Member log in

US businessmen to give evidence in Banks’ appeal

A meeting at Kim Dotcom's mansion during which electoral donations were discussed is likely to be revisited in John Banks' court case. 

The evidence of two American businessmen, said to be at the event where Mr Banks is said to have asked for donations to be split into two, will be presented to help the former MP's appeal. 

Earlier this year the former MP was convicted under Electoral Act charges but his sentence, delivered last month, has been deferred pending appeal.

His lawyer, David Jones QC, has confirmed the Court of Appeal will hear the case in Wellington on October 29.

NBR understands two American businessman, reported to be David Schaeffer and Jeffrey Karnes, who were apparently at Mr Dotcom’s house during a meeting between the German enterpreneur and Mr Banks and associates, will give evidence.

During the High Court trial, Mr Banks’ estranged wife Amanda had referred to the two businessmen, who she said had joined them for lunch.

Justice Ed Wylie had not accepted Mrs Banks’ evidence in regards to the two men, saying that there might have been businessmen visiting the house but no other relevant witness remembered them having lunch.

The judge ultimately concluded that Mrs Banks was not a reliable witness.

After his High Court sentencing, Mr Banks had said new witnesses had come forward and that those unnamed witnesses could not be located at the time of the trial.

He had maintained his innocence, saying he has never filed a false "anything," let alone a false electoral return.

While Mr Banks’ legal team has filed its appeal, the affidavits of evidence are not yet with the court.

vyoung@nbr.co.nz

More by Victoria Young

Comments and questions
19

How the judge could say Mr & Mrs Banks were not reliable - but back a known convicted fraudster attempting anything and everything to save his butt from being extradited...

With all the IMP and KDC antics since - would the judge come to the same conclusion today?

The judge probably based his verdict on the truth - what was presented

Not what is manufactured or contrived

Your logic is nonsensical

Let us just wait and see what these businessmen say under oath before we jump to conclusions.

'Not what is manufactured or contrived'

You are absolutely correct, there is nothing what-so-ever manufactured or contrived about Kim Dot Com, is there?

...and your logic is based on your preconceived socialist agenda. ANYTHING so see Banks fall, right?

Even worse bloke. WylieJ actually said he found KDC and Mona to be credible!
Unbelievable.

Yes, that would make a great Tui's billboard!

I don't know how the COA will allow this "new"' evidence to be heard ,as the COA (In my experience) does not allow new evidence to be presented at appeal. Besides, and on the face of it, this is not "new" evidence at all and does’t change the fact that Bank's received split donations from the fat guy. Full stop. In my opinion, it doesn't carry any more weight than the confusion around where the cheques were posted from. It is irrelevant. Banks is drawing a very long bow In the hope that the COA will uphold his appeal. He’s clutching at straws and should just let it go.

Does anyone on this forum know who appointed Justice Wylie E., to the bench?

Justice Wylie was appointed High Court Judge in Auckland by Michael Cullen
http://www.kiwisfirst.com/judge-file-index/high-court-justice-edwin-david-wylie/

While not specifically referring to Justice Wylie, there is a perception that judges are appointed by shoulder tapping rather than through a transparent process.

Justice Wylie was appointed in 2008

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about/high/judges/#the-honourable-justice-wylie

Nothing new here that warrants a retrial, not unless these businessmen can swear they heard every single word that Banks uttered whilst at the mansion.

It is a he said she said trial, all circumstantial. Dotcom was believed by the judge, show that he lied and the whole case falls to pieces. Remember, Banks was not convicted on the Sky City donation because there was nothing to directly show he knew the amount of the donation.

Exactly right anonymous. And they will be swearing on oath that donations were not spoken about over lunch, which is where Dotcom, his wife and body guard claim the discussion took place. Also, never lose sight of the fact that Dotcom got the date that he claimed the lunch took place, wrong.
Dotcom will be proven to have perjured himself, as will his wife. Oops.

It is most unfortunate that Mr Banks' estranged wife Amanda remains exposed to an esoteric ordeal that is capable of being brought to an end by means of a swift, inexpensive and obvious moral conclusion on the part of John Banks himself.

Me smells a conspiracy being brewed by Banks.

To Bonviv,
That is alway's assuming that Banksie is moral and not corrupt in his push for power.

Hi Nony Mouse,

It would seem that Banksie's push for power has lost most of its steam in both moral and legal terms, though this may depend to some extent on the outcome of the election.

One thing both Johns have got right, all the way through, is the timing.