Written By: - Date published: 6:00 pm, October 29th, 2008 - 159 comments
Categories: corruption, election 2008, john key -
Tags:
A little more detail to flesh out Tane’s post. The core of the H-fee story is this:
In 1987, head of Equiticorp Allan Hawkins illegally helped Elders Merchant Finance in New Zealand with the takeover of another company. In return, Elders paid Hawkins $66m through a series of sham foreign exchange transactions. There were two so-called ‘H-Fee’ payments, which were fraudulent and illegal. When all this was uncovered, it was described as the biggest fraud in Australasian history. Hawkins and Kenneth Charles Jarrett, the head of Elders, went to jail.
John Key had joined Elders Merchant Finance in 1985. He was head of foreign exchange from 1985 until he left Elders. Key told the media and the Serious Fraud Office that he left in 1987, before the H-fee transactions took place in January and August 1988: “Just one small issue: Three months before any of those deals got decided, I had left Elders.”. Key has also said that, if he had been working at Elders when the H-fee transactions went through, he would have been making the transactions.
Actually, as now established by the Herald, Key left in June 1988, after the first H-fee. That means John Key was the head of Elders Forex when massive illegal transactions were being conducted by that business group. Key himself says that he would have been the one making the transactions. It remains to be seen if Key actually signed off the deals, but he clearly knows more than he led us to believe. Why else would he lie about the date that he left Elders on multiple occasions?
As so often with Key, we are left asking the same question: ‘if he has nothing to hide, why all the lies?’
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
“Incidentally, gosh our economy is doing well, compared to our trading partners and other countries.”
Eh – the PREFU was bad the next update from the RB may be worse we have not performed particularly well in the OECD rating that the PM was looking to improve our position in.
But kudos for the government for setting up the “Cullen” fund, Kiwisaver and retiring public debt – this is to be applauded.
On the Elders/Equiticorp issue – you miss my point that if there was anything there it would have been found by the SFO at the time – to suggest that Mike Williams and Labour party staffers would find something that had been missed is laughable – to suggest that they were doing it for reasons that extended much beyond an attempt to smear Key is also naive.
As I said when this story broke if Key had done anything wrong I would expect him to feel the full force of the law come down on him – but that I doubted there would be anything to it as it had been thoroughly investigated previously.
Hamish,
thank you for that information..unable respond late evening last, so apols if you inconvenienced.. however.. you wrote:—
Going off the information on the standard’s blog can I take it (datewise) that the enzed-originated scam payment was made 7 September.?
Further, your answer suggests someone reasonably well-briefed on the context of these dealings. Could you therefore explain what these later proven illegal or unlawful payments were for? What was the deal..? Why two payments etc..
Matthew, this was not an unsolved crime. It was a crime where the perpetrators had been convicted, some twenty years earlier. The only piece of slightly interesting material is that John Key’s signature was similar to an Australian executive. Despite the fact that the authorities concluded that Key had absolutely no involvement in either transaction, that the person who received the transaction, the person who organised the the transaction, and the person who investigated the transaction, considered Key to be irrelevant to the transaction–the Labour Party persisted.
And what did they find? Again, a signature that was similar. Let’s visit fantasy-land for a moment, and pretend that 26 year old John Key, sitting in the forex dealing room at Elders in New Zealand, has the authority to write sixty million dollar cheques on behalf of Elders Australia. Are you with me? Right. Don’t you think that somebody might have noticed Key’s signature on the cheque?
It wasn’t Key’s signature. The smoking gun didn’t exist. Labour have been going around telling people that there is a smoking gun relating to Key and the H Fee to anybody who will listen. I can tell you for a fact Matthew that a mid-level Labour Party organisation figure, and husband of a Labour Party candidate, told me precisely this a month ago. I’m quite happy to name the person involved, and the date of the conversation, if you challenged me on that.
This has been a spectacular and humiliating back-fire for the Labour Party Matthew. I don’t doubt that you honestly did believe that the smoking gun would be produced today. It’s easy to say after the fact, but the very idea of a smoking gun was just ludicrous to begin with.
You might expect that John Key was able to enunciate a clear vision of where he would take NZ into the future.
You would expect that he could explain in succinct terms how he would do that.
You would expect that his attention to detail, like recollection of dates,would be excellent.
I know that perception is personal but in the extended interview with Catherine on Nine to Noon this morning, I think he failed on all these factors. I believe that Catherine on our behalf, was like Audrey Young and a little uneasy about his likely performance as our future PM, on the grounds of lack of transparency.
This to me is the guts of the doubts leading to the need to look under the rocks. Would it have been necessary had it been on Don Brash’s integrity? Most unlikely.
Hi Tim, it’s me, really. The website keeps logging me out and not letting me back in under my registered name.
There were some inconsistencies in Key’s story, which I think made it sensible to investigate. That they did not turn up anything serious does not mean they should not have been investigated.
“I don’t doubt that you honestly did believe that the smoking gun would be produced today.”
Really Tim? You don’t doubt I genuinely believe something I have never implied, said or even mentioned? Are we still talking about that fantasy-land of yours? What was I talking about earlier – naive and excitable? The second is really showing through today. If I thought htere was something it would be because The Herald implied as such, not for any other reason.
“Let’s visit fantasy-land for a moment, and pretend that 26 year old John Key, sitting in the forex dealing room at Elders in New Zealand, has the authority to write sixty million dollar cheques on behalf of Elders Australia. Are you with me? Right”
Ah, in a previous job I was in I had authority for transfer payments up to $NZ30m. I’m not talking myself up – it was not an important, powerful or senior role by any stretch of the imagination – I’m just pointing out that it’s fantasyland for you only through ignorance and your tendency to assume you know the Facts.
So the smoking gun didn’t exist. Well and good – you only find that out by looking for it, don’t you think?
HS, I can only gather you don’t understand what a smear is, along with Tim. If Key had dome something wrong, and this was proven, it would not be a smear. Genuine question: Which of the following two is a smear?
1 – Republican activists trying to paint Obama as a terrorist and a muslim
2 – Hollow Men accusations leading to the fall of Don Brash
I’m tending to agree with you and Tim, in that it seems odd that Labour think there was something the SFO missed that they could pick up. But in saying that, he did deny any involvement and say he was gone by the time it all went down, yet actually was at Elders, apparently, when bad stuff happened. Therefore, it is something worthy of looking into. And it’s still not a smear.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
I can’t believe anyone gives this any credence. When the boss of the Serious Fraud Office says there’s no culpability, there’s no damned culpability.
And it’s a particularly bizarre set of circumstances to believe the SFO when it comes to Winston and not when it comes to John.
L
The one re whether any authors here are parliamentary etc staffers is worthy. I have wondered this myself given the amount of detailed info and links … r0b, you make such posts and obviously care a great deal about your politics, which is all good. What you think? Feel free to ignore as it is a little intrusive given the anon nature of this site.
vto, usually I wouldn’t confirm or deny anything about myself – I like a world where personal details don’t matter, and it’s about the quality of the arguments. But FYI I am not a staffer or employed politically in any way, and I don’t live or work in Wellington. I’m just a random member of the Labour Party.
Hi All,
to my hearing this morning JK said “absolutely not” to plunket’s question of his involvement in the aforementioned scam dealings. which is one answer – and way of answering – that question. In so doing it is also issue closed, he would wish. as indeed others here would, too.
let us take it to be so on the face of it. Though not without facing the follow-up. The mention and matter of a “smear”. What is the “smear”? His word, and somewhat slavishly followed by a number of commenters on this blog. okay, all are entitled to their opinion, wheresoever it comes from. BUT are they talking about the same thing..?
SMEAR then, what is the smear.? And why the assertion of it? so soon after such an emphatic denial.?
Is it projecting JK-style – front foot and all that (which to a batsmen lessens the odds of correctly defending his wicket or scoring) – or otherwise political and manipulating belief around something else. Distracting.? For instance.
And if so, why? What on earth could be fraught about recalling the circumstances – difficulties faced for working in that scam environment. impacts upon a fellow, albeit not personally involved in the subject which was more than likely the topic of significant conversation. Around today’s equivalent of the water-cooler. Face it, who among such folk would want to be ignorant of such matters otherwise.?
Believe you me a very good question.
Not answered at all by today’s politician. Whose manner and denial stamps him ABOVE questioning and common concerns. An autocrat.
How do kiwis get along with guys in office who are anything but the friendly vote-catching characters they have been posterizing..
Matthew, I apologise for saying you believed that a smoking gun would be produced today. I confused somebody else’s post as coming from you.
Matthew, several Labour Party figures have been spreading the rumour for some time that the smoking gun did exist, and that it would be released at an appropriate time. That exercise was not an attempt to clarify a few minor inconsistencies in John Key’s previous public statements. It was deliberately designed to smear John Key with the suggestion that he was involved in a major fraud. SP bought into that smear yesterday with this very post. You will note I broke down SP’s argument with the following:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/the-h-fee-explained/#comment-99255
Now, let’s say you think there might be a smoking gun. Is it a smear to tell everyone that you have a smoking gun, when you don’t, hoping that just by saying there is one, that there’s a greater chance that if there is such a thing, it will be produced? I think so. And that’s what the Labour Party did.
The Labour Party were looking for information to discredit John Key. It backfired.
Tim, no worries there. From what I can see, Labour thought what they had was very serious. I can understand why, looking at the signatures in question. I’d imagine that is what anyone who has been mentioning this was speaking about. That was proven to be wrong, and I suspect that they won’t be mentioning it again – it’s still not a smear – discrediting someone through actions they knowingly took, and then attempted to conceal would not constitute a smear in any sense. They were wrong about the information, though, and it didn’t help their cause.
vto – I agree with r0b. I don’t think the identify of the authors important, it’s the ideas that matter.
(Actually, I’m really Dick Cheney, and posting here is what I do to relax)
“(Actually, I’m really Dick Cheney, and posting here is what I do to relax)”
It’s all good fun till someone gets shot in the face.
As predicted, the NZ Herald ( read: National’s Own Propaganda Paper) repressed the facts and told only half the story.
Why did the Herald fail to mention the name of the executive whom they claim signed the cheque? If it was Ken Jarrat why not say so and if, as the Herald seems to be claiming, the signature was Ken Jarrat’s, why does he sign JK and not KJ?
Not over for me. My suspicions were aroused when Key started telling lies
about the dates he worked at Elders. Suspicions deepened when the Herald failed to name the alleged executive who signed the cheque. Was it because people would ask, why would this person sign his initials backward as in J K ( John Key) not K J ( Kenneth Jarrat)
We only have the Herald version of events. Is that enough for you?
Good one Vlad. It wasn’t Jarrett’s signature. You must be the only person in New Zealand who still believes it is Key’s signature.
No it wasnt Ken Jarrats signature on the cheque as we learnt from Stuff today. It was according to these infamous media whores…. Maxwell Nicolls.
It is no surprise then the Herald failed to tell us this. Who in their right mind would believe such a fallacy? What a laugh.
And dont give me that old line about the Serious Fraud Office or Charles Sturt either. Charles Sturt is a well known National-ACT Party stooge. Anyone who knows anything about the Winebox knows that Charles Sturt claimed to have read tens of thousands of pages involving tax fraud in about half an hour, a tax fraud so complex not even experienced accountants could follow it. If Charles Sturt says John Key was investigated and cleared then you can guarantee he was not.
As I said elsewhere the column by Eugene Bingham on the Herald yesterday 2 Nov, is no longer on-line as far as I can see.
Its removal from the menu Election 08 after a day seems a bit odd.
But still have it. Check signature detail:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10540463&pnum=0
Ok and I say the initialled signature is John Keys. The J is the same as is the strange little hill in the bottom of the K.
The initials definitely are not MN, they are JK.
I do not trust John Key. I believe that he would lie and lie about this, just as he lied and lied about the shares he had in NZ Rail to parliament and to the press until he was caught red-handed by the TVNZ reporter who had the details of his 100,000 shares in her hand.
The story about the date of the dinner he also fabricated, as his credit card being used, and the Elder’s employment dates he gave to the media.
He was involved up to his sleazy neck, and if nobody else can see this then they have not come across many bad liars.
Kiwida
are you serious? or just stupid,
maybe your time would be better spent looking into Shane jones and cash for passports, or how much HC knew about winston.
this one is a non event
[lprent: I'm flagging you as a probable flamer troll from your comments. Nothing said of any major import, looks like it comes out of a troll phrasebook, and a distinct lack of thought. Look at Policy and lift your standard.]
Hey paw prick!! The guy is right. The signature is the same as Key. See for your self. You want the issue to die. Yeah I can see why, man. Your party would not do to well if the rest of the country woke up to your man being a thief.