‘If it happened in Zimbabwe, we would call it corruption’

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, September 27th, 2009 - 19 comments
Categories: bill english, corruption - Tags: ,

Trev on the money laundering bill. Has a go at a certain Bill who has been laundering a lot of our money. Very good:

19 comments on “‘If it happened in Zimbabwe, we would call it corruption’ ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. George D 1
    27 September 2009 at 12:55 pm

    Mallard has a point. But the way he expresses it is pretty awful.

    The self-righteous arrogance and spite with which both Labour and National treat each other, and the hyperbolic abuse they spew in the house underlines for me everything that is wrong with the New Zealand Labour Party, and politics in New Zealand more generally.

    • Ianmac 1.1
      27 September 2009 at 1:21 pm

      George D: Yes it is pretty awful but hard to stop. The Maori Party and the Greens are seldom heard attacking.
      However Lockwood and English both have a history in Opposition of picking and picking over a period to cause downfalls. I wonder what Lockwood thinks as wotshisname asks daily for clarification re the English questions in a way modelled on Lockwood’s style? Hard to rule on the quality of answer eh?

  2. outofbed 2
    27 September 2009 at 12:57 pm

    Kill Bill 3 ?

  3. gomango 3
    27 September 2009 at 12:59 pm

    Actually Bill hasn’t been laundering money. Taking money he is not morally entitled to yes, but not laundering. Money laundering is something else.

  4. outofbed 4
    27 September 2009 at 1:09 pm

    i think laundering refers to an illegal act
    Whether Billyboy has done that remains to be seen
    But he walking a dangerous line

  5. gomango 5
    27 September 2009 at 1:21 pm

    no – money laundering is a specific criminal act. Depending on your jurisdiction, it is generally disguising the origin of money or assets that are obtained as the result of criminal activity. Bill might be guilty of other stuff, but not money laundering. We know where the money came from and they aint illegal funds.

    In Bill’s case there is no doubt about the origins of the money – legal (in the money laundering sense) funds obtained from whatever dept dishes it out. Even if you draw a very long bow and find Bill guilty of obtaining those funds by deception, thats the extent of his crime – fraud. Never ever money laundering.

    I’m quite enjoying this saga because Bill is in the wrong and has failed the tests I would be using if he worked for me (Greed, Stupidity, Hubris). But its a bit hard to link it like mallard has to money laundering, the real story get lost in the partisan posturing. The smartest way to play this is to stop crapping on about and leave it to the Auditor General to solve. Nothing will happen prior to his report, and labour runs the risk of losing the high ground.

  6. outofbed 6
    27 September 2009 at 1:36 pm

    Hey i take your point
    but this definition from the US treasury

    any financial transaction which generates an asset or a value as the result of an illegal act,,which may involve actions such as tax evasion or false accounting

  7. gomango 7
    27 September 2009 at 2:06 pm

    well i think we are starting to argue about the number of angels on a pinhead, but the balance of your quote will say things like:

    Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity–

    and

    knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part– (i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or
    (ii) to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law,

    Those are lifted from US legislation regarding money laundering..

    Believe me, I know about money laundering. Looking for it has been part of my job for 15 years.

    • Pascal's bookie 7.1
      27 September 2009 at 7:26 pm

      Fair enough. Bill is more accurately laundering his home, so that it appears to have nothing to do with his good self, in order to get some extra dosh. I guess ‘home laundering’ lacks the rhetorical punch though.

      • felix 7.1.1
        27 September 2009 at 7:53 pm

        Don’t suggest home laundering to Bill or he’ll want us to pay for someone to come round and wash his royal socks too.

        Or are we already footing the “Bill” for that?

    • Rob 7.2
      28 September 2009 at 1:00 pm

      Yep, the ‘on the street view’ is that, it is the puchase of some asset or entity or engage in a transaction that cleans dirty money. Watch Scar Face if you need any further info.

      The idea being is that you have secured a large ammount through some dodgy and illegal means, and now you clean it by investing it in some sort of legal enterprise.

  8. BLiP 8
    27 September 2009 at 9:18 pm

    Sssup with TVNZ folding under the pressure and pulling the link from their site? Gutless fucks!

    • Kevin Welsh 8.1
      27 September 2009 at 9:55 pm

      Another phone call from Dipton?

      • BLiP 8.1.1
        27 September 2009 at 10:13 pm

        Yeah mate – watch at the end of Mallard’s wee speech, seems Blinglish got on the phone and gave someone at TVNZ an earbashing and, next thing you know, the link is pulled from the site.

  9. Mental Mickey 9
    27 September 2009 at 10:20 pm

    One tiny point –

    – did anyone notice at the end of the clip Mallard says ‘its the type of corruption they used to have in Russia, but I don’t think they do any more’ ?

    What a lousy way to end such a good speech.

  10. illuminatedtiger 10
    27 September 2009 at 11:13 pm

    I did hear that he used a lot of colourful language but did this guy really call someone a “fucking cunt” over the phone? *shakes head*