Analysing the SFO statement
The Herald has a copy in full of the SFO statement. I am interested at the exact wording:
“I have sufficient information that gives me reason to suspect that an investigation may reveal serious and complex fraud.”
Interesting he said serious and complex, not serious or complex.
“I want to emphasise that it is entirely possible that there are innocent and honest explanations. The use of the statutory power to require documents to be provided will enable the SFO to ascertain how funds were applied,” Mr Liddell said.
This is very important. I have never stated thet Peters or his cronies have broken the law. Quite simply not enough information is known to be able to make any such conclusion. But this decision means that the SFO will be able to gather the information they need to decide.
“I have decided on the information currently available that I do not have a basis for using statutory powers to inquire into allegations that Mr Glenn’s donation was misapplied or that there was an attempt corruptly to influence the Primary Production Select Committee that inquired into allegations of corruption in the Ministry of Fisheries in relation to scampi quota in 2003.
This means that the threshold to launch a full investigation is not just allegations, but that they have been substantiated in some way.
It is possible that the investigation I have authorised might be broadened at some later time and these other matters inquired into as a result of whatever information comes to light in the course of the investigation about to commence,” Mr Liddell said.
Might be broadened. A fascinating concept.
In the case of the allegations concerning the scampi select committee, the allegations are serious, but serious of allegation alone is not enough. There needs to be information availabel to support the requisite suspicion, and there is not, at this point.”
It would be tragic if the SFO, while looking through the NZ First bank accounts, for the Vela donations, also found some other donations – ones which had been denied as existing.
On information currently to hand, there are serious questions whether donations intended for one purpose may have been put to a different purpose. The allegations concern important matters relating to the funding of a political party, which go to the heart of the democratic process, and involve a minister in the Government. They also relate to the actions of laywers, who as officers of the court have fundamental obligations to uphold the law.”
Lawyers upholding the law. A wonderful concept.
“This investigation will be accorded priority. It is not possible to say how long it will take. Should the scope of the inquiry be substantially broadened, I will make a public statement. I will make a further public statement at the conclusion of the inquiry.”
We await any further public statements.