The US DOJ has described the 1MDB matter as the largest case of money laundering it has ever encountered. While its writs were filed in July,after the Shewan inquiry was submitted, Jho Low's theft was reported widely in Western and Asian media since early 2015,and on an ongoing basis. By late 2015 the 1MDB theft was under investigation by regulatory authorities in the UK, US,Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong. It is hard to imagine that New Zealand authorities were unaware of the matter. Shewan's conclusion,that "there has been no direct evidence of illicit funds being hidden in New Zealand foreign trusts", is perplexing.
1.6 The Panama Papers have not been released publicly by the journalists who have them and were not available to the Inquiry. There has been no direct evidence of illicit funds being hidden in New Zealand foreign trusts, or of tax abuse. However, based on the work undertaken, including a review of IRD files, the Inquiry considers it is reasonable to conclude that there are cases where foreign trusts are being used in this way. The current legislation, regulations and practice that govern disclosures by foreign trusts present both the potential and the environment for this to occur
The Panama Papers are of course available freely in a searchable database,and in any case the terms of reference are broad and in no way limited the Inquiry to the Panama Papers, as its terms of reference make clear:
In summary, the Inquiry is required to report and make any recommendations it considers appropriate relating to New Zealand’s existing foreign trust disclosure rules and their practical application whether the existing foreign trust disclosure rules and their enforcement are sufficient to ensure New Zealand’s reputation is maintained when considered alongside its commitment to relevant international agreements and laws options for enhancement and enforcement of the foreign trust disclosure rules, including any practical improvements that could be made or other actions that could be taken.
The Inquiry obtained briefings from the government agencies responsible for administration of the relevant statutes and international agreements, being the Inland Revenue Department (IRD), Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), Ministry of Justice (MoJ), the Treasury and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) of the New Zealand Police. The Inquiry also met with the Privacy Commissioner and with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Follow-up meetings were held to clarify issues and obtain further detail where required.
Any one if not all the above entities would have been aware of the 1MDB theft, and the investigations that had been commenced by their counterparts in the UK, US and elsewhere. In addition, the matter was by then being reported all over the world by international media,even in New Zealand,where the NZ Herald reported the arrival in Auckland of Jho Low's superyacht Equanimity.
One of the world's most spectacular superyachts is lording it at Auckland's waterfront.
The 91.5m Equanimity accommodates up to 26 guests and comes with all the bells and whistles you would expect from a billionaire owner.
The boat has a helicopter landing deck and boasts its own 20m pool, gym, spa, turkish bath, beauty salon, elevator, movie theatre and "beach club". The boat's interior is also said to be decorated in gold.
It is believed to be owned by reclusive Malaysian billionaire Jho Low who has been using it to entertain famous friends at exotic locations around the world.
Hollywood stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Jamie Foxx are said to be fans of the superyacht. Gangnam Style singer Psy, socialite Paris Hilton and actress-model Kate Upton are other well-known faces who have attended lavish parties on board.
The vessel was built in 2013 and is manned by a crew of 26.
In the past few months Equanimity has visited Florida, Holland, South Korea, Greenland, Alaska and Japan.
A crew member from a neighbouring vessel said it was thought the superyacht was in Auckland for maintenance work.
by Ganesh Sahathevan In the recent Federal Court Australia decision in Faruqi v Hanson Mr Justice Angus Morkel Stewart (Stewart J) found at [242]: I am comfortably satisfied that both groups of people in Australia that I have identified, being persons of colour who are migrants or of relatively recent migrant heritage and persons of colour who are Muslim, are reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended (ie profoundly and seriously), insulted, humiliated and intimidated by Senator (Pauline ) Hanson’s tweet. The case concerned a tweet that One Nation leader Pauline Hanson directed at Deputy Greens leader Senator Mehreen Faruqi. Mehreen is Pakistani Muslim who continues to advocate for Pakistan as a senator of the Senate, Parliament Of Australia. Senator Hanson wrote in her tweet "piss off back to Pakistan" after Senator Faruqi commented on the death of Queen Elizabeth II. While Stewart J's has hand...
by Ganesh Sahathevan In January 2019 The Australian reported: The body overseen by Chief Justice Tom Bathurst responsible for deciding who can practise law in NSW relied on a wildly defamatory Malaysian blog depicting ABC journalists, former British prime minister Tony Blair, financier George Soros and others as part of a global conspiracy when deciding to deny a would-be solicitor a certificate to practise. Chief Justice Bathurst and Legal Practitioner Admission Board executive officer Louise Pritchard declined to answer The Australian’s questions about how the article came into the board’s hands and why its members felt the conspiracy-laden material could be relied upon as part of a decision to deny Sydney man Ganesh Sahathevan admission as a lawyer. Nor would either say which of the 10 members of the LPAB, three of whom are serving NSW Supreme Court judges, was on the deciding panel. Ms Pritchard has left her role at the LPAB since The Australian began making inqui...
by Ganesh Sahathevan Advice for living in, or buying into, a strata community Strata managers are employed to manage strata schemes which are often home to renters as well as owners. However, in evasion of that which they are paid to do there are instances where strata managers have attempted to evade their duties by refusing to deal with tenants. Even this writer can recall an instance where the strata manager warned that it was against the law for tenants to contact him directly. The instances where strata managers have refused to deal with tenants occur when the issues raised concern fairly pedestrian maintenance issues, for example blocked plumbing and the like. Having said that, tenants do actually have a legal right to a great many things, including being informed (and presumably make representations) when strata schemes consider re-development. Strata managers who seek to stand in place of strata committees are even more e...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete