Legal Research
Cases
R v Zhang

R v Zhang

Case [2022] NZHC 2541 5 October 2022

Obtaining by Deception

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF C, H, W AND TWO CONNECTED PARTIES PURSUANT TO SS 200 AND 202 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 UNTIL HEARING OF APPLICATION(S) FOR PERMANENT NAME SUPPRESSION.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-004-806

[2022] NZHC 2541

THE KING

v

YIKUN ZHANG, SHIJIA (COLIN) ZHENG, HENGJIA (JOE) ZHENG, C, H, W and JAMI-LEE MATENGA ROSS

Hearing:
26-29 July, 1-5 August, 8-12 August, 15-17 August, 22-26 August,

29-30 August, 1 September, 5-8 September 2022

Counsel:

P Wicks KC, J Dixon KC, K Hogan, K Bannister and H Moore- Savage for the Crown

J Katz KC, B A Keown, L Lindsay and N Small for Mr Zhang P Dacre KC and W Andrews for Shijia (Colin) Zheng

R L Thomson and A Young for Hengjia (Joe) Zheng S Lowery and J Suyker for C

M Corlett KC and C Agnew-Harington (until 9 August 2022) for H

SNB Wimsett and Y Y Mortimer-Wang for W R M Mansfield KC and H C Stuart for Mr Ross

Verdicts:

5 October 2022

Reasons:

5 October 2022

REASONS FOR VERDICTS OF GAULT J

R v ZHANG [2022] NZHC 2541 [5 October 2022]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY  [1]
JUDGE-ALONE TRIAL  [6]
TRIAL PRINCIPLES  [13]
Presumption of innocence  [14]
Separate trials  [17]
Evidence – not prejudice or sympathy  [18]
Circumstantial evidence and inferences  [19]
Lies  [20]
No previous convictions  [21]
Expert evidence  [22]
Cultural issues  [23]
Question trail  [24]
ELEMENTS OF OBTAINING BY DECEPTION  [25]
Benefit  [27]
Fraudulent stratagem  [30]
Intention to deceive  [31]
Material cause  [32]
Reasonable foreseeability  [33]
Claim of right  [40]
Party liability  [42]
ELECTORAL ACT REQUIREMENTS  [49]
THE FACTS  [59]

Translation [60]

The defendants [65]

Teochew Convention bid [74]
March 2017 donation to Labour Party [76]

Labour Party’s Party Donations and Loans Return [137]

Labour Party’s February 2020 enquiries [146]

June 2017 donation(s) to National Party [183] National Party’s 2017 Party Donations and Loans Return [196] September 2017 donation to Labour Party [200] Labour Party’s Party Donations and Loans Return [227] June 2018 donation(s) to National Party [228] National Party’s 2018 Party Donations and Loans Return [284] Mr Zhang’s Royal Honour [286]

Ms Zhang’s building agreement [292]

SFO interviews of Mr Colin Zheng and Mr Joe Zheng

Mr Joe Zheng’s first interview [305]

Mr Colin Zheng’s interview  [309]
Mr Joe Zheng’s second interview  [312]
LABOUR PARTY DONATION CHARGES
Charge 1: obtaining by deception  [314]
Mr Zhang
Benefit  [315]
Engaged in fraudulent stratagem  [329]
Intent to deceive  [343]

Causation  [346]
Reasonable foreseeability  [350]
Claim of right  [351]
Party liability  [353]

Mr Colin Zheng

Benefit  [354]
Engaged in fraudulent stratagem  [357]
Intent to deceive  [361]
Other elements  [362]

Mr Joe Zheng

Benefit  [364]
Engaged in fraudulent stratagem  [367]
Intent to deceive  [371]
Other elements  [372]

C

Benefit  [374]
Engaged in fraudulent stratagem  [377]
Intent to deceive  [393]
Other elements  [394]

H

Benefit  [396]
Engaged in fraudulent stratagem  [399]
Intent to deceive  [423]
Other elements  [424]

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Zhang

Details

AGLC: R v Zhang [2022] NZHC 2541
Case: [2022] NZHC 2541
Decision Date: 5 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a complex investigation into political party donations by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). The defendants, Mr Zhang, Mr Colin Zheng, Mr Joe Zheng, C, H, and W, were charged with obtaining by deception and other related offences. The central issue was whether the defendants used fraudulent devices to deceive political parties and the Electoral Commission by splitting donations into smaller amounts to avoid disclosure requirements. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, delivered verdicts on various charges against the defendants.

The court found Mr Zhang guilty on charge 5, relating to a donation of $100,050 to the National Party in June 2018. The court was sure that Mr Zhang engaged in a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem, intended to deceive, and that the stratagem was a material cause of the benefit. Mr Zhang was also found guilty on charge 7, for supplying false or misleading information to the SFO.

Mr Colin Zheng and Mr Joe Zheng were found guilty on charge 5, for their involvement in the same donation to the National Party. The court was sure they engaged in a fraudulent device, intended to deceive, and that the stratagem was a material cause of the benefit. Mr Joe Zheng was also found guilty on charge 7, for supplying false or misleading information to the SFO.

Mr Ross was found not guilty on all charges. The court was not sure Mr Ross engaged in a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem, or intended to deceive in relation to the National Party donation.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented, the legal principles applicable to each charge, and the defendants' intentions and conduct. The court considered the credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence, and the mens rea required for each offence. The verdicts reflect the court's assessment of the defendants' actions and the Crown's ability to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders