Dotcom on what Banks knew

Written By: - Date published: 12:59 pm, October 15th, 2013 - 27 comments
Categories: accountability, act, corruption, election funding, john banks, john key, local body elections, national, national/act government - Tags:

The District Court is hearing evidence in Auckland today as to whether John Banks should stand trial for signing a donations return that he knew to be false. Kim Dotcom has given evidence – the Herald reports that when he agreed to give Banks a donation of $50,000, Banks asked for it to be split and to be made anonymous, so that if Banks helped DotCom in the future it would not be known that he had donated to him.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a prima facie case to be brought against John Banks. The issues around this were canvassed in the decision of Judge Mill on 16 April in CRI – 2012-085-0009093. It is well worth a read.

It will be interesting to see if John Key changes his view on Banks’ credibility. He might even have to ask him directly.

 

27 comments on “Dotcom on what Banks knew ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ghostwhowalksnz 1
    15 October 2013 at 1:50 pm

    Whats the bet , Banks walks away scott free

    Isnt this how the system works, only the little people have to face the consequences of their deliberate lies.

    Did Key ever have to face a judge for lying about living in Waimuku, all the while he was signing other forms saying he was living in Orakei Rd ( his actual residence)

    WIth McCready prosecution, the best is to come where Sky City actually gives Banks the so called anonymous cheques

    • veutoviper 1.1
      15 October 2013 at 2:25 pm

      “… the best is to come where Sky City actually gives Banks the so called anonymous cheques”

      I suggest you read Mike’s first link to the Herald article on today’s hearing also covers the evidence given so far by Nigel Morrison, ie

      “SKYCITY BOSS CONFIRMS DONATIONS TO BANKS

      Nigel Morrison has been giving evidence at the private prosecution of John Banks. Photo / NZ Herald
      SkyCity boss Nigel Morrison told the court of handing John Banks a cheque in an envelope at a meeting in 2010.

      Mr Morrison confirmed details from his statement made to police in 2012, including that he made the same donations to Mr Banks’ and Len Brown’s mayoral campaigns.

      Mr Banks’ donation was handed over during a 10-minute meeting in Mr Morrison’s office.

      “So in other words, as far as you were concerned Mr Banks knew you were making a donation and it was not anonymous,” Mr McCready said.

      “I handed over a cheque in an envelope across a table to Mr Banks,” Mr Morrison said.

      “Was it the intention of SkyCity for that cheque to be anonymous?” Mr McCready asked.

      “Personally I didn’t think about that,” Mr Morrison replied.

      • Tracey 1.1.1
        15 October 2013 at 2:32 pm

        boy did he try his best not to incriminate Banks, dontcha think?

        • veutoviper 1.1.1.1
          15 October 2013 at 2:48 pm

          I personally would call Morrison’s responses an attempt to be seen as ‘neutral’ rather than an attempt not to incriminate Banks. His responses that a cheque was handed over to Banks himself at a meeting in Morrison’s office in effect incriminates Banks anyway.

          • Tracey 1.1.1.1.1
            15 October 2013 at 3:36 pm

            we shall agree to disagree then.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.2
            15 October 2013 at 4:07 pm

            I seem to remember that Morrison has previously said that the donation was made and that it was stressed at the time that it was not anonymous. Can’t find the article though.

            • Hayden 1.1.1.1.2.1
              15 October 2013 at 4:14 pm

              It’d be pretty hard to make an anonymous donation in person, wouldn’t it? Unless Banks thinks Sky City’s some sort of political donation delivery service.

              • Te Reo Putake …
                15 October 2013 at 6:26 pm

                “It’d be pretty hard to make an anonymous donation in person, wouldn’t it?”

                Well, no, but it’s usually the donor who asks that it be confidential. Apparently that’s how it works when John Key donates his salary to charity. Honest.

  2. Tiger Mountain 2
    15 October 2013 at 3:02 pm

    There are many things he doesn’t recall but I bet Banksie now knows at least one thing upon reflection–don’t leave your plus size chums to their own devices in Mt Eden Prison.

  3. lurgee 3
    15 October 2013 at 5:03 pm

    I’m not sure I trust either Banks or .com to tell the truth. Both are delusional self-promoters.

    Remember .com was happy to give money to the right before they turned on him. He’s no friend of the left.

    • North 3.1
      15 October 2013 at 9:14 pm

      Who says he’s a friend of the Left ?

      You don’t have to like him to know he’s been instrumental. Well stuck it up ’em really.

      What makes Botox sad makes me glad.

      KDC has exposed them.

  4. Steve Wrathall 4
    15 October 2013 at 5:43 pm

    So the left want to fight the 2014 election on the ethics of the funding of certain past elections? Great, I’m sure that will do them “credit”.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1
      15 October 2013 at 5:50 pm

      No, this is a ploy to end ACT as an electoral force for 2014 as well as damage John Key by association. Do we have to spell everything out to you?

      • Lanthanide 4.1.1
        15 October 2013 at 6:32 pm

        It’s hardly “a ploy”. The term “ploy” has negative connotations, in the sense of being fake or a put-on to achieve some outcome.

        There’s really nothing ployish about this at all – Banks knowingly broke the law, he has to face the music.

    • karol 4.2
      15 October 2013 at 5:53 pm

      Eh?

      Unlike the right, who tend to scour the sewers and/or play shouty slippery games.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 4.2.1
        15 October 2013 at 6:02 pm

        And what does McCready have to do with the left. He seems to be on his own crusade.

        • peterlepaysan 4.2.1.1
          15 October 2013 at 10:16 pm

          Is not this the same McCready who took Helen Clark to court over a forged painting?

          Legal factuality seems to matter more to him than political interests.

          • the pigman 4.2.1.1.1
            16 October 2013 at 1:11 am

            Yep, same McCready who launched private prosecution against Mallard for fighting in public with Tau Henare.

  5. Tracey 5
    15 October 2013 at 6:04 pm

    Lurgee… didnt he donate to brown as well?

  6. cricklewood 6
    15 October 2013 at 9:12 pm

    Im guessing it will come down to semantics, there were x number of $25000 donations on the form I couldn’t possibly tell which was which and although I asked for x amount I never sighted the cheque personally so I couldnt possibly be sure who made which donation…

    • North 6.1
      15 October 2013 at 9:19 pm

      I note that Botox has Jones QC. I note with warm satisfaction that KDC has Davison QC. No offence to Jones QC.

  7. Tracey 7
    15 October 2013 at 9:57 pm

    thanks anne

  8. Tracey 8
    16 October 2013 at 8:23 am

    Mission accomplished by jabba the whale. Banks is off front pages

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      16 October 2013 at 8:25 am

      They’re very good about what they do. Scandal about a current mayor is always going to beat scandal about a former mayor.

    • Brian 8.2
      16 October 2013 at 3:02 pm

      Not for long since the git is going to have to stand trial. My day is just getting better!