Yes mate, Hubbards not the only silly old man in N.Z. by any stretch of the imagination :)
Printable View
Yes mate, Hubbards not the only silly old man in N.Z. by any stretch of the imagination :)
Thats not what the charges against him infer.
Since when has "with intent to deceive...." considered to be well intentioned or well meaning.
Or what about when the noose begins to tighten he sets up a pile of trusts and starts transferring loot into them faster than a Jew can count a stash of $100 bills. (if "jew" offends feel free to replace with "Brian Tamaki" "South Auckland Money Lender"; "High Class Hooker" or whatever takes your fancy.
Or what about making a journal entry and never actually transferrring the loot.
Or misleading investors... The list goes on.
How is it well intentioned to declare yourself "President for life". You wouldn't call Mugabe "well intentioned". I'm not suggesting AH is a RM but you get a sense of the ego and the man when these sorts of things start happening.
And if you still are in doubt theres the "no-one in the SFO has the brains to understand the transactions" Newsflash - they do understand the transactions and we are learning about the brains behind them.
Well intentioned - my arse. Theres the "I am a New Zealand hero, nobody in the history of New Zealand has done what I have done." Too bloody right.
What his intentions were we may never know. Getting a free pass to the side of his Lord is probably up there.
Anyone remember the fable about the near bankrupt Plasterer. AH, through SCF, lent him $100,000. When $60,000 had been paid off AH took the remaining repayments and invested them on the mans behalf. He told the man he wouldn't be able to grow his business (despite making $20,000 in loan repayments each year) and without AH's intervention it would be worth nothing. Who knows where the money went - it may have found its way into Aorangi and then into Te Tua but its said AH grew the investments so they became worth $1.5m. This is how AH helped people - belittling their abilities, taking their money and telling them it was worth a truck load more. So wheres the plasterer now? Again who knows. Probably $40,000 in debt with $1.5m of journal entry assets worth nothing. But AH gets home help for free. Maybe someone can tell us how this story actually ended and we can work out what the moral of it is.
minimoke - I was referring too how he started out, there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the wheels well and truly came off in later years and there's no question his ego got the better of him along the way too. As mentioned sinning always starts off in a small way and eventually grows little by little to the point of almost moral indignation, (how dare you question my methodoloigies ??) when almost anything is justifable in Alan's mind based on the higher end cause justification theory.
I'm more than happy to leave it to Enumerate's "infinite wisdom and insights" to try and defend "Uncle Alan's" actions.
What kind of person is prepared to pickup a stone and throw it at someone without a care or concern for the justification of that action?Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger
What kind of person is prepared to defend the right of an accused to face his accusers and answer charges?
That is the difference between us.
LOL - that is not the difference.
Do not give yourself any credit for making light of the serious fraud and criminal charges against Hubbard.
Remember this :
... untidy handwriting
... willful bending of paper clips
... jay walking in Timaru
50 charges is absurd. How about demonstrating 1 charge in which there is clear cut criminality or fraud.
----------------------------
What's the moral of this story?
A man was chosen for jury duty who very much wanted to be dismissed from serving. He tried every excuse he could think of but none of them worked.
On the day of the trial he decided to give it one more shot. As the trial was about to begin he asked if he could approach the bench.
"Your Honor," he said, "I must be excused from this trial because I am prejudiced against the defendant. I took one look at the man in the blue suit with those beady eyes and that dishonest face and I said, 'He's a crook! He's guilty, guilty, guilty.' So your Honor, I could not possibly stay on this jury!"
With a tired annoyance the judge replied, "Get back in the jury box. That man is his lawyer."
I guess it depends on where you consider "where he stared out" to actually begin.
If you track his roots you'll find he started out as a local hooligan involved in petty crime who was well known to the local constabulary. His charismatic personality shone through early as a local gang leader and he was smart enough to avoid getting caught.
They were depressing times back then and being beaten by your dad wouldn't have helped his mental health. Which might explain his bought of depression and suicidal thoughts. Add to that the addictive personality of his grandfather and father, exposure to fundamentalism christian beliefs and a feeling of social inadequacy you have a recipe for what.
Now I have no doubt he believed he was doing gods work and I have no doubt the benificiaries of his largesse held him in reverential regard. But somewhere along the way the wheels fell off. To some extent thats life however I tend to draw the line when an individual is going down he knowingly or unwittingly takes others down with him.
Enumerate asks what kind of person is prepared to throw stones. Clearly I am since I am one of the people that has had to pick up the pieces of the mess AH has left behind.
I support Enumerates view that an accused should have the opportunity to face his accusers and defend the charges. We haven't seen all the evidence yet and none of us are in a position to to form a view on his guilt or innocence in relation to the charges he faces. However there is sufficient information in the public domain upon which each of us can form a view on AH's business practices and we might even form a view on the morals of his actions.
That doesn't mean our views are set in concrete - we are entitled to reshape our views as more information comes to light. Thats why its worth popping into this thread from time to time, just to see if there is any kind of rigorous analysis being added to the debate. Its also about get a sense of the seriousness of the issues. Being charged with intending to deceive is a whole lot different from jay walking. I guess that's why some posters don't think its too big a deal when unsophisticated old folk have been taken for a ride.
Being charged with an offense under the Crimes Act means ... nothing. Being convicted of an offense ... well, that is a very serious matter.
Why is it so difficult to understand that Allan Hubbard deserves very careful treatment because of the highly unusual circumstances of the "investigation" into his affairs. He is subject to Statutory Management and conventional powers of investigation have been amplified beyond anything present in the Companies Act. Yet his "offenses" do not appear to be anything like the dark and ominous "defence of the public interest" used to justify Statutory Management.
The "hail fellow, well met" brigade are happy to gossip and slander on this forum. These are not men of principle, these are followers of the herd. It is unsurprising that the NZ financial services market is full of these people - they have been richly rewarded, in the past, by trading information in advance of an informed market. Fortunately, the FMA regulations and FSP will usher in a new generation who do not define ethics as "what you can get away with".
Since we are on the subject of stoning ... I wonder if we are witnessing "those without sin, casting the first stones"; or whether we are in the presence of a pack of wolves turning on the one they view as the weakest?
Are you serious? It means the police believe they have enough evidence to support a prosecution. Thats not a good look in anyone books. Being charged with one offence is bad enough but 50!. And that's only the Crimes At. What about the Companies Act or the Securities Act or the Financial Reporting Act.
You may not think it in the public interest to try to work out how / where the Aorangi money went. But I do since I'd prefer the techniques money managers use to obtain funds from the public and how they are distributed be more widely known. If you prefer these to be kept as little trade secrets kept in that glorified air of Financial Managers then so be it - history is doomed to repeat.