Member log in

Strip criminal Graham of knighthood - Hide

In the wake of the Lombard Four sentencing yesterday, former ACT leader Rodney Hide has called for Sir Douglas Graham to be stripped of his knighthood.

"Douglas Graham is a convicted criminal. If knighthoods are to mean anything you cant have a convicted crook being called Sir," Mr Hide told NBR.

"It's not about Graham. It's about maintaining respect for our system of honours. It says a lot about the man that he hasn't asked the prime minister to remove it." 


Feb 24: There are calls to strip Sir Douglas Graham of his knighthood following the former justice minister’s conviction of Securities Act charges.

Sir Douglas was one of four former Lombard Finance directors accused of making false statement prospectuses in the run-up to the finance company’s collapse.

In the aftermath of the guilty verdict commenters on the National Business Review have begun calling for a cancellation of his honour.

“Strip him of his Knighthood,” one said.

Knighthoods are technically awarded by the Queen, and in the case of New Zealand the Queen’s representative the Governer-General. Recommendations for honors are made by the cabinet honours committee.

Sir Douglas was awarded his knighthood in 1999 for services to the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process.

A knighthood can be removed only at the discretion of the Prime Minister.

John Key has said he will consider the matter, but not while elements of the Lombard case are still before the courts.

Recent precedent for the stripping of knighthoods comes from Britain, where former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Frank Goodwin had his title withdrawn earlier this month.

The Royal Bank of Scotland collapsed in the opening months of the global financial crisis, requiring a £45 billion government bailout.

Lombard Finance collapsed in 2008 owing 4400 investors about $127 million.

Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe was also stripped of his knighthood in 2010 after a repressive and violent campaign against political opponents left his country penniless.

As the guilty verdict was read out in the High Court in Wellington this morning Sir Douglas looked physically shaken.

More by Chris Keall

Comments and questions
123

Knighthood for ripping many good New Zealanders off? Strip it off him and let the civil proceedings take him to the cleaners!

He wasn't honoured for services to wealthy investors.

High time all Kiwi victims should come out of their closets and expose all bad "Royal subjects" for the sake of others once and for all...

This is precisous coming from Rodney Hide. People in galss houses and all that ...

Let's be a bit more careful here.

There is a big difference between those crooks that deliberately took money for their own benefit, and an independent director who doesn't pick up an error in a Prospectus.

Maybe this should be a lesson to other major corp directors out there signing off company prospectus without doing their homework, while excepting huge fee's for their services.

i truly believe that Graham was a man chosen as a director by the real offenders for 2 reasons.1) His integrity and status.2) His total lack of real knowledge of business and lack of ability to see through the lying and deception of the finance industry

Then why did he accept the directorship ?
The answer of course is ego.
It is nonsense to say a person was :"chosen" as a director.
You must consent to it in writing.
The man was a solicitor.

i truly believe that Graham was a man chosen as a director by the real offenders for 2 reasons.1) His integrity and status.2) His total lack of real knowledge of business and lack of ability to see through the lying and deception of the finance industry

Been ignorant or not sober enough as a member of any company's management, is putting all customers at risk...Legal advice is always the Norm!

Rubbish, they are two of the same. Let the civil
actions proceed.

Yes, and send him down as well. Send ALL the Lombard gangsters down.

Failure to read the prospectus before siging is no excuse.

If you have not read it then don't sign it and don't collect your fee.

Yes, and don't feel obligated at any time....

A knighthood for his part in the treaty negotiations,it figures ... I say hang him ...

Totally agree its a no brainer Graham opened up a can of worms with his ignorant attempt to expedite treaty settlements. The average maori on the street sees none of the hand outs and only a few greedies at the top of the foodchain benefit. There needed to be a proper distribution mandate in place. all the people who have lost their life savings need to see graham jailed and stripped of his undeserving knighthood.

Agree to a cerrtain extend,..
Even the English and Māori versions of the Treaty of Waitangi differed significantly, so there is no consensus as to exactly what was agreed to...What has this so-called "sir" done to rectify this issue?

Let's wait for the judge to pass sentencing and his/her remarks before we start stringing up the directors. While Sir Douglas has been found guilty, his actions may well be defined as lower level. I think it would be uncharitable to punish him too heavily for what may have been a lesser negligent/poor performance on his part.

Mind you - I wasn't an investor. I can understand their anger and wanting revenge in lieu of repayment.

Disagree..
Any respectable "Knight or Dame" as well, who feels "lesser negligent/poor performance" should resigned from his/her position of responsibility, for the sake of the well-beings of all kiwis.....

Lets give the man a chance.

He did right by us Maori.

He was a decent man in polirics and for that I think he will do the right thing.

All so quick to hang him look in the mirror and show some charity.

Ask David Dougherty, some Iwi & "ripped off" investors about the "right thing".

Any Kiwi should be aware by simple giving charity (and not teaching) to potential or proven wrong-doer will infact encourage any other criminals to go from bad to worse...such a criminal will not learn from his/her mistake!

its impossible to have an accurate statement in a prospectus during a GFC.

then don't issue one and take other people's money

Meaning the Accountant,and not the Owners should be Jailed, in any eventuality....

Well if a company goes under you cannot attack the shareholders if they hold no positions of authority can you.

GFC! come on...... don't you mean PONZI scheme? Totally misleading!

ACC, Superannuation....they are all Ponzi schemes

It's not as if he spied for the Russians.

So he started the Treaty gravy train for the legal industry and the 'noble well connected' maori oligarchs, and gets a knighthood

Watch as he says, I did not know, i just sat at meetings, it was the smart numbers people but I took the low interest loans, luxury cars, corporate expense account and directors fees, but failed to do my job please don't send my arse to jail. Those maori in jail don't know what I did for their overlords brothers..

prospectuses these days have to run to 70+ pages to satisfy the law. Anyone who has the skill and time to read through these tomes would most likely miss something, whatever their training. Much of the fault here lies with the executive who put detail or forecasts in the front of directors who would have to take even more time checking them out or taking independent advice. Fault also lies with investment advisers who didn't pick up the problems either. They seem to have got away with it.

If you don't have the skills or the nouse to be a Finance Co Director, you should NOT be a Director, full stop. The real difference here is they are loosely playing with other peoples money. I seriously dought they would risk their own funds in these dodgy Companies.

Sir Douglas rolled over $14,000 of the $17,000 he had in Lombard before it collapsed.

What does this say about the man?

It says that he did not have the financial competence to be a director of the company.

See nothing, hear nothing....sir1

How do you charge investment advisers? The chain of checking the prospectus prior to them being public, was an auditor from a large (normally multi national) accounting firm who signed off on the companies balance sheet, then the prospectus went to the trustee company, who checked and signed off as being accurate, then to the securities commission, who signed off as being accurate, then the companies office who did the same. You would have to think that by the time it got to the adviser/public the document should/would be accurate. Question if all those who checked the prospectus could not find anything wrong, then how do you expect an adviser to find the mistake. I certainly don’t blame my adviser, I also read each prospectus 5 companies in which I invested.. Your comment is without basis.

How is that an excuse for a director, a director has laws and responsabilities to abide by, if you are not up to it don't accept the directorship. Expectations and enforcement of laws are much harsher for lesser discrepencies or ineptitude, how can excuses diminish the crime here and not elsewhere.

To all those throwing dirt, have any of you ever read a prospectus? I suspect not. To others who say you get huge fees are a director, do you really know that’s truthful in this case? I suspect not. Pablo shows the most sense. Yes I was an investor in finance companies but not Lombard,

Yes to prospectus, fees & am an investor & luckily to date, have'nt lost anything.
Elderly family members/friends were "taken for a ride" by some very greedy people. These elderly had never played the stock market etc. Too late by time family found out to get their money out. In process of "sorting affairs" discovered that C+M paid triple commission etc to FA's. FA's were pushing to sign elderly up with promise of their investments covered by "Lloyds Insurance" so they wouldnt lose anything! RATS! Thousands down the drain.

Hopefully nobody reads....how stupid any investor and his/her adviser (perhaps solicitor) can be....

He has helped Maori, so I say hang the crook!!

What a vile, inhuman, irrelevant and racist comment, and cowardly as well Mr/Ms Anonymous.

In response to repeat, it would be interesting to know if any of the directors of the company lost money when it folded and how much. Do you think they might tell us?

Why is there a debate? A knighthood is essentially an honour issued by the State, usually part of some political trade off. It has zero significance in the real world where merit and performance are the only currency. So, who cares what childish titles he chooses to receive or cling to. It is entirely up to you to make your own judgments about Doug Graham and establish your relationship with him accordingly.

Quite right, ex Minister of the crown is hardly an after the event badge of honour either in NZ.
You may get off scott free from complete incompetence in politics, but Sir Doug has rightly been called out, and is accountable out here with the plebs.

Perhaps the usual "TRUST of the Royal Honourable/Honourary Stateman" is disappearing fast...

Bernie Madoff and others got very long jail terms and will die there,

Doug and the NZ crooks will get 5 hours community service, a 10k fine and a telling off.

People may even disrespect them. Poor them.

High time all Commonwealth Laws should be stadardiised ....the Queen's Laws of England!

Douglas Graham should fall on his sword.
The honorable thing to do is for him to return the knighthood before the embarrassment of having it striped off him. His conviction brings disrespect and ill repute to the status of "Knight" and he should act honorably.

Agree totally...

Whilst I doubt he was 100% aware of what he was putting his name to that was no excuse. You take the directors fees you take the rap. Lesson for a few chappies looking to earn a few lazy quid with a cushy directorship in their retirement.

Surely he would fall on his sword(excuse the pun) and hand his Knighthood in wouldn't he?

Benmimi I totally agree, Douglas Graham should do the honorable thing and return the Knighthood. Lets wait and see!

What a lot of racists read and comment on NBR! Bear in mind that Graham and co would almost certainly not have been found gulity under the allegedly more onerous Financial Markets Conduct Bill. The judge acknowledges this was error and negligence rather than criminal intent.

"You take the directors fees you take the rap." ... and if you take the investment you take the risk (but appreantly not any responsibility for your own actions, or research etc.)

but if the prospectus was inaccurate / misleading which is the case here how can investors be accountable. That is why we have laws requiring these documents to be accurate and not misleading.

Are you suggesting we have no standards around public offer documents. NZ investors could be taken for a much bigger ride - we could all get some of that action.

I would be happy to sign off on this (morals aside) if there was no risk to me as a director.

Doug Graham should fall on his sword.
Its the honorable thing to do before his knighthood is snatched from under his feet by default.
Not to do so brings dis-repute to the other Knights ...Lets hope he lives up to his tittle.

Doug Graham should fall on his sword.
Its the honorable thing to do before his knighthood is snatched from under his feet by default.
Not to do so brings dis-repute to the other Knights ...Lets hope he lives up to his tittle.

The judge's judgment says:

The alleged offences are ones of strict liability so the Crown is not required to
prove any form of mental intent to distribute documents that were false or
misleading. Nor is it any part of the Crown‘s case that the conduct by the directors
in issuing the offer documents was other than honest. In the relevant respects, the
law has created criminal liability for what may be no more than a material
misjudgement about the accuracy and adequacy of the description of the state of
financial health of the company, as directors authorise it in offer documents.

There is not any reason at all to strip him of his knighthood. It is not even a negligence case.

Should we strip people of their honours - whether knighthoods or not - because they negligently crash a car?

respectfully think point missed. EBA offences are strict liability offences. Does anyone seriously believe no victim, no conviction? There is a very good reason for making offences strict liability which is because compliance is in and of itself the main aim, Intention is generally too difficult to prove in such instances. How does one prove overlooking a misstatement is deliberate without an admission?. How does one prove one intended to drink more than the law provides for before driving?

He should not be stripped of his knighthood; he should give it up, voluntarily. If he has any "honour", that is.

Graham should have never got a knighthood in the first place now he is a convicted criminal he should definitely have to give it back

I have no doubt Sir Douglas is an honourable man whose biggest crime was one of naivete. Noone in their right mind would put him in the same category as the Bridgeport and Hanover guys. Management should take the lion's share of the blame as they misled everyone including their own directors.

It's a pretty safe bet that the auditors and lawyers (the only fatcats on the scene) were as usual asleep at the wheel having had another very good lunch - after drafting many pages of disclaimers to cover their own backsides.

Sir Doug has suffered a huge blow to his reputation. He is an honourable man and will feel this very keenly. He will have a conviction and I see no reason to persecute him further.

Have you stopped to think about the good hard working investors who have lost a hugh amount of money, why? pure greed.........
What's Doug lost apart from a little pride-not much apart from a director's fee, they still drive around in their Merc's and have their upper class hobbies.

I feel huge sympathy for the investors just like I feel huge sympathy for the victims of Hanover. You may remember that the Hanover investors are often described by NBR readers as greedy and deserving of their fate.

I just don't believe Graham is a crook - but I am sure others involved here are.

Hear,Hear!

Absolutely he should be stripped of his knighthood. 'Sir' and 'convicted criminal' is oxymoronic.

Knighthood or not , this is an example of another fundamentally honest individual getting in over his head. Bruce Davidson at Bridgecorp and Greg Muir at Hanover are other examples. Instead of wringing hands over knighthoods the focus needs to be on getting money back for the innocent investors.

Doug Graham's situation is very diffrent from the only NZ precedent - which involved electoral fraud in the Cook Islands. He isn't the first, and won't be the last, knight convicted and in his case the conviction is world's away from the reason for the award.

surely he will appeal

Good, let him waste his money!

Doug Graham is a decent man.He is not a crook.He relied on expert financial advise and gained nothing personally.He had the misfortune of ending up before a lightweight non commercial judge.Who would want to be a company director?They get paid a pittance and end up a criminal.Absolutely bizzare stuff.And its all post facto analysis,prejudice,and scape goat seeking.He did his best,most of you losers who condemn him have achieved nothing yourselves.At least he has done a lot for NZ.Leave the man alone.

Doug Graham is a decent man.He is not a crook.He relied on expert financial advise and gained nothing personally.He had the misfortune of ending up before a lightweight non commercial judge.Who would want to be a company director?They get paid a pittance and end up a criminal.Absolutely bizzare stuff.And its all post facto analysis,prejudice,and scape goat seeking.He did his best,most of you losers who condemn him have achieved nothing yourselves.At least he has done a lot for NZ.Leave the man alone.

Doug Graham is a decent man.He is not a crook.He relied on expert financial advise and gained nothing personally.He had the misfortune of ending up before a lightweight non commercial judge.Who would want to be a company director?They get paid a pittance and end up a criminal.Absolutely bizzare stuff.And its all post facto analysis,prejudice,and scape goat seeking.He did his best,most of you losers who condemn him have achieved nothing yourselves.At least he has done a lot for NZ.Leave the man alone.

Is that you DOUG?

question. What has happened to to other fraudsters or proven guilty parties when it comes to Queens Awards?
For instance: Graeme Thoompson from Fortex

A pittance?

Have you any idea how much he was paid as a director?

Careful when you answer as I have the numbers.

Then, count the perks as well.

Give them a fair trial, and then hang 'em.

Dougie is typical of someone who is has been given a knighthood.His background is just perfect for this poncy undeserved title.
Lawyer, former MP,former cabinet minister,sense of absolute entitlement,someone who will gladly accept kudos without responsibities,freely use free air travel at tax payer expense,Chairman of a failed finance company,convicted criminal.
Just maybe he will come to his senses and realise investors have lost dearly through his lack of ability and honesty. Write a letter to his Queen giving back his title before he is ridiculed and hounded by the newspapers and fed up out of pocket hardworking kiwis.

Only 1 person in NZ ever deserving of a knighthood. The rest should be retracted. Sir Edmund Hillary.

Dougie is not so much a thieving crook as he is just a hopelessly inept businessman, who found it easy to abdicate his responsibilities as a director, because he was clueless as to what they were.
You can't say he wasn't deserving of a knighthood, when the awarding of such entitlements is an unseemly mutual back-slapping affair.

don't just strip the knighthoods, given what they have done to us take their manhoods as well

And no jail for Dougy

So he will get home detention and be allowed twice weekly visits to the doctors ( for some weird unknown condition ) at locations near the Northern Club where he drinks and Remuera where he shops.

So in effect no punishment.

How about reading the decision before making ignorant comments ? Here it is:
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/r-v-graham/at_download/fileDecision.

When reading it you may notice the judge saying:
“The alleged offences are ones of strict liability so the Crown is not required to prove any form of mental intent to distribute documents that were false or misleading.”
“Nor is it any part of the Crown's case that the conduct by the directors ... was other than honest."
"In the relevant respects, the law has created criminal liability for what may be no more than a material misjudgement about the accuracy and adequacy of the description of the state of financial health of the company, as directors authorise it in offer documents."

I am not sure what qualifications Doug Graham had to be a competent director. I can't help but suspect that his title was what attracted the board to appoint him as the Chairman. It suggested integrity etc. Not too disimilar to the News guy being used in adverts fior a finance company. But in this case as Chairman, his fiduciary duties are very high. To his credit he is not trying use ignorance as a defence like Mr Petrocivic is at present. That mans nose is growing by the day!!!

The knighthood was for Treaty of Waitangi actions. Many of the leaders of that activity have skeletons in their cupboards, such as Sir Graham Latimer and Sir Steve O'Regan - it seems it's almost de rigeur. So I reckon the knighthood is secure unless Sir Douglass wants rid of it.
One satisfying aspect is that he will, presumably, cop a huge legal bill.
I would like to think the law society will have no choice but to defrock him and Jeffries.

Banks and brash next?

NZ Securities Act 1978
" 58. Criminal liability for misstatement in advertisement or registered prospectus

(1) Subject to subsection (2), where an advertisement that includes any untrue statement is distributed,—

(a) the issuer of the securities referred to in the advertisement, if an individual; or

(b) if the issuer of the securities is a body, every director thereof at the time the advertisement is distributed—

commits an offence.

(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (1) if the person proves either that the statement was immaterial or that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe, and did, up to the time of the distribution of the advertisement, believe that the statement was true.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), where a registered prospectus that includes an untrue statement is distributed, every person who signed the prospectus, or on whose behalf the registered prospectus was signed for the purposes of section 41(1)(b), commits an offence.

(4) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (3) if the person proves either that the statement was immaterial or that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe, and did, up to the time of the distribution of the prospectus, believe that the statement was true. "

Been busy in Queen St Auckland collecting signatures for the petition which should be presented to the House on Tuesday 28 February 2012, which, respectfully requests:

"That the House conduct an urgent inquiry into the prosecutions relating to the Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009."

I look forward to the 'highest court in the land' investigating why neither the Securities Commission, the Finance Markets Authority, the Serious Fraud Office nor the NZ Police have applied 'one law for all' and equally charged former fellow Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, John Banks and Don Brash, for signing the above-mentioned registered prospectuses which contained untrue statements?

Penny Bright

(More information, including copies of the above-mentioned Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009, is available on www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz )

I provided real estate services for this company before it went bust and I can tell you these people will get of lightly if all that happens is losing a Knighthood and some home detention. They and the people they employed where involved with some very shady people and I am surprised some of this activity did not come out in the trial. In the end it was greed and ego of the directors that cause this fiasco.

And poor ol' Malcolm Mayer lost his benefactor in Dougie. When is his trial?

Before Her Royal Highness, the Queen of the Commonwealth orders the return of this knighthood, this "Once-respectable but proven guilty Gentleman" should in fact surender it...Gut or Gutless Sir!
This same rule should also apply all other "Royal Awards" wrong-doers, only seemed "RESPECTABLE in the eyes of the Public".

Let me get this right -- when asked at an investors' meeting how secure Lombard was, Dougie looked straight into the eyes of the investor Paul Wah and said Lombard was safe because they were "stockpiling money". Lombard was still sending out the begging letters a month before the receivers were called in.

It's impossible to believe that Doug had no idea the state of Lombard's position -- can't help believe he told a bare-faced lie to Mr. Wah.

Why don't NBR run a reader's poll like other blogs?

Well it is unlikely to happen (Knighthood Poof)

The law is not really for the likes of them. Its ok to give someone on the DPB 6 months in the slammer but not those of the top 5%.

Some disgruntled Maori here have already passed verdict on Treaty Settlement Cash, they rip it off the taxpayer and recycle it endlessly in amongst themselves.

Take his Knighthood off him and send him for a term in Mount Eden, in with the Lads, in the shower and the bars of soap.

If Graham was a so called decent man he wouldnt have accepted a directorship with this shonky outfit, he is a snob and the idea of being a professional director satisfied his huge ego , he should never have been given a knighthood and now has been shown to be nothing more than a greedy egotistical crook.

Correct.
Sitting on boards is all about ego.

Hopefully this case, and other similar cases, will help people learn that they should NOT put ALLTHEIR EGGS IN ONE BASKET. Diversify. Spread your investments over different market segments, and even different countries. And preferably NOT into finance companies. Remember also, the higher the interest offered the more risk of losing your money.

Hopefully this case, and other similar cases, will help people learn that they should NOT put ALLTHEIR EGGS IN ONE BASKET. Diversify. Spread your investments over different market segments, and even different countries. And preferably NOT into finance companies. Remember also, the higher the interest offered the more risk of losing your money.

That is all very well in hindsight.
Investors quite logically assumed that two ex cabinet ministers should provide robust governance.
Govt recommended that people invest with financial planners who put zillions of dollars into finance companies..
Govt recommended that people invest in something else but houses.

And could respondents crease using the name 'Anonymous'. Make up some name and use that, then we know who is referring to whom.

Doug was warning family and friends not to put their money into Lombard, the same time he was signing off on the prospectuses.

He's a knight, alright -- a Dark One.

c'mon - don't tell me you didn't buy that crap about the 12g he put in and lost?

Wasn't Doug Graham the bloke who said it was not too bad for a woman to be raped with a beer bottle.

This pompous, arrogant turd in $1000 shoes, has single-handidly done more to create a racist society then any other individual in NZ. His infamous comment “The sooner we realise there are laws for one and laws for another, the better", sickened every right-thinking NZ’r.

Taking a board seat, racking in the fees and perks, strutting around with his 'Sir' title as a badge of honor and integrity - Douglas Graham, if he is an honorable man, will resign.

We know he will not so where is the integrity and honor in the man?

Karma, Dougie Montrose, your sins of dishing out taxpayers cash, it has come to pass, came back to haunt you, and kick your ass.

A Knight of the Realm being sentenced to perform community service. What a hoot. Pray, that he's not required to pick up litter along the motorway.

Let he who is without sin post pious anonymous posts.

He was awarded his knighthood for services to this country. Three hundred hours of community service is akin to what you get for driving recklessly, it is about as low on the criminal scale as it is possible to imagine.

We should remember what he did and his service in public office as well as this conviction. This will always be an asterix on his reputation, no need to make it the headline.

I guess if you cause 100 million of damages while driving drunk one would agree, however this is not low level offending, especially from people who should know better.

Strip the knighthood. It's not for "services to crime".

Those that call for stripping honours from DG, that were awarded for separate good works, are remarkably silent when it comes to those UN officials such as Sir Maurice Strong (food for oil scandal) who seek to roger the planet.

Maurice Strong should be tried for treason.

Who is Maurice Strong? most people calling for DG's knighthood know him or have been affected by his actions.

In response to Anonymous | Friday, March 30, 2012 - 1:19pm

Cyberhedge is talking about this evil creep -

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/01/discovering-maurice-strong

The GFC blew all assumptions out the window virtually overnight, the directors probably needed to register a prospectus on a monthly basis to keep up with the deteriorating picture of crashing asset values and flight to safety. Graham's already a broken man so why the medieval style witch hunt?

Yeah your correct! The GFC just happened, what date was that again? was it the same day some fools borrowed a heap of other people's money to a bit of waste land called brooklyn rise?? Nothing to do with GFC, everything to do with being reckless.

I have this week launched my petition for an independent commission against corruption
looks as if there are many here who would want to download a copy and collect some signatures http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/petition-for-an-independent-commission-against-corruption/

"The judge's judgment says:

The alleged offences are ones of strict liability so the Crown is not required to prove any form of mental intent to distribute documents that were false or misleading.

Nor is it any part of the Crown‘s case that the conduct by the directors in issuing the offer documents was other than honest. In the relevant respects, the law has created criminal liability for what may be no more than a material misjudgement about the accuracy and adequacy of the description of the state of
financial health of the company, as directors authorise it in offer documents. "

So - how come John Banks and Don Brash weren't equally charged for signing Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009 which contained untrue statements, if so doing constitutes a 'strict liability' offence?

Come on Rodney!

Prove to the world that unlike the former and current 'Leaders' of the ACT Party - Don Brash and John Banks - that YOU do believe in ACT's policy of 'ONE LAW FOR ALL' , and that it should equally apply to them?

Good on you Rodney!

Do you support the call for the Commerce Select Committee to conduct an inquiry into prosecutions relating to Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009?

Why didn't the former Securities Commission, the current Finance Markets Authority (FMA), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) or the NZ Police charge former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, John Banks or Don Brash for the STRICT LIABILITY offence of signing registered prospectuses which contained UNTRUE statements?

How is this effective 'political protection' of John Banks - the Minister of Regulatory Reform (no less) not arguably a form of corrupt practice?

Cheers!

Penny Bright
'Anti-corruption campaigner'.

point has been made earlier. "material misjudgment about the accuracy" of my ablility to drive safely after comsuming alcohol= "material misjudgment about the accuracy" of the publics ability to rely upon MY disclosure document.

He should NOT be stripped of his Knighthood. Sir Douglas Graham's effort and tenacity paved the way for at least starting to address grievances which have impacted this country's society for over 160 years. He deserves all the recognition that came his way. Yes, he has been found guilty for a crime where ignorance is no excuse and will pay the penalty the Court has deemed appropriate, but this does not demean his earlier achievements in public life. Those who seek to do so are driven by a misguided vengeance.

what about if he files for bankruptcy?

Knighthoods and other titles are anachronisms carried over from the imperial parent. These should be eliminated altogether as there is no place in the modern world for these vestiges of the Middle Ages.

I'd say the investors are the ones to blame. They were the greedy people hanging out for higher interest rates, it is a folly they believed Sir Graham, they followed their greed. You win some, you loose some. Move on and get going making some money again.

he only got knighthood because he has given away our (whitemans) land

How did the likes of Graham Latimer (tax evader) and Bob Jones ( physcal assault and insider trading ) get away so lightly?