• Home
  • About
  • Objectives
  • Membership
  • Donations
  • Activities
  • Research Reports
  • Submissions
  • Newsletters
  • Contact

SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

  • Censorship
    • Censorship & New Technology
    • Film Ratings
    • Films
  • Crime
    • Rape statistics
    • Television Violence
    • Violence
    • Youth Crime
  • Enforcement
  • Family
    • Anti-smacking Bill
    • Families Commission
    • Marriage
  • Gambling Addiction
  • Political Advocacy
  • Pro-life
    • Abortion
  • Prostitution
  • Sexuality
    • Child Sex Crimes
    • Civil Unions
    • HIV/AIDS STIs
    • Homosexuality
    • Kinsey Fraud
    • Porn Link to Rape
    • Pornography
    • Sex Studies
    • Sexual Dysfunction
  • Other
    • Alcohol abuse
    • Announcement
    • Application For Leave
    • Broadcasting Standards Authority
    • Celebrating Christian Tradition
    • Children’s Television
    • Complaints to Broadcasters
    • Computer games
    • Film & Lit Board Reviews
    • Film & Lit. Board Appointments
    • Human Dignity
    • Moral Values
    • Newsletters
    • Newspaper Articles
    • Recommended Books
    • Submissions
    • YouTube

Securities Commissioner told of Ross Asset Management Ponzi scheme concerns but took no action

December 13, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

The Securities Commission appears to have been warned about suspected Ponzi scheme operator David Ross three years ago, but took no action. [David Ross was sole director of failed Ross Asset Management Ltd]

An email obtained through the Official Information Act shows Securities Commissioner Annabel Cotton was told of concerns about Ross in September 2009.

At the time, Ms Cotton had a special role as commissioner for financial advisers, responsible for developing a code of conduct for the financial advisory industry.

The email reads:

“Has anyone every [sic] looked into the activities of David Ross funds management? He doesn’t ad [sic] up to me and I could explain why verbally if you wished.”

The name of the sender was redacted from the OIA document, although it is understood the sender was a professional investor.

Ms Cotton said she had forwarded the email from her personal address to her Securities Commission address so that she could discuss it with commission staff when she was next in the office, “and to the best of my knowledge that’s what I would have done”.

“What happened from there I don’t know. I would have left it with a senior staff to work things from there and decide what to do.”

The Dominion Post has learnt of another individual who claimed he contacted Ms Cotton verbally about Ross, before September 2009.

The person, who asked not to be named, said he was told the commission was too busy to look into his concerns.

“I remember Annabel’s words exactly,” he said. “[She said] ‘I hope you’re not right’.”

Ms Cotton, who owns investor relations consultancy Merlin, said she had no recollection of the conversation.

The Financial Markets Authority, successor to the Securities Commission, licensed Ross as an authorised financial adviser in July last year.

Ross’s Wellington offices were raided by the FMA on October 31 after it received client complaints on October 25.

Receivers appointed to Ross companies by the High Court have found assets totalling $11.5 million, a significant shortfall on client accounts purporting to be worth $449.6m.

The Serious Fraud Office is investigating.

Source:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8072464/Commissioner-told-of-Ponzi-scheme-concerns

The Dominion Post, Thursday, December 13, 2012, p. A3

Further Reading:

Ross Asset Investors may face ‘gruesome legal fight’

The National Business Review, Tuesday 4 December, 2012

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/ross-asset-investors-face-gruesome-legal-fight-if-ponzi-scheme-shown-bd-133420

 

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Crime, Enforcement Tagged With: David Ross, Ponzi scheme, Ross Asset Management, Securities Commission, Serious Fraud Office

Moves to tighten laws on shell companies

December 12, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Legislation has been tightened to tackle the proliferation of dodgy shell companies registered by fake overseas entities. Commerce Minister Craig Foss said changes proposed by a select committee included requiring all New Zealand registered companies to have a director who lives in New Zealand or who lives in and is director of a company in a country with which New Zealand has reciprocal enforcement arrangements.

Source: The Dominion Post 12 December 2012, p. A2.

Related stories:

NZ shell companies in bribery inquiry – Co. director investigated by NEU

https://www.spcs.org.nz/2010/nz-shell-companies-in-bribery-inquiry-company-director-investigated-by-neu/

https://www.spcs.org.nz/tag/shell-companies/

Money laundering, shell companies, criminal connections and porn

https://www.spcs.org.nz/2010/money-laundering-shell-companies-criminal-connections-and-porn/

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Enforcement Tagged With: shell companies

Ross Asset Management case – involving a suspected Ponzi scheme – raises audit question

November 17, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Ross Asset Management may have breached the Securities Act by misrepresenting to its clients the kind of services it was offering, allowing it to escape audits.

The Shareholders’ Association has called for a swift law change to ensure all companies taking money from the public are subject to strong oversight.

Fears are building that Ross Asset Management may have been a Ponzi scheme, after the first receivers’ report showed that of the $449 million its 900 clients believed were being managed for them, only $10m had been confirmed as existing.

Despite the Government making a series of law changes designed to improve investor confidence after a series of finance company collapses, Ross Asset was never audited. It did not need to be because it claimed to simply be offering investment advice, rather than its own investment products.

Sue Brown, head of primary regulation at the Financial Markets Authority, said Ross Asset’s founder and sole director, David Ross, appeared to have presented to clients that he offered a service, promising to invest money in specific assets, held on their behalf.

Accordingly each investor would be presented with an investment statement showing a portfolio of assets.

“What seems to have been happening behind the scenes is that the money was simply being aggregated into one pool, and so it became a scheme,” Ms Brown said.”It may be an illegal Securities Act issue, [what was] going on behind the scenes.”

The receivers’ report on Ross Asset, made public on Thursday, said it appeared that investment statements sent to clients were inflated and may have been fictitious.

Mr Ross is  in hospital and has been unable to instruct his lawyers or assist with the FMA’s investigation.

He ran the company from its offices on The Terrace with little more than administrative support.

NZSA chairman John Hawkins said the apparent loophole of oversight Ross had exposed required swift change. “That is absolutely staggering, outrageous and needs to be addressed, and rapidly. If you’re taking investment funds . . . then it’s absolutely essential that there is independent oversight of what’s happening, whether it is via a trustee, auditors, or ideally, a combination of the two.”

John Fisk, a partner at PwC who is charged with clarifying the situation at Ross, said it had been “noted” that the company never appeared to be audited, but it did not appear to have been, of itself, illegal.

“There was no legal requirement for him to be audited, but when I look at it, you’ve got supposedly $450 million under his control.

 

“If I was an investor, I’d want it audited,” Mr Fisk said.

The finance industry is concerned that Ross’s collapse may prompt a collapse in investor confidence in financial advisers.

Lyn McMorran, executive director of the Financial Services Federation, said she hoped the Financial Markets Conduct Act, currently progressing through Parliament, would improve oversight of the sector.

“This is yet another situation where everyone in the investment markets is tarred with the same brush, where legitimate operators who are regularly audited are seen as being the same as this guy, who was just a cowboy.”

Source: Ross Asset case raise audit question by Hamish Rutherford 17/11/12

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/7962474/Ross-Asset-case-raises-audit-question

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Crime, Enforcement

Why directors of failed firms can dodge bans

September 9, 2012 by SPCS Leave a Comment

One. That’s the number of directors banned from running a company last year by the Registrar of Companies.

Under the Companies Act, the registrar can choose to ban directors when companies fail as a result, even partly, of mismanagement, but insolvency practitioners question whether the system is working.

In the last 9 years, the registrar has banned 185 directors from overseeing firms, running at an average of 20 a year, but in 2011 the wheels fell off when Bridgecorp chairman Bruce Davidson appealed to the High Court against a ban the registrar was planning to impose.

The High Court upheld the ban, and banning orders have started to flow out of the registrar’s office again, but liquidators believe the system lets too many directors preside over multiple company failures. They say the system is ad hoc because of a lack of funding and “bureaucratic failure”.

They claim the Companies Office is under-resourced, as is the Official Assignee, which handles many liquidations. Further, creditors don’t seek bans often enough or fund liquidators to investigate company mismanagement.

Even the Inland Revenue Department, which was the petitioning creditor in 4713 liquidations in 2008, 2009, and 2010 of firms owing $816 million in tax, says it does not have a system to seek banning orders in cases of mismanagement.

Liquidator Robert Walker says liquidators are supposed to report to the registrar breaches of director duties, but few do so.

“There’s no point in reporting to a black hole. It just gets sucked in and disappears,” he says.

If they do report and the registrar tries to act, he says, it will simply produce a massive pushback by directors, who have a right to fight the bans.

“All directors would be writing in saying ‘No, no, no’.” It would be a deluge of calls for reviews. [the Companies Office] would be absolutely swamped.”

His solution is to charge more for company registrations to help pay for liquidators to seek bans through the courts.

Staples Rodway’s Gareth Hoole blames funding for the low numbers of bans. “Where it falls down is that the National Enforcement Unit just doesn’t have the funding.”

The Davidson appeal looks likely to exacerbate that. As a result of that decision, the Business, Innovation and Employment Ministry, which operates the Companies Office, says the registrar reviewed all director-prohibition cases to ensure they were compliant with the court process. In a significant proportion of cases, it was

necessary to gather further information about the failed firms and give the director the chance “to review and respond to this information before the registrar could proceed”.

While the Companies Act places the onus on directors of failed companies to satisfy the registrar that they should not be banned, the ministry says case law requires the registrar to undertake some investigation, such as identifying company mismanagement or director misconduct.

A director has no requirement to notify the registrar of previous failed companies when registering as a director of a newly incorporated company.

Bans of up to five years by the registrar, which were brought in after the 1987 sharemarket crash, are not meant to be punitive, but to protect our system of commerce and creditors from people unfit to carry out the role. The ministry stresses it does not seek to stifle innovation by banning entrepreneurs whose companies fail in the ordinary course of trading.

Ralph Chivers, chief executive of the Institute of Directors, says: “The vast majority of directors in New Zealand take their roles very seriously, are appropriately skilled and do a good job. Like any other profession that involves a position of trust and authority, it is important to have a robust system through which directors can be sanctioned. This is not only important to ensure those who have behaved criminally or negligently are sanctioned but it is also important for public confidence and the reputation of the profession.”

He says the system works “but there is room for improvement”. The various organisations that are part of the system need to be resourced appropriately and have good communication “to ensure the right information gets to the right places”. The institute, he adds, is pleased with some of the new sanctions brought in, including the ability to impose lifetime bans.

“There have been a number of recent improvements in the process for sanctioning directors who have been negligent or deliberately misled investors. The introduction of the FMA in May 2011 has led to a greater focus on compliance and ensuring the most serious offenders are prosecuted – something we think they have been doing very well.”

Chapman Tripp’s Ross Pennington says the country needs to focus more on growth than on negative perceptions that there were gaps in the law.

He points out the current system of penalties is working, resulting in jail sentences for wrongdoers. “For every dollop of retribution, let’s have a dollop of go-forward as well,” he says.

Source: Story by Rob Stock

Fairfax NZ News. Published 09/09/12

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7639682/Why-directors-of-failed-firms-can-dodge-bans

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Enforcement Tagged With: banning orders, Companies Act, failed companies, Registrar of Companies

AWINZ – a registered charity spends $126,850 on defamation proceedings over four years

August 21, 2012 by SPCS 2 Comments

The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand (“AWINZ”), an unincorporated charitable trust, allegedly “established” by Deed of Trust on 1 March 2000, was registered as a charity (Reg. No. 11235) with the Charities Commission on 28 September 2007. This charity (henceforth referred to as “AWINZ”), spent a total of $126,850 [ref. 1] in legal fees over four years (1 July 2006 to 30 June 2010) in bringing defamation proceedings against a ‘whistleblower’ – Private Investigator, Mrs Grace Haden of Auckland, who has been raising serious complaints since March 2006 with the Charities Commission and other enforcement agencies over the alleged corrupt practices of Auckland barrister Neil Edward Wells [to right], Settlor of the AWINZ Trust Deed, and AWINZ the “Approved Organisation” (as defined under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 – henceforth referred to as “AWINZ – AO“).

It is critical to grasp the distinction between “AWINZ-AO”, which was never constituted as a trust, and AWINZ the unincorporated charitable trust, allegedly established on 1 March 2000 by means of an executed Deed of Trust (after an amendment to the AWINZ deed and the appointment of other trustees in 2006 it was later granted charity status in 2007 – Reg. No. CC 11235).

AWINZ -AO, a private law enforcement authority which operated in Waitakere City using the council’s staff, infrastructure and resources, was run by Neil Edward Wells – at that time manager of dog and stock control. Its expenses were paid through rates but its profits were private.

Neil Edward Wells has sought to convince the Courts and those he has sought funds from, that the unincorporated charitable trust AWINZ and AWINZ-AO are one and the same entity and that AWINZ arose from AWINZ-AO via a seamless transition involving Ministerial approval. He put it this way when soliciting for funds on behalf of AWINZ in 2004 and 2005 from “Beauty With Compassion” (BWC), an organisation (dissolved by 2006) which campaigned against the use of animals for testing of cosmetic products:

“The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand has been functioning since its inception in 1998 as the channel for animal welfare inspectors at Waitakere and North Shore Cities. AWINZ is one of only two “approved organisations” recognised by the Minister of Agriculture and Gazetted as such. The other is the SPCA…. [Emphasis added]

“AWINZ would be happy to take on any residual funds from BWC and The New Zealand Fund for Humane Research [of which Wells was a founding Trustee – see later discussion].”

In a plea for money sent to all Waitakere City Council dog owners in June 2006 under the Council logo and AWINZ logo, Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of AWINZ, Winifred (Wyn) Hoadley QSO  [appointed 10 May 2006] wrote:

“The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand established in 1999, is partnering with Waitakere City Council to provide the very best of services for our animals …….. HELP THE WAITAKERE ANIMAL WELFARE FUND ….. [Coupon details] … here’s my donation ….. Tick box $10 …. $250 or other etc. Please return to PO Box 60 208 Titirangi, Auckland… AWINZ is an “approved organisation” under section 121 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.”

A similar pitch for donations was made by AWINZ to dog owners in 2007.

AWINZ-AO was first notified of its “approved organisation” [AO] status, under section 121(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, in a letter dated 19 December 2000 from the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Jim Sutton, based on an application made by Neil Wells only, dated 22 November 1999, which was after the Act was passed in October 1999, and before the Act came into effect on 1 January 2000. More importantly, the official application was lodged before the unincorporated charitable trust “AWINZ” was allegedly “established on 1 March 2000“.

The Minister’s decision concerning AWINZ-AO was first gazetted on 18 January 2001, nine months after the AWINZ Deed of Trust had been allegedly duly executed on 1 March 2000, and 14 months after the formal  application was made. Therefore  the Minister’s decision did NOT relate to AWINZ at all. Minister Sutton made it clear is his letter of 19 December 1999, that his granting of “approved organisation” status was to the applicant AWINZ-AO, (“AWINZ” being at that time only the trading name of an an animal enforcement agency), which made its first and only application for “approved organisation” status in a letter dated 21 November 1999, addressed to Minister of Agriculture the Hon. John Luxton. The application was written and signed and submitted by Mr Neil Edward Wells and no one else.

Whistle-blower Mrs Grace Haden has pointed out publicly that a clear case of identity fraud was involved in this application to the Minister because Neil Edward Wells signed himself as “Trustee – AWINZ”, when in fact no such trust had been established at that time. Therefore the unincorporated charitable trust AWINZ – allegedly established on 1 March 2000 was NOT the applicant for “approved organisation” status, and could not have been the “approved organisation”.

Sutton made it clear in his letter that this granting of “approved organisation” status was conditional upon AWINZ -AO, the animal enforcement agency operated by Neil Wells, fulfilling certain requirements and it had until 30 March 2001 to fulfil these.

In 2006 when questions of the independent legal existence of AWINZ-AO arose,  Mr Neil Wells made an attempt to use the court to prove that which normal business practices could not prove, alleging that the “Approved Organisation” (AWINZ-AO), a law enforcement agency with  coercive statutory powers, was in reality the charitable trust. He did so despite the fact that  no other person  apart from himself had ever had dealings with the application, administration  or functions of the  “Approved Organisation”. His letter of application and accompanying documents sent to Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. John Luxton, dated 22 November 1999, on behalf of “AWINZ-AO” contained the signatures of no other persons and no consent was given  jointly or severally by the  alleged trustees of the not yet established  trust.

Through  measures  normally reserved for  identity fraud, it was alleged in Court by the plaintiff Neil Edward Wells, in defamation proceedings he began against Grace Haden and her company Verisure Ltd, on 18 July 2006, that AWINZ-AO the “approved organisation” was in reality a  charitable trust (“AWINZ”) established by deed  three months after it  purportedly made  the application to Minster of Agriculture, the Hon. John Luxton, on 22 November 1999, for “approved status” (under the Animal Welfare Act 1999).

However, no charitable trust with the name AWINZ had ever been established prior to 1 March 2000 and the applicant for “approved organisation” status could not have been made by the unincorporated AWINZ charitable trust, which later went on to gain approval as a registered charity with the Charities Commission on 28 September 2007.

The total income of AWINZ over the four period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2010 was $106,639 and it was able over these four years to fund the $126,850 legal case mounted by the Settlor of the Trust’s Deed, Mr Neil Edward Wells, and two of his fellow trustees, as well as make payments totalling $31,249 to a part-the employee of the unincorporated “charitable trust” – Christine Raewyn Wells, wife of Neil Edward Wells, for her “film monitoring wages (including PAYE)”.

At the AWINZ Board meeting on 10 May 2006, Neil Well’s wife, Christine Wells, who was not a trustee, was appointed treasurer of AWINZ and she was authorised as a signatory to sign cheques on behalf of AWINZ. Two signatures were required for all outgoing payments. Three trustees were authorised to sign cheques plus Christine.

AWINZ failed to provide its original signed Deed of Trust (supposedly dated 1 March 2000 – if it ever existed) to the Charities Commission and yet it was granted charity status on 28 September 2007. Its stated “charitable purpose” is “to promote the welfare of animals exclusively in New Zealand”. However, there is no evidence, according to ‘whistle-blower’ Grace Haden, that it is has achieved anything of “public benefit”, and/or engaged in any activities that serve some “charitable purpose””, since it became a registered charity. Its small income comes from the “monitoring of animals in movies” to prevent ill-treatment: a business venture that provides an income for Christine Wells, wife of the Settlor of the Trust – Neil Wells.

The AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2005, the only AWINZ Deed of Trust document available on the Charities website, states in section 4 that “in furtherance of this [charitable] purpose” AWINZ is “To “apply all funds and assets of the Trust within New Zealand towards furthering the exclusively charitable objects, aims and purposes…. (b) To prevent ill treatment to and assist in the relief of suffering of animals. {c) To provide animal welfare services…” etc.

Funding personal defamation proceedings using funds from a  registered charity which is unincorporated and which has as its sole stated purpose – the “promotion of animal welfare”, is a flagrant misuse of charity funds, especially when: (1) the legal action was directed by the Settlor of the Trust, Auckland barrister and plaintiff Neil Edward Wells, AND the named charity (AWINZ), which is not a legal entity, (2) the defendant was Grace Haden who had raised numerous complaints with the Charities Commission since 2006 concerning the alleged corruption involving AWINZ (Haden later pointed out to the Commission that  the trust is being used in a manner akin to money laundering  – that is converting charitable funds to  the private income of one person), and (3) charity money was used to secure a ‘win’ for the plaintiff and none of the award costs, which have been paid out, have been returned to the charity, as evidenced by AWINZ financial statements.

The Trustees have chosen to categorise the “Grace Haden legal costs” incurred by “AWINZ” over the four years (2006-10), as “Service Provision Costs” in their official explanation to the Charities Commission. Such recorded costs involve no other items other than the costs incurred by Mr Neil Edward Wells and his fellow trustees in pursuing a defamation claim against Grace Haden. In recent weeks the litigation has involved Trustee Neil Edward Wells seeking to force Haden’s company Verisure Ltd into liquidation.

In law, defamation proceedings can only be taken by real legal “Persons” – that is named individual[s] and or legal entities, and NOT by unincorporated bodies such as unincorporated trusts. Despite this legal prohibition, Mr Neil Edward Wells took defamation proceedings in his own name, and claims of passing off and breach of fair trade in the names alleged fellow trustees, and yet all the tax invoices issued by Brookfields Lawyers of Auckland for this defamation case were sent to their client (the plaintiff) identified only as “AWINZ” located at the private P.O. Box of Neil Edward Wells, Titirangi.

All of the $126,538 of legal costs for which we have  invoices for , were issued to AWINZ C/- Neil Wells,  by Brookfields and paid for by AWINZ “charity funds” for actions which predate the signing of the  2006 trust deed that is registered with the Charities Commission. And yet “Legal costs – Haden” appear as expenditure items in the AWINZ Financial Statements in each of the years (2007-2010)

Former Charities Commission employee Mr Chris McIntyre, Senior Analyst – Monitoring and Investigatons – dealt with a number of the complaints raised by Mrs Haden against AWINZ over the period 2007 to 2012. But no action was ever taken against AWINZ by this employee of the tax-payer funded Crown entity – The Charities Commission –  throughout the prolonged legal proceedings funded by AWINZ “charity money”. McIntyre, who no longer works for Charities, received full documentation from Mrs Haden relating to her serious allegations against AWINZ of corruption and money-laundering and no action was taken.

The oldest set of AWINZ Financial Statements registered with the Charities Commission are those for 2007, and these record total assets of $110,226 as at 30 June 2007. The bulk of these funds ($98,208) constitute the so-called “Lord Dowding  Fund” [“LDF”] which, according to Haden, Mr Wells solicited from a now defunct incorporated society called Beauty With Compassion which gave in excess of $100,000 to Mr Wells in 2005. As at the 30 June 2008 total AWINZ net assets were $105,148 and this included $90,000 in the LDF. By 30 June 2009 the LDF had been reduced to $44,000.

The Lord Dowding Fund is mentioned in s. 4. (“Purpose”),s. 5. (“Powers”) and s. 18 (“Interpretation”) of the AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2012. S. 18 defines it as having been:

“… established by the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research on 14th August 1981 for the purpose of sponsoring or otherwise supporting research directed to the discovery of viable alternative techniques to replace living animals in scientific investigations.”

These funds can only be used for the charitable purposes and these do not include funding the personal defamation proceedings entered into by the Settlor of AWINZ, Neil Edward Wells/ against Mrs Grace Haden.

Neil Edwards Wells was a founding Trustee of the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research which was incorporated as a charitable trust on 14 August 1981 under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 (Reg. No. 212230). Wells remains trustee of this allegedly defunct trust which has not yet been deregistered and Haden points out that in the meantime, as the sole remaining trustee, Neil Edward Wells, persists in operating it as those it is very much ‘alive’.

The channeling of charity money from the Lord Dowding Fund into AWINZ occurred prior the AWINZ being registered as a charity with the Charities Commission or in the period after it was registered when it was not required to submit financial statements. The allegations of corruption that Mrs Haden has made include the unlawful use of this money to fund a defamation case, taken by an unincorporated trust, AWINZ, which is not a legal entity in its own right.

All of the $126,850 of legal costs for invoices that have been cited, were issued to AWINZ  by Brookfields and paid for by AWINZ “charity funds” for actions which predate the signing of the  2006 trust deed. There is also the serious allegation that none of the costs awarded against the defendent (Mrs Haden), and paid out by her to AWINZ Trustees Neil Wells and Wyn Hoadley, have been disclosed in the Financial accounts of AWINZ. Mrs Haden contends that Mr Neil Edward Wells benefited financially from the tens of thousands of dollars paid out in costs, exemplary costs and damages, in a legal case that was funded entirely by charity money.

References

1. Legal Fees Haden: $32,312 (2007), $12,904 (2008), $60,150 (2009), $21,484 (20010). Total: $126,850

Source: Financial Accounts www.charities.govt.nz (2007 to 2010)

2. In  the  donation solicitations  by Wells he claims to  be administrating the Lord Dowding fund for the New Zealand Fund for Humane Research,  but this trust  has ceased to exist despite it still  being shown on the Register of incorporated charitable trusts.  It was Mr Heather’s wife Lucille who ran Beauty With Compassion.  Her society was  wound up.  She gave the money, some $100,000 used for litigation, through to Wells on 15 March 2005.  The three  previous trustees  of the NZ Fund for Humane Research are  all very elderly or dead.  Wells is the only one  who is continuing to pretend this trust continues.

3. Letter from Neil Wells (AWINZ) to Lucille, Secretary of Beauty With Compassion, headed “BWC and The Lord Dowding Fund”. dated 14th March 2005.

4. http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/AWINZ-MEETING-MINUTES-doc-10-05-06-original.pdf

5. http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/V-lord-dowding.pdf

6. http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/R-communications-with-Maf.pdf

7. New developments in animal welfare. New Zealand Government Media 19 January 2001

http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/news/new-developments-in-animal-welfare

Notes.

Constitution of AWINZ charitable trust board. Quoted from AWINZ Board Meeting Minutes 10 May 2006.

Clause 7.2 (a) of Deed [dated 01/03/00]

“The [AWINZ] Board shall consist of not less than 4 nor more than 8 members, provided that where a vacancy occurs the remaining trustees may act until a replacement Trustee is appointed. The initial members of the Board shall be the four signatories who signed this Deed as Trustees.”

Clause 7.2 (b)

“The Trustees may appoint up to 4 additional Trustees. Before appointing additional Trustees under thisclause the Board wil consult with its strategic partners and have regard to the needs of the Trust…”

Composition of Board 2000 to 2006.


1 March 2000 AWINZ Deed of Trust supplied by AWINZ to MAF

Trustees recorded
Neil Edward Wells (“the Settlor”) – of Auckland, barrister. Founding Trustee.
Nuala Mary Grove – 
of Auckland, retired. Founding Trustee
Sarah Catherine Giltrap –
of Auckland, company executive. Founding Trustee
Graeme John Coutts
– of Auckland, recruitment consultant. Founding Trustee

(collectively referred to as the “Trust Board”)

Minutes 10 May 2006 AWINZ Board Meeting

In attendance

Neil Edward Wells – Trustee from 01/03/ 2000 (Settlor)
Wyn Norien Hoadley – appointed as NEW Trustee on 10/05/06 – intended appointment notified to MAF as required in Memorandum of Understanding with MAF. Appointment agreed to by MAF. Appointed as per clause 7.2(b) of the Deed of Trust as “an additional Trustee”. Wyn Hoadley appointed Chairperson.
Nuala Mary Grove Trustee from 01/03/2000 – appointed secretary
Graeme John Coutts – Trustee from 01/03/2000
Christine Raewyn Wells – appointed treasurer on 10/05/06
Priya Sundar

Apologies: Sarah Catherine Giltrap Trustee from 01/03/2000

Minutes 14 August 2006 AWINZ Board Meeting

Nuala Mary Grove and Sara Giltrap – both founding trustees, resigned. Giltrap resigned in writing 22/05/06. Grove resigned in writing 4/07/06.
Thomas (Tom) Stanley Didovich appointed as Trustee. No record that appointment approved by MAF.
Neil Edward Wells -Founding Trustee appointed as secretary
Tom Didovich appointed as signatory to cheque book
Neil Edward Wells and Christin Raewyn Wells prohibited from signing cheques together.

AWINZ “Deed of Trust and Revocation” dated 5 December 2006 supplied to Charities Commission

Trustees listed

Neil Edward Wells – appointed 01/03/2000
Wyn Norien Hoadley – appointed 10/05/06
Thomas Stanley Didovich – appointed 14/08/06
Graeme John Coutts – appointed 01/03/2000

AWINZ Officers – Registered Charity CC11235 – registered 28/09/07

Application for charity status under the Charities Act 2005 was made on 19/05/07

Neil Edward Wells – effective 27/06/07
Wyn Norien Hoadley – effective 27/06/07
Thomas Stanley Didovich – effective 27/06/07
Graeme John Coutts – effective 27/06/07

AWINZ [Charity] street address and postal address

1308 State Highway 3, RD5 Te Kuiti 3985

AWINZ National Bank Account Number: 06-0968-0067477-00

Further Reference

Click to access lord-dowding.pdf

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Print

Filed Under: Enforcement Tagged With: AWINZ, AWINZ Bank Account, AWINZ National Bank Account, Charities Commission, defamation, registered charity, The Animal Welfare Institute

« Previous Page
Next Page »
SPCS Facebook Page

Subscribe to website updates:

The Pilgrim’s Progress

Getting "The Pilgrim’s Progress" to
every prisoner in NZ prisons.

Recent Comments

  • John on The term ‘Homophobia’: Its Origins and Meanings, and its uses in Homosexual Agenda
  • SPCS on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Anne on Corporate corruption in New Zealand – “Banning badly behaving company directors”
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000
  • Jake on John Clancy: Troubled Global group costs Christchurch City Council another $37,000

Family Values & Community Standards

  • Coalition for Marriage
  • ECPAT New Zealand
  • Family Voice Australia
  • Parents Inc.

Internet Safety

  • Netsafe Internet Safety Group

Pro-Life Groups

  • Family Life International
  • Right to Life
  • The Nathaniel Centre
  • Voice for Life
(Click here for larger image)

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.