now imagine if the law set down certain gross breaches of the public trust, such as deliberately circumventing the law on donations, and said that a party – not just the leader, the entire party – would be ineligible to contest the next election, or elections. Suddenly the stakes are high enough to ensure compliance.

    But not one single MP, let alone party, has the courage to bring forward such a Bill. It may well fail if it doesn’t have the support of the government of the day, but that would at least give the public a clear indication as to which parties wish to continue to behave like unscrupulous snake oil salesmen, buying and lying their way to power, and which have principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. NK (1,258 comments) says:

    You might like to read section 106 of the Sentencing Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Chuck Bird (4,928 comments) says:

    “The Judge found he manufactured a system to avoid knowing. If that’s illegal then the whole donations system over the last 30 years has been corrupt.”

    You seem to be implying that some of these learned judges are not all that bright. I have been saying that for a long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Captain Pugwash (98 comments) says:

    Back it the day a chap would do the decent thing, go behind the mess with his service revolver and a bullet, regimental honor salvaged, end of story. Typical criminal classes though, like farther, like son.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Scott1 (577 comments) says:

    OK anticorruption,

    I thought of something in your favor…

    This seems to be the equivalent of a temporary “deferred sentence”. The interesting thing there is everyone refers to that as being convicted and then that conviction just not being entered onto the record…

    So it seems clear that the entering of the conviction to the record is NOT the conviction itself in that case…

    My guess is that crown law might go down a different tack – they might go for the argument that:

    the law talking about there being an obligation to take the conviction into account would only refer to convictions that were on the record because they don’t “know” about them unless that is the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    The pseudolegal argument is that upon a finding of guilty the accused is therefore convicted of the offence. If that were the case, however could there be any discharge without conviction?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    Stop trying to convince folks your not a fuckwit milkey by putting up pseudolegal bullshit comments! :)

    Stick to union organising and cheering for losers! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    How did Wainui get on today, Johnboy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. NK (1,258 comments) says:

    The pseudolegal argument is that upon a finding of guilty the accused is therefore convicted of the offence. If that were the case, however could there be any discharge without conviction?

    Precisely. Apropos, section 106(2) of the Sentencing Act:

    If a person who is charged with an offence is found guilty,…the court may discharge the offender without conviction, unless by any enactment applicable to the offence the court is required to impose a minimum sentence.

    (2) A discharge under this section is deemed to be an acquittal.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. lurcher1948 (151 comments) says:

    John Banks i cannot see a knighthood for you in the future

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. doggone7 (833 comments) says:

    Sporteone: “This sort of thing goes on all the time with all the parties. While John Banks has been caught, he has only done what many have done before him.”

    If Banks had been on the tv news telling the truth about his dealings with Dot Com maybe there would be less animosity towards him.
    I have been surprised by the torrent of vitriol aimed his way but not surprised at the absolute “this man can do no wrong” support.

    I think some of the anti feeling is caused by some who sitting in their living rooms saw him talking implausible garbage and thought “You lying bastard, you are treating us like cretins expecting us to believe that.” John Banks was the one caught, but he did what not many others before him did. The contempt he treated the people with is coming back to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    The way that I read it is that when found guilty on indictment the person is convicted.( pre 1 July 2013 ) the application for discharge works like an over turning or exoneration of the conviction and acquittal but until the person is discharged without a conviction by definition they are guilty and convicted.

    It appears that there is a rather huge hole in the system one which is not set down in law but has been adapted into unwritten procedure.

    It normally doesn’t have these repercussions cause if he was your employee and had fiddled the books you would have booted him out , if he was a govt employee he would have been stood down until the matter was finalized but for Mr banks its business as usual and his vote counts .

    given that our politicians are supposed to be ( choke ) of highest possible moral caliber we now have a ( known ) criminal sitting in parliament.

    He is my local Mp so do I go to my Local MP and ask him to represent my corruption case to parliament, do I ask him to present my petition for a commission agaisnt corruption ? I think not. His space in Parliament is a wasted space and worst of all he is still collecting his dosh .

    So much for act wishing to have one law for all , perhaps they should look at who represents them and if they condone criminals ( one found guilty of committing a criminal offence ) in parliament then they are done and dusted.

    doggone7 you are so right on top of it all he is a liar and I would trust a crim over a liar any day

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Sponge (237 comments) says:

    gazzmaniac (2,304 comments) says:
    June 7th, 2014 at 2:25 pm
    ACT MPs are pretty good at fraud, hey.

    I would say they are pretty crap – they keep getting caught.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. lurcher1948 (151 comments) says:

    I concerned about the party called ACT.For a piddly little party it seems to be a breeding ground for criminals, Awatere,Garrett and now Banks and the new leader who appears to be a fruitloop all i can say is i hope he isnt charged in the future, They have had 3 criminal strikes so they should be gone.Garretts law

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “They have had 3 criminal strikes so they should be gone.Garretts law”

    lol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    Captain Pugwash: What a fucking odious man you must be…

    Lurcher: I concerned (sic.) about someone who comes to the most erudite blog in the country and can’t write 100 words without numerous grammatical mistakes…

    Doggone: Yours is actually quite a sensible contribution..and I LIKE John banks…You are quite right….the “forgetting” what one just wouldn’t forget has not gone down well…and whether he is conscious of it or not, the Judge has seen and absorbed the same…rather difficult to believe…statements

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    By contrast, Labour’s illegal behaviour almost certainly did affect the result of the 2005 election.

    Yes indeed.

    DARE I SAY IT though – notwithstanding the illegality of the funding, that Labour pledge card was the BEST piece of electioneering advertising I have EVER seen BY A MILE. Today’s political parties would do well to emulate it.

    The party leader’s face, and an assurance “My pledge to you – we will deliver” and then a bullet point list of things they were going to deliver. In a sea of rhetoric where politicians talk a lot but actually commit to very little, it was a breath of fresh air. It got my vote.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    I remember a long time ago seeing a doco on the last months of Norman Kirk’s life…made by old time journo Ian Johnstone…he told of an asshole who continually rang Kirk in the middle of night – at a time when you couldn’t just unplug the phone from the jack – saying “You know you are dying… you bastard”….What an utterly ignoble think to do..

    The hyenas on this thread attacking Banks from behind their safe little pseuds remind me of that particular asshole…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Johnboy (17,007 comments) says:

    “The party leader’s face,….It got my vote.”

    You’re a sick man buddy! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    typo..sorry..: An ignoble thing…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    lurcher:

    As well as being big enough to discuss matters political with anyone on here who cares to play, Mr Garrett also introduced the single biggest and best reform in how this country deals with serious criminal low lives that I can remember. For that alone I would have thought any sensible observer would have enough of a sense of perspective to see past some stupid student prank done half a lifetime ago.

    But clearly you are not so much a sensible observer, but rather, some anonymous shit head on the internet.

    BTW – if you want to apply three strikes to loose associations of people, perhaps you might like to consider the Harawira clan’s rap sheet…?? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    I like them a bit older Johnboy. Old and grateful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Fentex (1,040 comments) says:

    Excellent points by Don Brash. Banks was wrong to break the law, but Labour’s law breaches in 2005 were much more significant and did have an impact on the election result.

    And in both cases the police did not act as they appear to be disinterested in enforcing electoral laws.

    Banks has been successfully prosecuted because of a private action. If Labours actions concern one so much the same option exists to hold them to account.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    RRM: Oh my good Gawd (as Arthur Dailey would say…) Please tell me you don’t find Clark remotely sexually attractive…I only came face to face with her once…she had sort of translucent ivory skin…like a corpse….I remember Hone saying to me (Yes, despite his posturing we got on fine on a personal level) “Very cold person mate….very cold…”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. NK (1,258 comments) says:

    The way that I read it is that when found guilty on indictment the person is convicted.( pre 1 July 2013 ) the application for discharge works like an over turning or exoneration of the conviction and acquittal but until the person is discharged without a conviction by definition they are guilty and convicted.

    You need to research what an indictment is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. goldnkiwi (1,549 comments) says:

    Glad to read that Banks is okay, hope that it is true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Dead Earnest (160 comments) says:

    So if Banks is unfit to be involved in politics,what about this guy?
    Wikipedia on Krim Dotcom:
    In 1994, he was arrested by German police for trafficking in stolen phone calling card numbers. He was held in custody for a month, released and arrested again on additional hacking charges shortly afterwards. He was eventually convicted of 11 counts of computer fraud, 10 counts of data espionage, and an assortment of other charges. He received a two-year suspended sentence – because he was under age at the time the crimes were committed.[31] The judge in the case said the court viewed his actions as “youthful foolishness.”[32]

    In 2001, Schmitz bought €375,000 worth of shares of the nearly bankrupt company Letsbuyit.com (de) and subsequently announced his intention to invest €50 million in the company.[33] The announcement caused the share value of Letsbuyit.com to jump[34] and Schmitz cashed out, making a profit of €1.5 million. One commentator suggested that Schmitz may have been ignorant of the legal ramifications of what he had done, since insider trading was not made a crime in Germany until 1995,[31] and until 2002 prosecutors also had to prove the accused had criminal intent.[35]

    Schmitz moved to Thailand to avoid investigation[11] where he was subsequently arrested on behalf of German authorities.[32] In response, he allegedly pretended to kill himself online, posting a message on his website that from now on he wished to be known as “His Royal Highness King Kimble the First, Ruler of the Kimpire”.[32][36] He was deported back to Germany where he pleaded guilty to embezzlement in November 2003 and, after five months in jail awaiting trial, again received a suspended sentence (of 20 months).[35] After avoiding a prison sentence for a second time, he left Germany and moved to Hong Kong in late 2003.[11]

    Schmitz found Hong Kong to his liking and registered Kimpire Limited in December 2003, soon after moving there. He set up a network of interlinked companies, including Trendax which was claimed to be an artificial intelligence-driven hedge fund delivering an annual return of at least 25%.[37] However, Trendax was never registered with Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission and the company was legally not allowed to accept investments or to conduct trades.[18] Dotcom was subsequently convicted for failing to disclose his shareholding to the Securities and Futures Commission, and was fined 8000 Hong Kong dollars.[25]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. goldnkiwi (1,549 comments) says:

    Dotcom seems to be holding out for some hope of citizenship. Perhaps that is his short term aim, before the extradition refusal one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. lurcher1948 (151 comments) says:

    As i said Mr Garrett one party,3 criminals not a good look.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. goldnkiwi (1,549 comments) says:

    I do hope we are going to disappoint re citizenship and him wanting to run for Parliament if granted. Actually, I hope we disappoint as a Nation, any of his ‘demands’. What a bloody cheek!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. David Garrett (7,565 comments) says:

    What’s your name Lurcher, you big brave boy…I am David Garrett, of 191 Kanohi Road (We have just got numbers…mine means you are 1.91 k’s from the corner) Kaukapakapa…(across the second railway crossing; down a long drive) Old villa house; green corrugated iron roof…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Anti corruption,

    You don’t have that correct. You are doing the same thing that Ugly Truth does and mistaking a legal dictionary definition for actual law. The law and the practice is and has been that a person is not convicted until the judge enters the conviction. The plea does not cause a conviction to be entered automatically. Have a read of s106 of the Sentencing Act 2002, s114 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and the former s67 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

    In this area there was little change with the new law.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. lurcher1948 (151 comments) says:

    PARTY TIME at Davids place,but i dont think so….. goodnight

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Warren Murray (314 comments) says:

    NK, you are wrong. Banks asked for an anonymous donation. Perhaps you are thick or deluded, I don’t care which. He asked by way of the suggesting how it should be paid. He knew the money had been paid because he thanked the donor. The judge got it right, – Banks arranged it all.

    He stuffed it up. Now he pays the price. It’s history.

    Meanwhile Dr White who is reputedly quite bright, had no plan for how to deal with the verdict, that he knew was coming from the day he became leader. I was incredulous yesterday when he said he hadn’t talked to Banks after the verdict. Why, he said, it had nothing to do with Act because it related to events before Banks joined the party and Banks isn’t a candidate in this year’s election. Today he is advising Banks to resign, presumably because bright Dr White has woken up to the fact he can’t disassociate Act from its only MP in parliament.

    Act is a monumental embarrassment but that’s not news, is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Mark Craig (31 comments) says:

    This is the captain of the good ship Cabbage Boat ,calling missing crew members Banks ,John Archibald and Collins ,crusher, report for immediate deck swabbing duty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. deadrightkev (535 comments) says:

    The public perception of Banksy’s guilty verdict being connected to Act somehow is all the media want to secure and mission accomplished. Banksy’s ego cannot be allowed to impact on the election campaign by toughing it out at the expense of the party. Where on earth is Prebble’s brain gone suggesting he should stay on? Prebble then says the distraction may have impacted on Acts brand? Hello? That horse has bolted Richard.

    I think we can safely say that the average punter will not party vote Act at the ballot box any time soon. Another wasted election opportunity with a potentially outstanding leader coming up. Irrespective, I will be ticking Act and CP this election because we need them both.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. ChardonnayGuy (1,217 comments) says:

    If it hadn’t been for Brash’s poor choice of Banks as ACT’s Epsom candidate, the party might not now be facing utter extinction as the result of that guilty verdict which resulted from Banks’ hidden baggage. The former Reserve Bank Governor might have been an excellent financial steward as a public official, but his subsequent political career has been singularly unfortunate for the centre-right…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    Banks political career is finished. He should turn his hand to something else. A street graffiti artist perhaps? Oh wait …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote