For background this piece by Professor Geddis should be required reading: “If you want people to believe you are honest, then it’s best not to file false donation returns”. In comments Geddis sums up:
The point here is that by signing the donations return in question, Banks was attesting that it was a true reflection of the donations he had received. We know as a matter of fact that it was not. He was then subject to two possible consequences:
(1) If he unwittingly signed a false return, then he could have been convicted and fined if charged within six months of the return (unless he could prove he did everything he could to avoid the error);
(2) If he knowingly signed a false return, then he could have been convicted and jailed for up to two years.
The former consequence was avoided because the false return was noticed too late. The latter was avoided because there was insufficient evidence to convict.
The determination that the return was false rests on the SkyCity donation and is thus irrespective of any claims made by Dotcom. But most of the media attention has focused on the claims surrounding Dotcom’s donations. As well covered recently, the Crown’s case under (2) just collapsed. But Kim Dotcom clearly still feels personally aggrieved by the issue, and last night he released this:
Open letter to John Banks
I think it is safe to say that Dotcom’s challenge will not be taken up.
Edit: alternative link.