SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Moves to tighten laws on shell companies

by 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/

Legal Experts Dispute Human Rights Commission On Effects of Gay Marriage

by Leave a Comment

In its Media Release issued today, Family First NZ , a registered charity and lobby group, says:

The Human Rights Commission is legally wrong on the effects of the Marriage Amendment Bill, and that even the NZ Law Society and 24 members of the law faculty of Victoria University have called both MP Louisa Wall and the HRC’s interpretation of the law in to question in their submissions to the Select Committee.

 “The bottom line is that the Human Rights Commission has endorsed and lobbied for this bill since day one, and they should not be depended on for independent legal analysis,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

 “Based on the interpretation of s29 by the HRC and Louisa Wall, a marriage celebrant could lawfully decline to marry a particular couple because they are of different races or because the marriage celebrant disliked persons of a certain race (i.e. racial discrimination). Of course, that is completely unlawful and would quite rightly be a breach of s19 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act,” says Mr McCoskrie.

Legal opinions obtained by Family First NZ from Barrister Ian Bassett say that ‘s29 of the Marriage Act 1955 does not authorise a marriage celebrant to discriminate against homosexuals on grounds of sexual orientation. It is legally incorrect to infer otherwise’. And that ‘…if the Bill is passed in its present form, then a marriage celebrant (and any church minister in his or her capacity as a marriage celebrant) will not be able lawfully to decline to marry a couple by reason that the couple are of the same sex (i.e. sexual orientation discrimination)’. 

“The New Zealand Law Society and the Victoria University law faculty members’ submission, along with our latest legal opinion (dated 19 Nov 2012), has now questioned the validity of the assurances given by Louisa Wall in her speech in Parliament and by the Human Rights Commission in their submission.”

“The Law Society says celebrants may still be bound under human rights guidelines introduced after the Marriage Act and that there is significant doubt around the effect of s29, and members of Victoria University’s law faculty submit that the ambiguity should not be left for the courts to resolve,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“All this uncertainty and potential for costly litigation simply highlights that there are both intended and unintended consequences of changing the definition of marriage, and the Marriage Act should simply be left as is.”

ENDS

Source: Family First Media Release 22 November

www.familyfirst.org.nz

Louisa Wall and Charles Chauvel: Labour MPs ‘Legally Wrong’ on Effects of Marriage Bill

by 1 Comment

Family First NZ, a registered charity and lobby group, opposed to the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, issued a Media Release today headed “Labour MP’s ‘Legally Wrong’ on Effects of Marriage Bill”. It states:

Family First NZ has released a legal opinion which calls into question the validity of the assurances given in Parliament during the 1st Reading of the Marriage Amendment Bill by the Bill’s author [Labour MP] Louisa Wall, and also points out the legal incorrectness of statements made to a newspaper by Labour’s Shadow Attorney-General Charles Chauvel.

An initial legal opinion (dated 27 Aug 2012) obtained by Family First NZ from Barrister Ian Bassett before the 1st Reading in Parliament stated that marriage celebrants (including church ministers) exercising their public function will be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and acting unlawfully if they refuse to perform their public function as marriage celebrants by reason of the same sex of a couple seeking to be married.

On 29 August 2012 in Parliament during the 1st Reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, Louisa Wall stated that the Bill did not require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has.

 

“The New Zealand Law Society submission, along with our latest legal opinion (dated 19 Nov 2012) has now questioned the validity of that assurance given by Louisa Wall in her speech in Parliament,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Labour’s Shadow Attorney-General Charles Chauvel also accused Family First NZ of ‘bearing false witness’ and ‘scaremongering’ when we raised concerns about the effect of the Bill, but our updated legal opinion (dated 19 Nov 2012) has labeled Chauvel’s statements about the effects of the Bill as ‘legally incorrect‘, ‘imprecise’ and confusing some of the issues,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“It appears Louisa Wall and Charles Chauvel misunderstand the legal implications of the Bill.  The public and other politicians are not hearing the full story. The bill should be voted down. The social and legal ramifications are too great.”

Key Points of Legal Opinion – dated 19 November 2012

  • s29 of the Marriage Act 1955 does not authorise a marriage celebrant (including a church minister who is a celebrant) to refuse to perform a same sex marriage.
  • The assurance given by Louisa Wall in Parliament during the 1st Reading of the Bill, that the Bill did not require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has, is legally wrong.
  • If the Bill is passed, then a marriage celebrant (and any church minister in his or her capacity as a marriage celebrant) will not be able lawfully to decline to marry a couple by reason that the couple are of the same sex.
  • Statements made by Charles Chauvel confuse the performance of a religious ceremony with the public function of a marriage celebrant.
  • If a religious body or group chooses to supply its premises for hire to the public (whether ‘consecrated’ or ‘non-consecrated space’, whether ‘sanctified’ or ‘non-sanctified space’ within a church, mosque, synagogue, tabernacle or temple), then it cannot refuse to do so by reason of any prohibited ground of discrimination in s21 of the Human Rights Act 1993.
  • It is not ‘scaremongering’ to state the law.

Source: Family First NZ media Releas 20 November 2012. www.familyfirst.org.nz

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

by 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