Government Corruption

[Banditbandit]

This is completely corrupt and morally bankrupt - we have the fifth most wanted man in China living here in NZ .. and the Chinese want him back to face charges.

But for $43million we let him stay, with no charges, gets all his assets back - and no extradition to China. He's out and free ...

Forget Godzone being a Tax Shelter - for $43million we will shelter international criminals ...

Corrupt Corrupt and Corrupt.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/will...owYto.facebook


I'm sure Kim Dotcom will be lining up with $43million next ..

[JimO]

but we let so many criminals stay for free

[Akzle]

but we let so many criminals stay for free

and pay them!

good old jewry.

[ellipsis]

...if the CIA wanted him, he would be theirs in a flash...

[TheDemonLord]

Me thinks it would be a different story if he wasn't likely to face the Death Penalty.

For my side, whilst it's morally corrupt in one sense to allow someone to pay the blood money for their freedom, I'm not so sure I could allow an extradition for fraud charges, where I would in effect be signing the mans Death Warrant. In this instance for me, the Moral Corruption of accepting the bribe is less than the moral corruption condemning a man to death.

If he was a Murderer or Rapist or Pedophile - I'd be happy to hand him over, but not for Fraud.

[Katman]

Me thinks it would be a different story if he wasn't likely to face the Death Penalty.

For my side, whilst it's morally corrupt in one sense to allow someone to pay the blood money for their freedom, I'm not so sure I could allow an extradition for fraud charges, where I would in effect be signing the mans Death Warrant. In this instance for me, the Moral Corruption of accepting the bribe is less than the moral corruption condemning a man to death.

If he was a Murderer or Rapist or Pedophile - I'd be happy to hand him over, but not for Fraud.

Letting him stay in the country on compassionate grounds is one thing (personally, I'd happily send him back) but the prick should forfeit all his assets.

[TheDemonLord]

Letting him stay in the country on compassionate grounds is one thing but the prick should forfeit all his assets.

I agree with the sentiment, but forfeiting all his assets in lieu of death - really makes us no better than the old time gangsters running a protection racket.


And before you point out that I'm splitting hairs because we are partially doing that anyway - you would be right.

[Katman]

I agree with the sentiment, but forfeiting all his assets in lieu of death - really makes us no better than the old time gangsters running a protection racket.

Except that all the proceeds of his assets should go back to China to help cover the $129 million he embezzled.

After all, what right has the New Zealand government got to lay claim to any of the $43 million?

Let the motherfucker live on the streets if he wants to stay that badly.

[TheDemonLord]

Except that all the proceeds of his assets should go back to China to help cover the $129 million he embezzled.

After all, what right has the New Zealand government got to lay claim to any of the $43 million?

Let the motherfucker live on the streets if he wants to stay that badly.

The article says that the assets will be shared between NZ and China, so presumably there is an element of co-operation between the 2 governments.

This is probably partly due to Limited Liability laws (same as when the director of a failed finance company gets to keep all of his personal assetts)

I'm going to presume that you take great umbrage with that bit of legislation and it's scope for manipulation that allows people to screw a business over, but keep their multi-million dollar lifestyle.

[Katman]

I'm going to presume that you take great umbrage with that bit of legislation and it's scope for manipulation that allows people to screw a business over, but keep their multi-million dollar lifestyle.

You presume right.

[TheDemonLord]

You presume right.

I should quote that and put it in my signature....

I'll agree there are times when it seems an offense to the concept of natural justice that they get to keep their mansions, Yachts and luxury vehicles, whilst Mr and Mrs average investor looses their life savings.

Although, didn't they make some changes last year or the year before to address this for Finance Companies?

[Katman]

I should quote that and put it in my signature....

I'll agree there are times when it seems an offense to the concept of natural justice that they get to keep their mansions, Yachts and luxury vehicles, whilst Mr and Mrs average investor looses their life savings.

Although, didn't they make some changes last year or the year before to address this for Finance Companies?

I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would run a business into liquidation, owing any amount to creditors, and yet still seek to secure their personal wealth.

[TheDemonLord]

I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would run a business into liquidation, owing any amount to creditors, and yet still seek to secure their personal wealth.

Okay - Where do you draw the line?

Suppose a succesfull CEO moves to a failing company to try and rescue it, but the company goes under after 6 months - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?
Suppose a business owner is trying every best practices, but the economy has turned to shit and their company goes under - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?
Suppose a Director made a decision that caused the company to fail due to unforseen external circumstances - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?

For me, when there has been conscious foul play - I agree with you, that I have nothing but contempt. However where do you draw the line between foul play (embezzlement/Fraud) and bad management (no diversification of risk, poor decision making, mismanagement) and Bad luck (economy crashing, natural disaster etc.).

[Swoop]

Forget Godzone being a Tax Shelter - for $43million we will shelter international criminals ...

Corrupt Corrupt and Corrupt.

Absolutely. Most certainly so when he has done the same thing in Australia.

For me, when there has been conscious foul play - I agree with you

Sort of like Dick Smith in Aus?
Company asset strips the chain.
Then, sucks in "investors in a nationally recognised brand" ...
Then closes the company.

[Voltaire]

Okay - Where do you draw the line?

Suppose a succesfull CEO moves to a failing company to try and rescue it, but the company goes under after 6 months - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?
Suppose a business owner is trying every best practices, but the economy has turned to shit and their company goes under - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?
Suppose a Director made a decision that caused the company to fail due to unforseen external circumstances - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?

For me, when there has been conscious foul play - I agree with you, that I have nothing but contempt. However where do you draw the line between foul play (embezzlement/Fraud) and bad management (no diversification of risk, poor decision making, mismanagement) and Bad luck (economy crashing, natural disaster etc.).

Wasn't that how Limited Liability Companies came to be in England some centuries ago as projects needed non Govt funding and no one wanted to take the risk?
Be interested to know how he embezzled that sort of money with no one noticing.