The records show Key-Whitechapel link

Written By: - Date published: 11:42 pm, May 27th, 2010 - 53 comments
Categories: accountability, john key - Tags: ,

John Key’s been lying long enough to know not to tell a porky that’s instantly falsifiable. So, I was gobsmacked to see him on TV1 saying he had never heard of Whitechapel, the company that owns his shares as a holding vehicle for his ‘blind’ trust, Aldgate. Gobsmacked because at that moment I was looking at the online records of him giving those shares to Whitechapel.

Here they are:

Key didn’t give his shares to the ‘blind’ trust, he gave them directly to Whitechapel.

These are not insignificant holdings. The Earl of Auckland owns a commercial property and Key’s Whitechapel owns a third of Earl of Auckland. Whitechapel owns 10% of Highwater, a vineyard that must be worth millions. The holding in Dairy Investments is worth 7% of the company, a major player in the dairy industry.

You might also notice that the shares are being transferred from Key, his wife Bronagh, and Kenneth Grey Whitney. Whitney is the Key’s lawyer. And, he’s a director of Whitechapel, along with his legal partner. Their legal trust fund holds Whitechapel on behalf of Key’s ‘blind’ Aldgate Trust.

If Key had been genuine about setting up a blind trust, he wouldn’t have made his mate and lawyer the trustee. They wouldn’t have set up Whitechapel. And Key wouldn’t have lied about knowing of Whitechapel when questioned.

53 comments on “The records show Key-Whitechapel link ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Marty G 1
    27 May 2010 at 11:48 pm

    i find the companies site doesn’t work in firefox. fine in IE

    • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1
      28 May 2010 at 6:43 am

      Its the java engine thats the problem, try installing the java add on through Firefox

  2. Jim Nald 2
    28 May 2010 at 12:10 am

    Classic case of arranging one’s affairs … to blind others to them?

  3. Eric C. 3
    28 May 2010 at 12:14 am

    Earl of Auckland doesn’t just own any commercial property. It owns the building at 6 Eden St, Newmarket. That is the office of Colin Leuschke who was involved with some very leaking buildings in Auckland. He was also the architect for Key’s mansion.

    Key knows how to keep his rent coming in doesn’t he? Get the taxpayer to fund settlements so owners of leaky homes don’t go after people like his commercial tenants.

    • Marty G 3.1
      28 May 2010 at 12:24 am

      yeah, Key described it as a commercial property after The Truth story in 2007. We know about 6 Eden St and Leuschke and will cover it but one thing at a time.

  4. Draco T Bastard 4
    28 May 2010 at 1:09 am

    Well, I’d always figured that Jonkeys blind trust was only hidden from NZers.

  5. eye saw 5
    28 May 2010 at 5:22 am

    captcha steal.Need i say more?

  6. wtl 6
    28 May 2010 at 5:29 am

    Actually, Whitechapel is owned by one “TGT Limited”, which in turn appears to be owned by the partners of the law firm “Taylor Grant Tesiram” – rather then directly by Whitney’s firm. I’m confused as to where they fit into this – I presume this is a second trust/company set up by Whitney through TGT to accept these investments? And Aldgate own’s Whitechapel through TGT?

    It’s all pretty dodgy I know, but the wingnuts will pounce on any ‘errors’ so it would be good to get the details down.

    • Marty G 6.1
      28 May 2010 at 8:17 am

      Yeah, like I say, TGT, which is the legal firm’s trust fund, holds Whitechapel for Aldgate, which the lawyers run. Lawyers’ trust funds are complicated

  7. Tigger 7
    28 May 2010 at 6:44 am

    Nice work Eddie. Keep the pressure on. The right wants this story dead.

  8. ghostwhowalksnz 8
    28 May 2010 at 6:48 am

    Remember too that the ‘blind trust’ only was for NZ assets. Theres probably plenty more offshore, even shares in business’s that operate in NZ

    • Jim Nald 8.1
      28 May 2010 at 8:08 am

      It will take quite a lot of unravelling if he is embroiled in the complexities and intricacies of the arrangements that are donkey deep.

  9. mickysavage 9
    28 May 2010 at 7:09 am

    The change in shareholding should have been caused by a signed share transfer form. The “smoking gun” will be who signed it. If signed by Key’s lawyer under power of attorney he may be able to deny it, if signed by him he knows who he was transferring the shares to.

    The three of them being the shareholders also indicates the existence of another trust. Has he declared a trust previously?

  10. I dreamed a dream 10
    28 May 2010 at 7:13 am

    Remember Trevor’s post “Nat Resignation Coming?’, where a journalist whispered to expect a Parliamentary resignation from National?

    I wonder if there’s a relation there. Far fetched I know, but more and more interesting information is coming out by the day.

  11. Santi 11
    28 May 2010 at 7:37 am

    Key is openly lying to all of us in the best tradition of NZ politicians.
    He should be taken to task for all this.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      28 May 2010 at 9:21 am

      Key is openly lying to all of us in the best tradition of National politicians.

      FIFY

  12. Scott 12
    28 May 2010 at 8:08 am

    None of this proves Key lied. It’s entirely possible Key didn’t know which entity he transferred his shares to. There would have been a share transfer signed, but for all we know it may have been signed under power of attorney, or the name of the transferee may have been left blank on the form he signed, to be filled in later.

    Or Key may not have paid any attention to the transferee details when he signed. Believe me, that’s more common than people may think – especially with people who have large amounts of assets and who are preoccupied with other matters (such as having just been made PM).

    So it’s entirely possible Key is telling the truth. Of course, he may also be lying. My point is this is not proof Key is a liar.

    • Marty G 12.1
      28 May 2010 at 8:21 am

      Yeah. I can see a person who made their millions on financial transactions transferring millions of dollars – all his NZ-based non real estate assets, including a winery he’s very proud of – to an unknown entity.

      And there’s no explanation for Whitechapel’s existence except so as to keep his assets open to him. Someone come up with a credible explanation for Whitechapel and we’ll talk.

      • Tigger 12.1.1
        28 May 2010 at 8:27 am

        Exactly Marty, when Key slurs “There’s no getting past me” to the wine critic as he brags about his PM’s Pinot he’s revealing his true colours – he’s a doofus in many ways but when it comes to his money I have no doubt he knows where every cent is.

        • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1
          28 May 2010 at 9:23 am

          That’s the way I see it. He’s a money trader and knows the importance of knowing where his assets are and what they’re doing. There’s no way he would let that knowledge out of his grasp.

      • Scott 12.1.2
        28 May 2010 at 8:52 am

        “Yeah. I can see a person who made their millions on financial transactions transferring millions of dollars all his NZ-based non real estate assets, including a winery he’s very proud of to an unknown entity.”

        That’s hardly an argument. The whole point of a blind trust is to transfer all your assets into an unknown entity. The only thing he would have known, if it was done properly (and I don’t know whether or not it was), was who was in control of the entity – someone he trusted to make decisions for him.

        “Someone come up with a credible explanation for Whitechapel and we’ll talk.”

        Here’s one. TGT, the sole shareholder of Whitechapel, is probably a solicitors trustee company. Most law firms have them. That trustee company may well be the trustee of Key’s blind trust, or it may be an agent or nominee of that trustee. There may be any number of legal or tax reasons why TGT set up a subsidiary to invest in the three companies, rather than invest itself on behalf of Key. It doesn’t necessarily suggest anything sinister.

        These are all guesses, but they’re all plausible scenarios.

        • Marty G 12.1.2.1
          28 May 2010 at 9:10 am

          TGT is the solicter’s trustee company. If they had wanted the blind trust blind, Aldgate would own the shares directly. There’s no reason it couldn’t, or the legal trust could own them. Both options would keep the blind trust blind.

          Having Whitechapel is the only way to stop it being blind.

          • mickysavage 12.1.2.1.1
            28 May 2010 at 9:19 am

            Precisely. The solicitor’s trust company can own as trustee various properties on behalf of various individuals or trusts.

            This does not look like the “state of the art” blind trust that Key claims it was, unless “state of the art” means that he can claim it is a blind trust when it is not.

            • Scott 12.1.2.1.1.1
              28 May 2010 at 9:34 am

              A bit of legal 101: A trust is not a separate legal entity. It can’t legally hold property in its own right, because it is not a legal “person”. Legal title vests in the trustee/s of the trust, and is held for the beneficiaries.

              If TST is the trustee of Aldgate (and I’m only guessing this), it’s entirely appropriate for it to be the shareholder of Whitechapel. Aldgate can’t own shares directly.

              • mickysavage …
                28 May 2010 at 10:26 am

                Legal 102: A company can be the owner of property but own it on behalf of a trust. So TGT can own a property on behalf of the trustees of the Aldgate trust and be bound by directions that it receives on behalf of Aldgate.

                I am suggesting that if Key wanted a really blind trust he would have used TGT because it presumably owns a number of different properties on behalf of a number of different entities, whether they are trustees on behalf of a trust, a company or individual(s).

                Having a discrete entity (Whitechapel) owning only the assets of Aldgate makes it really easy to work out what the trust owns.

      • Alwyn 12.1.3
        28 May 2010 at 10:05 am

        Well Eddie in the original post says that that is just what he should have done.
        Frankly if I was setting up a blind trust, which can do anything at all with my money, I would make damn sure that it was someone I thought was trustworthy.
        There is also no evidence at all that he made the transfer.
        They may have been transferred FROM him but there is nothing at all to show that they were transferred BY him.
        Oh well, another own goal like Mike Williams and the H-fee.
        For goodness sake. It is half way through the term of the government and the Labour party are still trying things that put the public off in 2008.
        Can we have some alternative policies instead of just Phil Goff and his mantra of National bad – Labour good.

    • mickysavage 12.2
      28 May 2010 at 8:43 am

      But there would be trust minutes and resolutions, either a sale agreement or a revesting deed, there would have been a pile of documents. I know he is relaxed but it is hard to imagine Key not being even slightly interested in what he was signing. After all millions of dollars worth of property was being transferred.

      And the winery is the smoking gun, complete with a JK PM trademark and a boast.

    • toad 12.3
      28 May 2010 at 8:45 am

      But by having the assets transferred to a company rather than to a trust, regardless of whether Key signed the share transfer form or it was done under power of attorney without his knowledge, the transfers become public records which Key can access just as easily as Eddie has here.

      So it’s not as blind as Key has made it out to be.

  13. Nemesis 13
    28 May 2010 at 8:43 am

    So many left wing panty sniffers in one room. You guys are a joke.

    Labour’s internal polling must be really bad after the budget if this is all you’ve got.

    [lprent: What does Labour have to do with us looking at clueless and his ‘blind’ trust? Be careful when you answer. And you have to answer if you want to comment here again – I’m adding you to auto-moderation because you’ve been doing too many of these type of meaningless troll comments that add nothing to the debate. ]

    • ghostwhowalksnz 13.1
      28 May 2010 at 8:56 am

      gee Crosby/Textors phone must be on voicemail if this is best response they can come up with. I mean you all are singing in tune with the same weak answer

    • Jim MacDonald 13.2
      28 May 2010 at 10:14 am

      Crikey! What?!?
      I come from a family of right wing voters and I’ve been leaving comments here.
      And I’ve been thinking this is a rebellious right blog. Waaat? Has the left hijacked this blog?!

    • ghostwhowalksnz 13.3
      28 May 2010 at 10:40 am

      In the Worth affair , Key denied getting a call from Goff ( I was on a plane!) that was warning him of Worths harassment, and yet Goff produced the call records to show Key was lieing

      Note the pattern from Key….

  14. vto 14
    28 May 2010 at 8:58 am

    Has no journalist asked the question “how did you know that you owned shares in a winery company when it is in the blind trust?”?

    Seems simple question. Should be simple answer

  15. BLiP 15
    28 May 2010 at 9:43 am

    Good work The Standard!!

  16. RP 16
    28 May 2010 at 10:01 am

    Highwater disowns Key: http://bit.ly/bqGUMm

  17. Jim MacDonald 17
    28 May 2010 at 10:19 am

    As a general statement, the pattern is clearly emerging that the Right has a real penchant for rearranging their affairs to hide and rort. This is becoming blindingly obvious.

    Oops, this was supposed to be in reply to:
    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/conflict-of-interest-raised-over-keys-wine-holdings/#comment-220186

Links to post