Wednesday, April 21, 2010

And The Plot Thickens

Last night Adolf posted here on interesting shenanigans in ACC.

Today the story started to grow legs with an intrepid but juvenile Herald chappie failing to ask the right questions.

You'd think Mr Bennett (whom Adolf has not met) would learn to ask the obvious and learn something about English grammar to boot.

QV says Lace Bark sold the property last year for $4.82 million.

Lace Bark boss Lloyd Cundy said the deal was "a normal commercial transaction". He was not aware of anything unusual in his dealings with ACC's property team.

"I'm a developer, I'll develop where I'm needed and that's what I've done. I've moved on and it's as simple as that."

He could not recall whom he had sold the building to.

If he has bothered to phone the local council and get a QV report he might have established a few interesting facts which no doubt will exercise some minds at the SFO and should be raising a few eyebrows over at IRD.

  • Why was a property valued in September 2009 at $2.55m sold at that same time for over $4.8m? Was income tax paid on this apparent remarkable capital gain?
  • Why was it bought by a company 100% owned by a Rotorua based charitable energy trust whose official objects contain not the slightest reference to owning commercial property?
  • To what purpose are the untaxed profits of this commercial property owning charitable trust put?
If a slow moving dumb old blogger can find out all these things in a few minutes on the web and phone, what the hell do reporters do all day long?

Oh yeah, Mr Bennett. What you should have said was:-

"He could not recall to whom he had sold the building."

Most developers I know can remember to whom they sold a $2.5m building for $4.8m less than a year ago.

Funny, that.


Anonymous said...

There is so much to this - The Property Manager and the "tight five" are up to their necks in this. Names are well known in Wellington. Everyone associated should be taken down.

The SFO needs to recover the kick-backs and profits from all parties money under the proceeds of crimes Act - and it is significant.

Anonymous said...

Journos should start asking why Labour tried to disestablish the Serious Fraud Office.

How convenient that would have been.

There is so much to this that I fear it wipe Labour out for years and years. It will make the UK expense scandal look like shoplifting.