My answer becomes clearer?
Criminal charges no less and you compare it to jaywalking?
The potentially really big charges are of course going through the 'investigative' process in SCF.
Printable View
If Hubbard came around and burned Enumerate's house down he would find a reason to condone it. The SFO case is very strong and there is much more to come out. No point in arguing with irrationalists, as Rand said.
More than a few of these bullet points ring a bell from
http://whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com...-identify.html
- Make excuses as long as you can. Try to have your excuses based on at least one truthful fact even if the fact is unrelated to your actions and argument.
- When you cannot dispute the underlying facts, accept them as true but rationalize your actions.You are allowed to make mistakes as long as you have no wrongful intent. Being stupid is not a crime.
- Always say in words you “take responsibility” but try to indirectly shift the blame on other people and factors. You need to portray yourself as a “stand up” person.
- When you cannot defend your actions or arguments attack the messenger to detract attention from your questionable actions.
- Always show your kindness by doing people favors. You will require the gratitude of such people to come to your aid and defend you.
- Build up your stature, integrity, and credibility by publicizing the good deeds you have done in areas unrelated to the subject of scrutiny.
- Build a strong base of support. Try to have surrogates and the beneficiaries of your largess stand up for you and defend you.
- If you can, appear to take the “high road” and have your surrogates do the “dirty work” for you. After all, you cannot control the actions of your zealots.
- When you can no longer spin, shut up. For example, offer no guidance to investors or resign for “personal reasons.” Your surrogates and so-called friends can still speak on your behalf and defend you.
If Margaret Hubbard had not replaced the two other existing directors in 2009 do you think the Hubbard's would have been personally placed under SM?
You have no possible way of knowing this with out reviewing the evidence ... the case is the linked elements of evidence. How could you possibly understand the strength of the case when Allan Hubbard's lawyer has difficulty gaining access to the charges?
Are you in the SFO prosecution team? If you are, you are now guilty of a significant ethical breach. If you are not, you are speaking without any authority.
Fifty charges have been laid against Mr Hubbard under sections 220, 242 and 260 of the Crimes Act.
220 Theft by person in special relationship
242 False statement by promoter, etc
260 False accounting
What really matters is what Mr Hubbard is indicted for. If you commented on the strength of the case at indictment - you might have some credibility. At this stage of proceedings and given the "Hollywood" style of Feeley SFO - I would suggest you have no credibility.
Ah, but the fun will be lost, Capitalist - it is so amusing to watch a deluded person in action.
This is how Enumerate sounds like in real life :
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Allan-Hub...5/Default.aspx
The Japanese have a proverb: “When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.”
The Mike Hosking "sound bite" with Paul Carruthers was superficial. However, if you look further into the radiolive site is the following Marcus Lush interview with an Aorangi investor:
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Allan-Hub...6/Default.aspx
Behind your sneering, Balance, it must really irk you that Allan Hubbard maintains such staunch public support.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.): “Character is that which reveals moral purpose, exposing the class of things a man chooses or avoids.”
Allan Hubbard always puts the interests of his investors or business stakeholders above his own. He did not have to defend South Canterbury with Dairy, Scales and Helicopters. He did not have to subordinate his own interests in Aorangi. His Trust investments, to give capable young farmers a leg up, did not have to compromise his own interests. Yet in each of these cases he chose the path that reveals his true character.
I would much rather be associated with the defense of Allan Hubbard than with:
- Those who would sneer at every misfortune, like Balance
- Those who stupidly believe the "spin" that SCF will cost the crown $1.7b
- Those who think investment success comes at the expense of some other party and that business is fraud
- Those who trust authority over the evidence of their own senses.
Happy to enlighten the deluded one (my good deed for humanity today) on why Hubbard 'defended' SCF with Dairy, Scales and Helicopter.
1. Hubbard had borrowed/transferred money from SCF to his related companies/entities hugely - from $33.9m in 2006 to $230.3m in 2009.
2.Revelations recently that SCF had also generously lent money (hundreds of millions) to management, friends and associates of Hubbard. How much will become clearer in the wash-up.
2. His transfer of entities into SCF were done at inflated prices and in the case of Southbury, actually involved a money go round where SCF bought a stake in Southbury from Hubbard and Hubbard put the money back into SCF! How clever - borrow more money using the govt guarantee, make an investment using that money and mysteriously, the money has become equity!
Net net - Hubbard took more money out of SCF than he put in, especially since the GFC.
So Mr Hubbard was not being generous - he was simply trying to obscure all these related party borrowings and for treating SCF as his own piggy bank.
Good example : http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5124...ver-up-alleged (he is a sly one, Hubbard)
Alas for him - he was found out and caught.
Simple and so transparent.
Ok, Enumerated/deluded one - you may now continue and resume your delusions.