SFO Director Grossly Misled MPs Over Winebox
SFO Director Grossly Misled MPs Over Winebox Non-Prosecution - Called On To Explain - Independent Letters Refute Sfo Statement And Select Committee Evidence
The Serious Fraud Office Director, David Bradshaw, must explain why he “grossly misled” the Law and Order Select Committee about his decision not to prosecute individuals over the Magnum transaction in the Winebox case.
The New Zealand First Leader, Rt Hon Winston Peters, today released letters that show Mr Bradshaw’s explanations to the Committee are contradicted by a tax expert and the Auckland Crown Prosecutor.
“In response to my questions at the Select Committee Hearing this month, Mr Bradshaw claimed to have received additional information from the KPMG partner, Brahma Sharma, (who originally gave evidence at the Winebox Inquiry) and that assisted him (Bradshaw) in his decision.
“Mr Sharma himself refutes this in a letter to the Committee. He says ‘that the evidence I gave the Commission of Inquiry was completely consistent with the evidence provided to the SFO.’”
“In short, Mr Bradshaw grossly misled the Committee by implying he received additional and different advice which influenced his final decision not to prosecute in the Magnum case.
“The Crown Solicitor has also written to the Committee explaining that he advised the SFO that there was sufficient admissible evidence to prosecute named individuals connected to the Magnum transaction.
“This advice was given after the Crown Solicitor’s Office spent 273 hours studying the documents provided by the SFO, yet it was ignored by Director Bradshaw.
“The Law and Order Select Committee quite rightly has ‘serious misgivings’ about Mr Bradshaw’s decision not to go ahead with the prosecution.
“At the Select Committee Hearing, the Serious Fraud Office Director showed that he had little expertise in tax related matters, and had to rely on whispered prompting from the Attorney General to answer questions.
“This case should have been decided in the High Court – not in the office of a poorly qualified bureaucrat.
“That is the only way the issue could have been decided and the law properly applied and that is what all the court cases involving the Winebox Inquiry were about.
“Mr Bradshaw owes New Zealand taxpayers an explanation about why his office is still condoning tax fraud and why he, against all the evidence, is determined not to prosecute,“ said Winston Peters.