R v Zhang - [2022] NZHC 2540

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 2540

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

Appearances:

P Wicks KC, J Dixon KC, K Hogan (via VMR), 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 (via VMR) 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

VERDICTS OF GAULT J

R v ZHANG [2022] NZHC 2540 [5 October 2022]

[1]The purpose of this hearing is to deliver my verdicts in open court.

[2] Following investigations by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into political party donations to the National Party and the Labour Party, the Crown alleges that the defendants adopted a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem to deceive by providing sham names of purported donors below the $15,000 disclosure threshold in the Electoral Act 1993, amounting to an offence of obtaining by deception under s 240(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961, as follows:

(a)Mr Yikun Zhang (Mr Zhang), Mr Shijia (Colin) Zheng (Mr Colin Zheng), Mr Hengjia (Joe) Zheng (Mr Joe Zheng), C, H and W1 face two alternative charges of obtaining by deception in relation to a payment of $60,000 to the Labour Party in March 2017 for the purchase of five paintings, which amounted to a donation of $34,840 after deducting the value of the paintings;

(b)Mr Jami-Lee Ross (Mr Ross), Mr Zhang and Mr Colin Zheng face two alternative charges of obtaining by deception in relation to a donation of $100,000 made to the National Party in June 2017; and

(c)Mr Ross, Mr Zhang, Mr Colin Zheng and Mr Joe Zheng face two alternative charges of obtaining by deception in relation to a donation of $100,050 made to the National Party in June 2018.

[3] In each case, the Crown case under s 240(1)(a) is based on obtaining a “benefit”. The alternative charges allege a different benefit – either the Party’s possession of the donation or the true donor’s freedom from public scrutiny.

[4] Mr Joe Zheng also faces a charge of supplying false or misleading information to the SFO under s 45(a) and (d) of the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990 (SFO Act).

1 Where the defendants and others of Chinese origin use anglicised names with surname last,…

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 2540
Case: [2022] NZHC 2540
Decision Date: 5 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand delivered verdicts in a case involving allegations of fraudulent political party donations. The defendants were accused of using sham names to provide donations below the disclosure threshold, which amounted to obtaining by deception under the Crimes Act 1961. The case centred on three sets of donations: a $60,000 payment to the Labour Party in 2017, and two $100,000 donations to the National Party in 2017 and 2018. The legal issues included whether the defendants obtained a benefit by their actions, either to the political parties or to the true donors, and whether one defendant had obstructed the Serious Fraud Office's investigation.

The court found Mr Zhang and Mr Joe Zheng guilty of obtaining by deception in relation to the June 2018 donation to the National Party, but not guilty of other charges. Mr Colin Zheng was found guilty of obtaining by deception in relation to the June 2017 donation to the National Party. Mr Ross was acquitted of all charges. Mr Joe Zheng was also found guilty of supplying false or misleading information to the Serious Fraud Office. The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented and the legal definitions of the charges. The verdicts resulted in convictions for the guilty defendants and acquittals for the others. The defendants were remanded for sentencing, and interim name suppression orders for certain parties were extended pending the hearing of applications for permanent name suppression.

Orders