Run! It's the White Collar Criminals!

[Angusdog]

Okay, begin rant:

From this article on LA-style polynesian gangs on Stuff

All fair points; I can't understand this fascination with LA gang culture, and divesting yourself of your own rich heritage. It's all a bit assumed identity, a reverse-aspirational mindset. I believe the police are correct, in that gangs (of any description) are a threat.

But check out this gem, from NZ's academic on these matters:

Criminologist Greg Newbold said LA-style gangs were a threat in their own neighbourhoods, but not a general threat to New Zealanders.
He believed white-collar crime and domestic violence were bigger problems.

Yup, that's me. I shit myself inside out at the thought of White Collar Criminals coming up to me in the street and beating me up. Or running me down in their BMW. Nicking my cellphone and roughing up my suit (if I wore one). What a load of bullshit. Who, in the general public, is worried about "white collar crime"? What is white collar crime? Are your kids at risk of this criminal element when they're walking home from school?

Or is it just fraud? I personally couldn't give a rat's about fraud. Never harmed me, probably never will.

I propose that Mr Greg Newbold sticks to the argument, and not foisting us with the red herring of undisclosed "white collar crime" - it makes the whole topic a racial one: Groups of brown people aren't the threat, you need to be worried about white accountants.

[ManDownUnder]

I offer you two webpages to consider.

The dude
The deed

Also - before you diss Greg Newbold... you do know his past right? Like who he is... and more importantly - who he was...

[Angusdog]

Yes, actually; Point taken. I feel genuine sympathy for such victims, although it's easier to "put right" than crimes of violence which are abhorrent and have much longer lasting effects.

[idleidolidyll]

You seem to misunderstand Newbold.
In our society, a burglar who sneaks in and steals a few TV sets when people are not home is punished far more severely than white collar crims who ruin the lives of hundreds or even thousands of people.

Recently David Richwhite agreed to an out of court settlement with the NZ Govt for tens of millions of dollars. He's still going about his daily life even as a burglar who harmed nobody and stole a few grands worth of electronics languishes in prison.

[Paul in NZ]

One suspects Mr Newbold is not a fan of broken windows policing? there is a good explanation / discussion here..

http://www.ambiguous.org/robin/word/brokenwindows.html

I'm not sure either way BUT I'm sure that it is the petty street thuggery that actually makes most people fearful of their safety - not fraud (in general).

If the police are worried about the $$ cost of crime - white collar is maybe the way to focus but from the human side... Those youth gangs are an issue..

[Mr Merde]

Could someone please explain to me who these persons are

Greg Newbold

David Richwhite.


Without knowing any background I am not able to understand the discussion


Merde

[Angusdog]

No, he states that the general public don't have to worry about Crips & Bloods, we do need to worry about white collar crime. I find that argument laughable. Although I know nothing about the case of David Richwhite, it's almost certainly a tax issue. That's what big business does: business, and business attracts tax and everyone tries to avoid tax. A lot of it is in the interpretation, as in the case of the Christchurch businessman who eventually triumphed over the IRD. What's the difference between him and David Richwhite? I don't know but probably interpretation.

And the threat to the general public's wellbeing from David Richwhite? I venture to suggest it's minimal. How safe is it to walk through South Auckland?

[Swoop]

Could someone please explain to me who these persons are

Greg Newbold

David Richwhite.

Richwhite = Fay/Richwhite merchant bankers?
http://www.arena.org.nz/railcase.htm

Newbold. Ex-crim now turned "academic" on everything crim...
http://www.soci.canterbury.ac.nz/people/staff-gn.shtml
Depending on what you look at, there are differing views of him...
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~wwexmss/Off...03/Letters.htm

[idleidolidyll]

Could someone please explain to me who these persons are

Greg Newbold

David Richwhite.


Without knowing any background I am not able to understand the discussion


Merde

It would probably be dangerous to speculate too much on the Michael Fay and David Richwhite sage since these guys have hundreds of millions of dollars to defend their reputations with.

In the 80's these two sold NZ's assets to their favourite bidders making huge profits for themselves. There seemed to be something dodgy at the time and the Govt recently tried to go Richwhite for about $100 million but settled out of court without an admission of guilt for about $35 million.

The sale of assets damaged NZ considerably and placed valuable assets in the hands of foreigners. Thousands of jobs were lost and lives ruined. Some will say it was needed but try telling that to those who lost everything.

Michael Fay was awarded a NZ Honour for effectively selling off our assets and using the money (part of it) to fund an Amerikas Cup challenge.............

Greg Newbold is an activist from way back, a criminologist, a professor and as far as I can tell, his greatest crime was selling a few joints. That of course, is more than enough for the rednecks and cops to vilify him.

[Mr Merde]

Thanks for the information. I will read what I can with great interest.

Hopefully it will alow me to form an opinion and possibly participate in this conversation


Merde

[Swoop]

Michael Fay was awarded a NZ Honour for effectively selling off our assets and using the money (part of it) to fund an Amerikas Cup challenge.

You might like to check the dates on that.
He funded the '86/'87 challenge but I don't recall much financial involvement after that.
The "sell-off" debacle happened after that ('93).

[idleidolidyll]

the asset sales started in earnest in the late 80's f(labour) rom memory but i'm happy for you to offer up other evidence

[Tank]

"Criminologist Greg Newbold said LA-style gangs were a threat in their own neighbourhoods, but not a general threat to New Zealanders."

Where Newbolds argument runs into problems is that the LA style gang actions (selling drugs etc) start to impact everybody - not just their own neighbourhood.

They sell the drugs - people need to steal to get money to buy the drugs - the circle of crime just gets bigger and bigger - it impacts all walks of life and all neighbourhoods.

He also says Domestic violence is a bigger problem - however forgets to mention that stats show domestic violence is greater in lower social economic areas - the same neighbourhood that have the piece of shit LA style gangs.

Now - I also agree that white collar crime is also serious and ruins lives also - but I think that the argument in this thread is out of context.

The LA style gangs are a problem - there are places you simply cannot safely because of them. And now the little shits are getting in cars going to richer neighbourhoods looking for trouble (like the kid who was stabbed a couple of weeks ago). This is what the article was talking about.

Newbord's effort to focus on another problem area dosnt take away the fact that the gangs are a issue.

[idleidolidyll]

"Most of us probably also missed an amazing piece of analysis by Brian Gaynor in the Business Herald last Saturday. The picture he drew, from information on the public record, had a lot more to say about what's been wrong in this country than any argument on Winebox points of law.

His column was about Michael Fay and David Richwhite and a series of transactions in which their merchant bank was involved between 1986 and 1993 - involving their companies European Pacific, Capital Markets and Fay, Richwhite and the Bank of New Zealand, Tranz Rail and Telecom.

In the course of five major transactions, Fay and Richwhite personally pocketed over half a billion dollars - at the same time as their minority shareholders lost $277 million. Someone of less moderate inclination than Gaynor might say that they basically raped their shareholders.

And the worst of it is, the government helped them do it, handing them sweetheart deals like the Telecom share option arrangement in September 1993, which allowed Fay and Richwhite to pocket $274 million from Telecom share sales without having to put up a penny in advance. While they wallowed around in cash, their shareholders made precisely nothing."

source: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL9909/S00027.htm

"Sir Michael Fay should lose his knighthood and Securities Commission chairwoman Jane Diplock should be honoured instead, Labour MP Shane Jones told Parliament yesterday.

And he said Sir Michael and his business partner David Richwhite would not be welcome back in New Zealand until they "atone for their wrongdoing".

Mr Jones was speaking in a snap debate moved by New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, whose own speech replicated fiery ones of years past on the Bank of NZ bailout and Winebox transactions that involved other Fay and Richwhite companies.

"It makes Donna Awatere look like an angel," said Mr Peters.

Under parliamentary privilege, he said the businessmen had been held out to be paragons of virtue but were "nothing but crooks, and cheap crooks at that".

Sir Michael was knighted in 1990 after his America's Cup challenges in Australia and San Diego but knighthoods and damehoods were abolished by the Labour Government.

Mr Jones, chairman of the finance and expenditure select committee, said Ms Diplock "should become Dame Jane and we should strip Fay of his knighthood and give it to her".

Advertisement
<a href="http://ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID=0000027a98c5a19e00000000/SITE=NZH/AREA=SEC.BUSINESS.STY/AAMSZ=300X250/acc_random=15671802/pageid=69101982"><img src="https://secure.adbureau.net/apn/s4j-green-exc-300x250_110907.gif" alt="Alternate Ad Image Text Goes Here!" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a>
Advertisement

He also said Government regulators should vet Sir Michael's ownership of Mercury Island off Coromandel, implying that he should be regarded as an overseas owner because he did not live permanently in New Zealand."

source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/...ectid=10446793

there's plenty more of course but I'm sure you get the gist.

[Swoop]

the asset sales started in earnest in the late 80's f(labour) rom memory but i'm happy for you to offer up other evidence

After the time you alledge they (he) used the profits to fund a boatrace.
I suggest that you produce some concrete evidence to show Fay/Richwhite involvement in asset sales prior to '86 to validate your claim.

Their personal involvement in getting the America's Cup campaign underway (1984?) got them in favour with the gubbinment, a "foot in the door" if you will.