|
|
Post by fish on Mar 20, 2024 19:26:29 GMT 12
Interesting case, with a lot of implications. Salters Cartage were cutting corners willy nilly. Young guy died. Ron Salter got nailed by Worksafe. Paid a $400k fine and served 4 and a half months home detention. Apparently Worksafe instructed the business be shut down - beyond me how Worksafe can do that. Along comes the Criminal Proceeds Act, intended for organised crime and gangs. Police have restrained $11mil in assets, pending a High Court hearing. Salter has got the High Court to require Police to put up a bond, in the case Police loose, they cover Salters costs. Police say the money was gotten by illegal activity, being breaches of H&S rules. Salter says he has already been convicted and done his time. This has huge implications for many NZ businesses. What I am fascinated in is creep of legislation that allows the state to seize assets without a criminal conviction. Big govt, big creep. www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018930578/new-target-for-police-asset-seizures |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Mar 20, 2024 19:36:43 GMT 12
"Were the case against the Salters to be proved, then it would leave, I would think, many different businesses feeling extremely vulnerable. Because they could very much be the next one under the gun," he says.
Similar acts that could be used in this way include the Resource Management Act, the Fair Trading Act, the Tax Administration Act, the Financial Markets Conduct Act and the Land Transport Act.
"There's a whole swathe of different laws that businesses interact with on a daily basis, and many of those laws have strict liability offences in them. Those are offences you're either guilty or not, you don't get to put up a defence.
"So this is really fascinating because it would be really easy to find, if you were inclined to, $30,000 or more worth of offending to do with the Fair Trading Act, or the Resource Management Act. Dairy farms exceed $30,000 of business on any given day, really, and they deal with the Resource Management Act all the time. So were the case against the Salters to be proved then it would leave, I would think, many different businesses feeling extremely vulnerable, because they could very much be the next one under the gun."
|
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Mar 20, 2024 23:08:59 GMT 12
Hmm Pike River springs to mind,White island??
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Mar 21, 2024 9:11:59 GMT 12
Oh the applications are endless.
Farmers breaching Resource Consent, seize the farm.
Image the scope you could get out of the Hate Speach Laws?
My fav though would be the Harmful Digital Communications Act. Every time duckfucker calls me a name I don't like, I could put a restraint on his house and boat (if he actually has a boat that is).
The point here is the repurposing of an Act designed to target criminal gangs, in this case being applied to a business that carries out legitimate business activities. There is a big difference between having an H&S manual that is out of date, and selling meth to kids and using it to buy gold plated motorcycles.
|
|
|
|
Post by eri on Mar 21, 2024 9:20:11 GMT 12
great wealth transfer system
private white island owners?
find them guilty, hit them with a massive fine, confiscate the island
gift to iwi
repeat in other forms with other tourism assets
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Mar 21, 2024 9:31:23 GMT 12
great wealth transfer system private white island owners? find them guilty, hit them with a massive fine, confiscate the island gift to iwi repeat in other forms with other tourism assets
It was an Iwi business all along. White Island Tours is entirely an Iwi business. Same as Kaikoura whale watch. You could confiscate the island, but since no-one can go near it, it isn't worth anything... Probably remove a major headache for the Buttle Brothers. |
|
|
|
Post by eri on Mar 21, 2024 11:28:31 GMT 12
the island is in private ownership
not iwi afaik
once out of this volcanic cycle and with better risk management
the island is a tourism asset
|
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Mar 21, 2024 12:19:48 GMT 12
Air New Zealand, Fletcher, kiwi rail, mainfreight, all guilty of the same crime, Police too.
Going to confiscate them?
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Mar 21, 2024 13:36:06 GMT 12
great wealth transfer system private white island owners? find them guilty, hit them with a massive fine, confiscate the island gift to iwi repeat in other forms with other tourism assets
So what you are saying, is use some made up law to confiscate the island from the private owners, who weren't running the tours, gift it to the Iwi, who own the company that were running the tours, so that they can continue doing the very thing that got the island confiscate from the private owners? Genius! |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Mar 22, 2024 21:26:18 GMT 12
There was a criminal conviction so there is no creep. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Mar 23, 2024 9:25:59 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Mar 23, 2024 14:34:34 GMT 12
Wrong. It's a criminal conviction. His sentence was a fine and several months home detention. The judge could have imprisoned him. To have your right to freedom of movement revoked. You need to have been convicted of a crime. One cannot receive home detention or imprisonment unless one has been convicted of a crime. Crimes aren't only defined in the crimes act. The H&S act also defines criminal offences. The prosecution of both is under the Criminal Procedures Act. The enforcement agency for h&s act is Worksafe. Another example is the Tax Act. Tax avoidance is a criminal offense. It's not defined in the crimes act. It's defined in the Tax Act. Which also Dove Tails into the Criminal Procedures Act. And of course the IRD enforce the Tax Act. I suggest doing a search for the word criminal in the H&s Act and then check out the Criminal Procedures Act and you will see how it ties together. To claim he did not receive a criminal conviction is a fairy tale. To know he got home detention and still claim he did not receive a criminal conviction is just plain ignorance. There are many many many Acts administered by different agencies that have crimes defined in them. Crimes aren't only in the crimes act... Another example, relevant to this board is the fisheries act... Take to much of the wrong fish and it's a criminal offence and you risk getting a criminal conviction. |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Mar 23, 2024 18:48:44 GMT 12
That's why I only own 2 old boats and a few motorbikes.
One of the lads goes home, snorts 1kg up his nose, comes to work the next morning and drives the forklift over someone. They get counselling, I lose everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Mar 24, 2024 10:54:26 GMT 12
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
It's pretty normal for the police to destroy someone's life getting a clarification of how/if the law applies. I have seen this happen several times.
This is an interesting case as police are being asked to put up a bond to cover the losses that could be incurred if they lose. Police have no idea if they will or will not win. While usually they just bankrupt the individual being challenged this could end up costing them.
Ultimately parliament needs to define the purpose and applicability of the law. They have not done that for this legislation. Although the law came in with the purpose of dealing with gangs. It technically applies to any crime.
|
|
