Liu-Jones Saga Summaries

The media is now belatedly starting to realise that Bill Liu is seriously dodgy, that his stories don’t stack up and neither do the excuses of Shane Jones.

Although most media continue to repeat the mistakes of the officials, in underestimating the size of the alleged fraud in China…

The extensive documents at Investigate show that the amounts concerned were far from a few million dollars:

“Yan was charged for accounting frauds and fund embezzlement of public company, the amount was said to be RMB 720 million or 1.08 billion (between NZ$167 million and NZ$257 million).”

Here are today’s stories:

Jared Savage seems to be getting a handle on the stench of this case:

The public servant who handled the citizenship application of a millionaire Chinese businessman with multiple identities was told by his boss to “stop asking questions”, a transcript of court evidence shows.

What sort of pressure was applied to make senior government officials issue orders to stop questioning…that is corruption.

Mr Gambo wanted to make further inquiries with immigration authorities in Australia.

“I had a phone call that I was told not to ask any more questions because there was a lot of political pressure to send the file to Wellington.

“I was told to just process the file, send it to Wellington, don’t worry about asking any more questions.

“I have been working there for seven years and that was the first time I have had my boss phone me about an application.”

Asked who called him, Mr Gambo named the general manager of citizenship, Geoff May.

I’m not sure we even have a statutory body that is able to look into the breadth and depth of these sorts of allegation of corrupt behaviour. Each department has limited purview…the SFO looks at fraud only, the Auditor-General has no oversight of criminal activity, the Police have no oversight of political activity…it really is becoming a bugger’s muddle.

Jared Savage also provides a useful catalogue of the actions, activities and personnel involved in this murky affair.

Andrea Vance and Dana Levy carry claims of signs of torture on Bill Liu…which ironically was contained in a letter to Shane Jones from John Billington, who is also the lawyer for Dover Samuels.

It is really starting to stretch the realms of belief that there was no connection between Shane Jones, Bill Liu, Dover Samuels, and Shane Te Pou and his brother who worked in Shane jones office. The conflicts of interest are glaring and obvious even if Shane Jones cannot see them.

  • guest

    The quote at the end of the Vance/Levy Stuff story is interesting.

    “He (Mr Samuels) also said the Chinese authorities have withdrawn the charges.”

    Worthy of a bit of sunlight rather than straight out repeating to confirm its veracity I would have thought.

  • Gazzaw

    Had this scandal involved National Party politicians the media would have been all over it by now with editorials demanding resignations & full enquiries. Let’s hope that Jared Savage has started the ball rolling and the NZ MSM being the beast that it is will take his lead. If labour has nothing to hide then they would welcome this to clear the mounting public doubt about their integrity. Labour has been lucky for the last couple of days to be able to hide behind the post-budget debates but that period of grace is now over.

    • Blokeintakapuna

      Totally agree. Labour will have been very pleased for the brief respite and yes, they will not want even more public scrutiny of their dodgy affairs over this issue. But even more so for all the other dodgy dealings so far hidden and swept under the carpet.

      Shine those brilliant, disinfecting spotlights – NZ deserves nothing less. Thank you. 

  • Russell Belding

    I am happily surprised the Herald (Jared Savage) has shown interest in this. May he have more success and uncover the money trails aroung Shane Jones and his friends. It impresses me that when I have seen SJ speak about this (on TV) he lapses into jargon.

    Am I too skeptical in thinking that if Dover Samuels is following the Liu case and passionately supporting Liu as a brother would a brother, that some substantail sum of yuan has preceeded this brotherly bonding? Who paid what to whom and when? Who=Liu.

    The few grand ($5000?) paid to each of Labor and Nats seems a distraction.

  • Gazzaw

    I am a huge proponent of Chinese immigration and investment, however, the host country must put measures into place to detect and prevent the corruption & organised crime that will occur at levels not seen previously. These activities will follow as surely as shit sticks to a blanket.

  • Mediaan

    Didn’t somebody say he was offering to help them in China with trade contacts?

    So, like, in between bouts of him being under torture?

  • Tamati

     “I’m not sure we even have a statutory body that is able to look into the
    breadth and depth of these sorts of allegation of corrupt behaviour.
    Each department has limited purview…the SFO looks at fraud only, the
    Auditor-General has no oversight of criminal activity, the Police have
    no oversight of political activity…it really is becoming a bugger’s
    muddle.”
    Crimes Act 1961…CIB Bread and butter
    102 Corruption and bribery of Minister of the Crown

    (1)
    Every Minister of the Crown or member of the Executive Council is
    liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who corruptly
    accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain,
    any bribe for himself or any other person in respect of any act done or
    omitted, or to be done or omitted, by him in his capacity as a Minister
    or member of the Executive Council.

    (2)
    Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years
    who corruptly gives or offers or agrees to give any bribe to any person
    with intent to influence any Minister of the Crown or member of the
    Executive Council in respect of any act or omission by him in his
    capacity as a Minister or member of the Executive Council.

    (3)
    No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against this section without
    the leave of a Judge of the High Court. Notice of the intention to apply
    for such leave shall be given to the person whom it is intended to
    prosecute, and he shall have an opportunity of being heard against the
    application.

    103 Corruption and bribery of Member of Parliament

    (1)
    Every member of Parliament is liable to imprisonment for a term not
    exceeding 7 years who corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers
    to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for himself or any other
    person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted,
    by him in his capacity as a member of Parliament.

    (2)
    Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years
    who corruptly gives or offers or agrees to give any bribe to any person
    with intent to influence any Member of Parliament in respect of any act
    or omission by him in his capacity as a Member of Parliament

    (3)
    No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against this section without
    the leave of a Judge of the High Court. Notice of the intention to apply
    for such leave shall be given to the person whom it is intended to
    prosecute, and he shall have an opportunity of being heard against the
    application.

  • whalewatcher

    was Liu bailing out Dover’s Matauri Bay lot?
    We need this story to run its course

    • Mediaan

      Interesting thought.

  • 4077th

    I have said, and I will continue to say Liu is a snake. He like many Chinese “business” people operate on the fringes. Corruption is a way of life in China in fact, it is the only way of getting things done…grease the wheels and all will be done. Doing business in China almost always attracts some sort of nefarious payment to officials whether they care to admit it or not it is their way of life. Bringing the same practices to NZ is all too easy because we are in general naive to their business practices and the temptation of a fiscal reward is greater than the perceived risk.

    Taking advantage of the naive is no different to taking candy from a baby. Jones should consider his candy duly taken from him. Liu would have slipped a cold blade between his ribs and Jones would be smiling and thanking Liu for the privilege. Jones and anyone else involved are merely pawns in Liu’s game. 

96%