South Canterbury Finance Limited

[Balance]

Where are the facts?

Clearly, the SFO has a position on all of this. However, why is this basic "fact collecting" occurring under an order of Statutory Management? The Statutory Manager has presented little more than hearsay - heavily qualified with "mays" or " appears".

It is also interesting to note that no formal charges have been laid.

I don't have a copy of Allan Hubbard's journals. How can I respond to statements you make when you yourself have no evidence.

You are, at best, amusing yourself with idle speculation.

The matters that we can comment on - such as questions as to "why this process is being conducted under statutory management?" and "surely these matters could be dealt with under the Securities Act or the Companies Act?" - your contributions are, frankly, less than insightful.

Don't try the old trick and stunt of deflecting attention of what AH has done (as now verified - clear evidence is the operative word - by the SM) - borrowing money from the public and then, lending the money to himself via related entities. He DENIES it. Then, tries to defend it as kosher.

Look at the huge increase in related party transactions in 2008/2009 in SCF - AH would have you believe it never happened as well.

SM may be right, it may be wrong - that's a separate argument.

[Enumerate]

He DENIES it. Then, tries to defend it as kosher.

I think, here, you are struggling with the English language.

The use of the word "kosher" does not, in this case, apply to the verb - lending money - it applies to the noun - the accounts.

You are building castles in the air - complete with moat and dungeon - in which you cast Allan Hubbard - and throw away the key.

An unusual form of idle amusement - but idle amusement none the less. I for one entertain the hope that it will become private idle amusement.

[Balance]

I think, here, you are struggling with the English language.

The use of the word "kosher" does not, in this case, apply to the verb - lending money - it applies to the noun - the accounts.

You are building castles in the air - complete with moat and dungeon - in which you cast Allan Hubbard - and throw away the key.

An unusual form of idle amusement - but idle amusement none the less. I for one entertain the hope that it will become private idle amusement.

Please do not try the old Bill Clinton trick of arguing the word - it's the substance behind the word. It's demeaning to yourself.

AH denies borrowing money from Aorangi. The SM Report points to clear evidence. Question to answer which you try to avoid - who would you believe?

Come on, Enumerate - it's a very simple question.

It only becomes hard when you are busy trying to avoid answering it.

[Enumerate]

The SM Report points to clear evidence.

Cite your evidence.

If all you can produce is hearsay ... then I am afraid that your credibility will suffer. [HINT: the fact no charges have been laid says more about the state of the "evidence" than you are willing to acknowledge]

[Balance]

Cite your evidence.

If all you can produce is hearsay ... then I am afraid that your credibility will suffer. [HINT: the fact no charges have been laid says more about the state of the "evidence" than you are willing to acknowledge]

Ducking and diving - you are proving to be a real clone of Bill Clinton, aren't you?

SM Report states : ""To date we have seen clear evidence that there is an intricate and complex relationship between the affairs of Aorangi, Te Tua Trust and the affairs of Mr and Mrs Hubbard and other associated entities." ""The level of investments in (including loans to) businesses associated with Mr and Mrs Hubbard without registered security is of concern. Most of these investments are in or to farm businesses that have loans from banks secured by a mortgage over the assets of the farm. This could mean, in the case of direct investments in those farm businesses, that Aorangi would only be paid after the creditors of those businesses were fully paid."

Now, are you ready, my slippery friend, to answer the question?

[peat]

Balance I acknowledge your previous posts point
So why are there no charges laid yet?
They only need one 'illegal event ' or one 'piece of evidence' to lay a charge so why the delay. They dont need to collect ALL the evidence before putting the line in the legal sand showing the public that their concerns are justified.

[Balance]

Balance I acknowledge your previous posts point
So why are there no charges laid yet?
They only need one 'illegal event ' or one 'piece of evidence' to lay a charge so why the delay. They dont need to collect ALL the evidence before putting the line in the legal sand showing the public that their concerns are justified.

That's like asking the Police during a complex investigation why they have not laid charges when they issue initial findings to the public. They are building up the case.

That's how SM works. Like I have written, I have seen it in action and in some cases, it took a while for the charges to be laid - remember Equiticorp?

I am sympathetic to AH situation - SM is a crude instrument to use and it should entail judicial over-view before it is applied. On that, we are all agreed.

But SM is what we are dealing with - it is tiresome to read the use of SM being used as a reason to excuse AH from his actions.

The truth will out.

[Enumerate]

Sounds bad, but what does it all mean?

"To date we have seen clear evidence that there is an intricate and complex relationship between the affairs of Aorangi, Te Tua Trust and the affairs of Mr and Mrs Hubbard and other associated entities."

Intricate and complex is NOT fraudulent. It is, actually ... an opinion; an admission that the party is not coping well in understanding the situation.

Hence this statement, using loaded language like "we have seen clear evidence", is actually evidence of ... nothing, nothing at all.

"The level of investments in (including loans to) businesses associated with Mr and Mrs Hubbard without registered security is of concern."

Here we have a ... concern. No fraud ... a concern.

Most of these investments are in or to farm businesses that have loans from banks secured by a mortgage over the assets of the farm. This could mean, in the case of direct investments in those farm businesses, that Aorangi would only be paid after the creditors of those businesses were fully paid."

Here we have a statement on security qualified by a "could mean". This is NOT evidence of fraud. This is a conjecture ... a hypothetical. This is evidence of nothing at all, really.

You state that I am "Clintonesque" that I am "slippery". In fact I am nothing more than purely logical. It is you who is evading the truth. Indeed, you pay so little heed to the truth of the matter and to basic justice for Mr Hubbard that your conduct should be condemned as deceptive (or perhaps, more kindly, delusional).

I would also reserve some censure for the Statutory Manager. Use of loaded language, in a critical public report, is unprofessional. Perhaps the Statutory Manager feels the need to please his new masters? Whatever the case, his professionalism has been demonstrated to be less than the acceptable mark.

There are wider issues - like why the report did not cover off the statement of the defense of the public interest.

All this will be grist for the mill at the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

[Enumerate]

That's like asking the Police during a complex investigation why they have not laid charges when they issue initial findings to the public. They are building up the case.

So, Statutory Management is a form of detention and suspension of rights in an investigation.

You claim the police can detain a suspect and obtain a warrant for any investigative power they care to imagine; all the while having an indeterminate amount of time (in excess of three weeks, at least) to investigate and come to their conclusions - before any charges are laid.

Balance ... you are simply a complete idiot.

You know nothing about our system of justice. Frankly, I have no more time to waste on you.

[Balance]

Enumerate, Bill Clinton will be proud of you but you are not getting off that easy. It's a very simple question.

Who do you believe? AH or the Statutory Manager?

State your position and be judged accordingly.

Here's what AH stated (and recoded for posterity by Radio NZ) :

Excerpt : "Mr Hubbard said that's not the case, as the funds were his in the first place. He says he then had them transferred to the trusts ahead of Aorangi issuing a prospectus.
He told Radio New Zealand's business editor he "never borrowed" and it was "always kosher".

Hubbard denies using Aorangi funds
Updated at 11:51pm on 28 June 2010
Businessman Allan Hubbard is adamant he did not borrow from Aorangi Securities to invest other entities.
The Government has placed Mr Hubbard and his wife, Margaret, under statutory management, along with Aorangi Securities and seven trusts.
Aorangi Securities is also under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, following a Companies Office report that found irregularities among Aorangi's $134 million in loans.
Some of these relate to the alleged use of Aorangi funds to invest in the trusts.
Mr Hubbard said that's not the case, as the funds were his in the first place. He says he then had them transferred to the trusts ahead of Aorangi issuing a prospectus.
He told Radio New Zealand's business editor he "never borrowed" and it was "always kosher".
Copyright © 2010 Radio New Zealand