Matthew John Blomfield: The A – Z of Plan Fraud

A couple of weeks ago LF reader and Cameron Slater’s most vocal witness to date, Mr Marc Spring, thought to forward LF an email he had received from Lynn Prentice the weekend prior. Prentice was apparently responding to Mr Spring’s invitation to read LF’s earlier post, “The house of cards that Matt built“.

Whilst we thought little of Prentice’s email to Spring, it did however dawn on us that Prentice’s readers over at “the Standard” might like to see for themselves the inner workings of a very confused mind.

Just how it is that Mr Prentice’s personal views, his ego and his obvious political agenda will always take priority over anything so mundane as justice or in fact the proverbial “writing on the wall” for serial fraudster Mr Matthew John Blomfield. Mr Prentice opined:

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Lynn Prentice <lprent@primary.geek.nz>
Date: Sunday, November 16, 2014
Subject: BLOMFIELDS ATTACKER
To: marcspringlimited@gmail.com
Hi Marc,

I think that you misunderstand my interest in the case. I’m interested as a blogger because of the role that Cameron Slater as a blogger (and/or journalist) had in using a blog to attack people with defamatory posts both with Blomfield and many others (read Dirty Politics). I’m uninterested in if Blomfield was a bad boy. I assume that he probably was to one degree or another. He freely admits to that in several public documents. But it is largely irrelevant to my interest in the various actions underway.

What I’m interested (as the courts and many others will be) in if Slater was knowingly defaming someone without *usable* evidence at the time to support his defamation. There is nothing in the LF post that indicates he has a viable defense at the time for that post against defamation. But that is a question for the court and what evidence they will allow Slater to admit. And so far Slater’s legal representation appears to have a fool for a client.

What I see from the pile of waffle written by the legal idiots at LF is that they are implying that Cameron Slater knew of a probably legally privileged communication gained through a breach of privacy. Why didn’t Slater reference those documents in his post? He made a claim that at the time that appears wasn’t backed by anything substantive (obviously I can’t read the links to the other links in the post). It is likely that he was quite aware that he couldn’t use dubiously obtained privileged legal documents to support his post or to defend against any defamation action. Certainly the wording of the post makes that quite believable.

The key point in defamation was if Slater at the time of writing the post could prove what he knew *at that time*. To use legally privileged documents as a defense will probably raise a pile of legal worms for Slater that is as bad or worse for him than the defamation case. He’d probably have to get the court to accept legally privileged documents that are currently the subject of a complaint of theft. That is going to be hard to get a court to accept.

The dubious legal origin of much of the material that Slater used is what the separate privacy act action being pursued against Slater is about.

In any case for the assertions in LF’s post about criminal activity, the proper action would have been to have laid a criminal complainant to the police. Except that’d have been difficult as who would have been the complainant? Digging through all of the typical bullshit in the LF post, there doesn’t appear to have been any.

At best for Slater (and anyone else involved), it means that one of the instances of alleged defamation doesn’t succeed. But (from memory), that is one of a dozen instances, doesn’t provide a smoking gun for the others as they are all treated as separate instances, and leads inexorably to the question about how Slater managed to obtain private documents between a lawyer and their client that he has to rely on in court.

I suspect that the idiots at LF have just made life legally a lot worse for Slater – especially by attacking judges personally. That is the trademark of LF blogs. In my opinion, they specialize in a kind of simple-minded stupidity cloaked in a false veneer of legal understanding and whole lot of dubious waffle. But given their background that really isn’t that surprising.

Cheers
Lynn

It seems that Prentice must have overdosed on Viagra or Cialis before putting finger to keyboard and thumping out the above email. He seems to have developed a raging hard-on, the blood rushing from his brain to his nether regions, at the though of nailing Cameron Slater to his bedroom wall. We do however find Prentice’s nagging habit of childish name calling a little annoying, especially when he hasn’t the balls to actually name anyone.

It must be frustrating for Prentice, not being able to put a face or even a name to LF. From LF’s perspective it’s always been our intention that readers not be distracted by the irrelevance of who’s who, after all Kiwi’s like Prentice just love attacking the messenger, if only to distract from the truth of the message for a while. To quote the late publisher of Penthouse Magazine;

“The less people know about me, the easier my job is” – Bob Guccioni

Where as, Prentice himself, who is a likely subscriber to Penthouse, seems to prefer the motto, “Well that’s enough about me, what do you…..think of me”. Not that his games in any way alter the facts of the case as set out in our earlier article, or the possible outcomes for Blomfield, it has more to do with the fact that to date Prentice has yet to call any of the judicial outcomes as they have in reality fallen.

Prentice has in fact managed to date to get every one of his testicle gazing predictions wrong. With that record this sad disillusioned creepy little political zealot then expects the recipient of his latest email to be beguiled enough to swallow his narcissistic “crystal ball gazing” as if somehow prophetic or likely to be in any way remotely correct – Prentice needs to get a grip on reality and leave his genitals alone.

Fortunately enough for Blomfield’s victims however Prentice, despite the grunting behind the crap he’s been publishing in the New Zealand labour parties masterbatorium, the Standard, has always managed to stuff it up. But that was always going to be the case when the man obviously has an aversion to dealing in fact, it would seem that he much prefers the use of innuendo, smear and spin instead of mounting a fact based argument that supports the various propositions he expects his devoted readers, hanging on to his every sacred word, to swallow.

Now before we start in on the substantive tenets in Prentice’s email we would like first to point out one particular sentence that has some seriously pernicious implications;

“I suspect that the idiots at LF have just made life legally a lot worse for Slater – especially by attacking judges personally.” – Lynn Prentice

Why is it that Prentice is given to believe that LF has made Slater’s lot worse “legally”, in particular just because LF has attacked the judges involved? Is Prentice perhaps inferring that the judges, just because they have been criticised by an unrelated party, will now likely use every trick in the book to fuck with Slater’s legal rights and his defense?

If he is inferring that then does anyone else see the glaringly obvious? That something is seriously amiss with Lynn Prentice’s moral compass and his own view of New Zealand’s judiciary, the hypocrisy is astounding. The fact is that Prentice’s precious Labour Party have stood-by and watched some of New Zealand’s most egregious abuses of a justice system that is in disarray with out saying so much as a word, other than when it might have assisted with the Labour party’s re-election strategy. The case of Peter Ellis’s wrongful conviction and Phil Goff’s pre-election promise to deal with it is but one of these injustices, albeit a glaringly obvious one that 21 years on has yet to be put right.

Prentice clearly has a very limited understanding of exactly what it is that Slater is required to do so as to kick Blomfield’s tort out, Prentice opined:

“The key point in defamation was if Slater at the time of writing the post could prove what he knew *at that time*.”

This is of course completely misguided. It is not necessary for Slater to prove what he knew at the time, although it’s quite clear in fact what Slater did know. From reading Slater’s post it must have been obvious to the casual observer that he was aware of a series of serious allegations. First that Blomfield had misappropriated a cheque with the assistance of private investigator Daniel Toresen. A very reasonable belief that was at the time irrefutably supported by the email that Slater posted with the story “Operation Kite Email 23 December 2008”.

It was also obvious to anyone reading the story that Slater had also relied on his sources. That they had in fact first made the allegation that Blomfield had stolen the cheque, which Slater, given the available evidence whole-heartedly believed had occurred; that belief further supported by a series of documents which Slater had also been given.

One of those documents was a judgement against Blomfield for the amount of the cheque (a legal claim that was brought by the bank who had requested the money be returned), and among the other documents in Slater’s possession; a series of emails between Blomfield and his dodgy lawyer Mike Alexander discussing how he could get away with banking the not negotiable cheque intended for the bank account of infrastructure New Zealand Limited into another unrelated account (reasonably believed at the time and now proven to have been Blomfield’s personal account).

Again those documents and the verbal assurances of his sources support the fact that Slater’s belief at the time was one which was reasonably held, in that the cheque (financial intrument) had been fraudulently converted during the criminal act, that Blomfield had no colour of right to the funds. Slater also had in his possession an email from Blomfield to the bank, subsequent to the banks demand for repayment, wherein Blomfield attempts to excuse his fraud, whilst claiming that he was unable to repay the money as he had already spent it – on himself.

All that LF have now provided is an additional email that adds, not to the truth of the allegation’s Slater levelled against Blomfield, but goes further in proving beyond any doubt that Blomfield’s exculpatory explanations around the circumstances and for his theft and conversion of the cheque are in themselves complete fabrications.

That email however also, importantly, proves that Blomfield, Mike Alexander and his partner John Heimsath where all knowledgeable of the fact that Blomfield had lied, not just in the supporting documents he had filed in his defamation case against Slater but also likely in the court proceedings initiated by the bank seeking return of the stolen money, which by his own admission Blomfield had already spent.

The email LF have provided does not in any way benefit Slater as to whether he had held a “reasonably held belief” at the time he published his story, there was no need whatsoever for LF to add to that evidence. What it does however change is the matter of “reasonable doubt” as opposed to “in all probability” around whether or not Blomfield had knowingly converted the cheque with the intention of stealing from Infrastructure NZ limited (mens rae); for his own pecuniary gain.

This theft, like others, was committed, we suspect, in trying to raise the cash to pay creditors who were chasing Blomfield and to stave of his bankruptcy. At around the same time Blomfield, his lawyer, Mike Alexander, and others were also working towards a so-called “creditors compromise” that they were all desperately hoping to pull off, one of those “couple of cents in the dollar” scams; again, all with the hopeless intention of clearing millions of dollars in debt and staving off the bankruptcy that would eventually crush Blomfield and any hope of him walking away scott free.

LF does criticise judges, we have a very long history of doing so, especially where we believe judges have either been incompetent or have had a nasty agenda that was, or bordered on, the corrupt. We cannot of course argue with Prentice’s accusation, other than to say that he has clearly himself arrived at the same conclusion, albeit from a different angle, that some New Zealand Judges, in this case the two hearing the Blomfield v Slater case, have made a career out of producing politically expedient decisions, but of course Prentice would likely already have been well aware of this particular judicial poison given his role as an apparatchik within the New Zealand Labour party.

We will however leave readers with some well-known reflections on this problem, a problem that Lynn Prentice, in this case, certainly seems to relish, with one eye on a more than obvious desire, in the old-school communist tradition, to see Slater emasculated, with his rights and those of his sources obliterated by two wounded and extremely gullible jurists who obviously had more than a little difficulty distinguishing shit from clay.

The observation below is that of United States Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882 – 1965) Cited so often these words have passed into the realm of legend, and for the life of us they are words that we cannot understand Lynn Prentice, a man determined on every available occasion to proclaim his extraordinary superiority on all matters legal, could possibly have overlooked;

“Judges as persons, or Courts as institutions…are entitled to no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions…Judges must be kept mindful of their limitations and their ultimate public responsibility by a vigorous stream of criticism expressed with candour however blunt” – Justice Felix Frankfurter, United States Supreme Court [Bridges v. California, 341 U.S. 252, 289 – 290 (1941)]

Prentice it seems is quite happy to sit back and watch New Zealand’s judiciary act corruptly, except when it affects himself, his daughter or his beloved Labour party personally that is, the Nicky Hager police raid being one case in point. In this case however Prentice does not really give a flying fuck about the law that he likes to claim a perverse intellectual sovereignty over.

In addition Prentice couldn’t give a flying fuck about the rights of Blomfield’s victim’s, the men and women who in 2012 appealed to blogger Cameron Slater for help, assistance that had not been forthcoming from the New Zealand authorities responsible, or the mainstream media for that matter. All Prentice, in reality, despite his grandiose posturing, wants is Slater’s head on a silver platter; to humiliate the man, and if that means in the process humiliating the victims of serious crime that Slater was standing up for, then Prentice’s position is obviously “so be it”.

Prentice goes on to gloat, almost as with a confidence that nothing can now come of Blomfield’s past criminal offending (has he been chatting to Blomfield again, one of his police insiders, or perhaps just another of his leftist legal mates?):

“In any case for the assertions in LF’s post about criminal activity, the proper action would have been to have laid a criminal complainant to the police. Except that’d have been difficult as who would have been the complainant? Digging through all of the typical bullshit in the LF post, there doesn’t appear to have been any.” – Lynn Prentice

Despite the fact that LF clearly points to the existence of at least three parties, or victims (whilst not revealing their identities for very same reasons as Slater declined to do so) that have a right of redress in the criminal jurisdiction Prentice still does not seem capable of seeing that reality.

Nor does Prentice seem familiar with the fact that there is no statute of limitations preventing Blomfield’s prosecution for criminal offending. He also seems to have a very nasty blind spot when it comes to evidence (especially when it supports Slater’s argument), perhaps understandable given that he’s never managed to produce a scrap of it himself in support his own spurious articles.

Prentice is however right on the money with one single point; “the proper action would have been to have laid a criminal complaint to the police”. A particularly adroit observation we would have though, however obvious.  Although the police, when it comes to financial crimes, are not the only authority responsible under New Zealand law for investigating this type of criminal behaviour.

The Serious Fraud Office, Blomfield’s Official Assignee and the New Zealand Companies Office all had (and continue to have) the power required to prosecute Blomfield. For example, the AO is more than capable of filing his own criminal complaint with police, but to date, despite overwhelming evidence of criminality they haven’t bothered.

A possible clue as to why this is the case can be found in the evidence Blomfield produced in his various legal submissions and arguments.

The fact is that once Blomfield knew that both the OA and the SFO had copies of the hard drive he started putting various types of “legal” pressure on those organisations, misusing the courts to demand limits on the time-frame of any investigation and the return of the hard-drive he believed was the original – he also bombarded the people responsible for those investigations with threats.

These threats were at the time little more than another of Blomfield’s rat cunning ploy’s, albeit they seem to have been very successful as neither organisation managed in the time allocated by Master Fear, the associate judge hearing Blomfield’s bullshit application, to string the thousands of emails and various other documents together, which was exactly the result Blomfield had hoped for.

The AO, in large part, did not manage to get beyond the companies and transactions that they already knew existed. In fact this is in large part verified in a letter that Blomfield would later produce in court, for the purpose of proclaiming it evidence that, despite the rather ordinary investigation into his financial affairs, which Blomfield preferred to describe as massive, costing the OA more than $100’000, they had failed to find evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing. The fact is there was evidence, they just had not managed to find it.

Blomfield was of course, we believe, completely aware of the fact that the SFO and the AO had not looked properly, nor in the right places, that he had indeed stolen from at least two corporate entities, but that neither the AO or the SFO had been given enough time, resources or the search warrant required to locate the bank transactions and emails that proved the existence of additional bank accounts that Blomfield had both controlled and used and the email correspondence that evidenced both the offending and mens rae.

Both Blomfield and his lawyers were working in tandem to thwart the two formal investigations. That much is established by the various emails sent to the government departments at the time and of course later correspondence generated by these same government agencies.

The AO had missed Blomfield’s criminal skullduggery in the first place, during the investigation around his bankruptcy in 2010. They had also then bowed to pressure from Blomfield to grant him a license to continue that very same behaviour, the special exemption from being a banned director.

That was in fact the primary reason for Slater’s sources filing the formal complaints with both the above authorities again in 2012 once they had obtained the new evidence, sadly achieving little result for a second time.

Simply put these official complaints required that both authorities to undertake a more comprehensive formal investigation. The investigators should have spent more time interviewing the complainants and executing search warrants, which looking at the available evidence most certainly would have resulted in criminal charges being laid – but instead both organisations were again conned into engaging with Blomfield, and seem to have foolishly feared a man who is after all little more than a paper Tiger.

Again, simply put, Prentice seems to have (yet again) missed the elephant in the room. Whilst it was there (others had certainly noticed it), had it been wearing fucking stilettos and a high visibility vest, Prentice would probably have decided not to admit seeing it anyway.

Evidence of that fact is found in some of the particularly adroit comments left by LF readers, other than Prentice. The “gold star” for comprehension must again go to LF reader Harry Stottle for his comment;

“I disagree. I think Blomfield should be charged under section 219 of the Crimes Act. It appears, on the face of it, to be a straightforward case of theft in that the funds due to Infrastructure NZ Ltd, a legal entity, were stolen by Blomfield, with the assistance of Thompson & Toresen [aiding and abetting] and to the knowledge of his lawyers [dereliction of duty in failing to report the offence]. The facts have been brought to the attention of Crimestoppers so we’ll wait and see how long it takes for the NZ Police to get in touch with you LF. The Law Society of New Zealand might care to look at section 7 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 re. Heimsath Alexander.” – Harry Stottle (18th November 2014, 4:29am)

LF has also made the promise that we will continue with our investigation. We have also advised readers that an LF information pack had been sent out to a large number of organisations and individuals with recently acquired (new) information. We have no intention of naming the parties who have received those LF information packs at this point, at least not until they have had enough time to conduct their own independent at-arms-length investigations and have started to publish their conclusions themselves.

The first of those greatly anticipated independent investigations was in fact published on the New Zealand Companies Office website on the afternoon of Monday 24th November 2014  [NZDST].

Plan Z Investments Limited 

One of the matters that the OA doesn’t seem to have looked to closely, if at all, was a Company called Plan Z Investments Limited. Had they done so then Blomfield should have, in our view, been charged with the theft of close to $100’000, a conclusion based on the documents LF and important others now have.

This theft was similar in nature to the cheque kiting fraud. In fact when the two are combined it takes the amount we now know Blomfield had stolen to a figure of around $200’000. Of course this is undoubtedly in our view just the tip of a rather large ice-berg, a corporate bloodsucking behemoth that had started forming from around 2007 onwards.

The liquidator of Plan Z Investments has now released his own interim report. The reports timing is somewhat appropriate. The conclusions drawn are also very helpful in that they mirror closely LF’s own findings, based on the evidence we had managed to collect and collate over the past 12 months.

The findings in the report are, in our view, spot-on, to the point where it has saved team LF the laborious task of having to produce our own summary for the benefit of readers (including the thick as Pig shit Lynn Prentice).

Following his own investigations the liquidator David Petterson has to date observed and concluded:

Background

In my first report on this liquidation, I recorded that Plan Z was registered on 30th June 2005 and owned a number of properties in the South Island. Following the bankruptcy of the Company’s director Carl Storm in early 2010, Matthew Blomfield was appointed Director/shareholder and proceeded to sell the assets of the company.

The Company was struck off on 21st October 2010 and was later restored to the Companies Register on 5th October 2012 on the application of the Liquidator of Storm Group Ltd, Mr. John Price. The Company was placed into liquidation by order of the High Court on 14 December 2012 after failing to comply with a statutory demand for $100,000 issued by the Liquidator of Storm Group Ltd (in liquidation).

In my first report I noted that “it would appear that proceeds arising from the sale of these assets were transferred to Abraham Black Ltd (now in liquidation) in mid 2010.”

The information provided to me in order to furnish my first report came in part from Mr. Price and in part from Mr. Blomfield. Mr. Price, in good faith, advised me at the time that Mr. Blomfield had extensive knowledge of the affairs of Plan Z and that his co-operation was assured. I have spoken on three occasions to Mr. Blomfield; the first time was shortly after my appointment. The last two occasions were just before I finalised this report.

Ongoing Investigation

Subsequent to my first report I began an extensive exercise in recovering records pertaining to the affairs of Plan Z to determine what had gone on in that company, what assets were sold and where the proceeds of sale went.

That has proved to be a tortuous process. As I became more engaged in trying to recover what should have been readily available records I found myself facing more closed doors than open. I did receive selected documents from two law firms, Farry & Co and Heimsath Alexander, both of whom have as my investigations have disclosed, had extensive interaction with Mr. Blomfield over an extended period of time.

My investigations led me to widely search for information on the activities of Mr. Blomfield and those connected with him as I tried to piece together what happened to Plan Z and its assets. During the course of that investigation I spoke to a number of persons who were able to provide information to me that has aided in my investigations. I have also received information that has been sent to me from unsolicited sources but which has also aided in my understanding of what happened in and to Plan Z.

Upon checking and cross checking the information I had received and the documentary evidence I had located/acquired I became increasingly concerned as to whether, as Liquidator of Plan Z, I was being given the full story, or even a truthful one as to what happened to the company assets. Based on all of the foregoing, I am now of the opinion that the information I received at the start of this Liquidation, provided to me by Mr. Blomfield was untruthful.

This report sets out what I actually believe happened to some of Plan Z’s assets. Investigation into other assets and their fate is ongoing.

Indebtedness to Storm Group Ltd (in liquidation) “Storm Group”

When Plan Z was placed into Liquidation, Storm Group was alleged to be owed $100,000. This allegation was based upon information received by Mr. Price as Liquidator of Storm Group and was the basis of a statutory demand made by Storm Group on Plan Z.

I was able to confirm from the files of Farry & Co who had acted for Storm Group pre-liquidation that two sums, one for $75,000 and a second for $25,000 were advanced to Plan Z ; the first was on or about 26 July 2007 and the second on or about 30 August 2007. The funds were used to acquire three properties in Dunedin; one each at 41 & 49 Canongate and a third adjoining property at 23 Clark Street. In addition to the capital injections for purchase, Plan Z entered into mortgage arrangements with the ANZ bank.

Who are Plan Z’s creditors?

Based on the foregoing, I am satisfied that prima facie, a debt was incurred by Plan Z in favour of Storm Group. I say prima facie as I have been unable to locate any reliable accounting records relating to Plan Z that should have recorded the accounting transactions through that company. My investigation also indicates that another of the companies operated by Carl Storm, Storm Civil Ltd (which has now been liquidated) was also a creditor of Plan Z, at least to the extent of $14,501. Given that Plan Z was involved in investment property transactions it is probable that Inland Revenue may be a creditor for unpaid GST and income tax.

Investment property disposal

Properties other than Canongate and Clark St were acquired and disposed of. Of the disposals, some were by private treaty and others by mortgagee sale. While I have reviewed a number of the property sales and note that these appear to have been at arm’s length, some transactions are still the subject of ongoing investigation. The remainder of this report however will focus upon the sale of the Canongate properties.

Initial information provided by Mr. Blomfield

Mr. Blomfield told me by telephone, following my appointment, that the $100,000 that was sought by Storm Group:

• had been paid by Plan Z to another company, Abraham Black Ltd (in liquidation) (“Abraham Black”);
• Abraham Black was a solvent liquidation and that the funds should be demanded from the liquidator;
• Mr. Blomfield had a previous association with Abraham Black and was aware that although $100,000 was no longer there, some of the $100,000 was and could be claimed from the liquidator of Abraham Black. As I recall Mr. Bloomfield’s take on the situation he said “what you will do is demand the $100k from the liquidator [of Abraham Black], he hasn’t got that but he will pay you $40k to $60k, you will take your fees and then return some of the money back to John [John Price]”

In support of Mr. Blomfield’s assertions I was provided by Mr. Price with a photocopy of a spreadsheet that I understood to have been prepared by or having come from Mr. Blomfield purporting to represent transactions that occurred through the books of Abraham Black.

Abraham Black Ltd (in Liquidation)

Abraham Black was incorporated on 25th June 2009 and was originally called “The Grim Reaper”, changing its name to Abraham Black on or about 11 August 2009. The sole shareholder and director is Warren Powell. Mr. Powell is well known for his investment in the Hell Pizza franchise development. It is through that franchise development that I understand that Mr. Powell worked with Mr. Blomfield.

Mr. Chris Horton is the Liquidator of Abraham Black. According to Mr. Horton’s first report, Abraham Black liquidation is a solvent company being wound up as part of a process to tidy the affairs of the shareholder, Mr. Powell. The unsecured creditors as notified by the Liquidator amounted to $35,883. There was no indication of the value of the assets of the company.

I contacted Mr. Horton to discuss the allegation by Mr. Blomfield that $100,000 from Plan Z had gone into Abraham Black. If the allegation was correct, the reported unsecured creditors would appear to have been misstated. Mr. Horton made enquiry and subsequently advised that he could find no evidence of $100,000 or any monies for that matter coming into the bank accounts from Plan Z.

It is my understanding that Mr. Powell no longer lives in New Zealand, notwithstanding that he lists his address on the Companies Office website as being in Mission Bay Auckland. Further I understand that Mr. Blomfield had a working/business/consultancy arrangement with Mr. Powell and or Abraham Black, pre- liquidation of that company.

Mr. Blomfield’s involvement

While it is unclear to me when Mr. Blomfield entered into a “service” arrangement with Abraham Black that arrangement was in place by April 201 although. the relationship between Mr. Storm, Mr. Blomfield and Abraham Black went back further than that.

In or around November 2009 Mr. Storm was contemplating his imminent bankruptcy; planning around that and for life thereafter. Discussions involving Mr. Storm, Mr. Blomfield and Solicitors’ (“the strategy group”) took place covering various aspects of the Storm Group, asset holding trusts and various standalone companies. Strategies were contemplated with a view to protecting some of the Storm Group assets from creditors, developing those assets in association with Abraham Black and leaving equity in those properties for the benefit of either or both of Mr. & Mrs Storm.

With regard to the Dunedin properties at Clark Street and Canongate, Mr. Storm reported to the strategy group that the Clark St property had been sold and the proceeds passed to the ANZ bank, but around $130,000 was still owed to ANZ secured over the two Canongate properties. The plan at the time was for Abraham Black to purchase the two properties prior to liquidation of Plan Z. Thereafter Abraham Black was to develop the properties. There was to be enough equity in the properties for Abraham Black to exit with the remaining value in the properties to be passed over to Mrs Dawn Storm.

Both Mr & Mrs Storm were directors of Plan Z although the shareholding was all in the name of Mr. Storm. Mr Storm was adjudicated bankrupt on or about 26 January 2010. Mrs Storm’s bankruptcy followed on 10 May 2010.

On 25 January 2010, the day prior to Mr. Storm’s adjudication, records provided by Heimsath Alexander indicate that Mr. Blomfield became a shareholder and director of Plan Z, although the Companies Office records show Mr. Blomfield signed a consent to act as a Director on 27 January 2010 and his appointment was notified to the Companies Office at 12:22pm on that day. It wasn’t until 17 March 2010 that the Companies Office was notified that the shares previously held by Mr. Storm were now transferred to Mr. Blomfield, although again, records provided by Heimsath Alexander dated 25 January 2010 record a transfer of shares to Mr. Blomfield dated 25 January 2010.

On or about 28 January 2010, a sale and purchase agreement was finalised between Plan Z and Mr. Trevor Drake. The contract was negotiated through an agent, with an initial offer of $250,000 being countered at $270,000 before a final offer was accepted at $255,000. While it is unclear from the documentation, dates on various documents suggest that negotiations with Mr. Drake were in play as early as 23 December 2009.

For Plan Z, the agreement was signed by Mr. Storm (although he had no capacity to do so by this date) and Mr. Blomfield. Mr. Drake entered into the agreement with a nominee option which he later exercised on or about 12 February 2010 nominating Catherine Delia Drake as the ultimate purchaser.

Knight Coldicutts involvement

Settlement of the Canongate transaction took place on or about 12th February 2012. Mr David Compton, a solicitor at the law firm of Knight Coldicutt prepared a settlement statement for Plan Z. The statement recorded that after deduction of the ANZ mortgage of $146,000, agents’ commissions, rates and legal fees the sum of $87,320 was available to Plan Z.

Cathy Blake, an Administrative Assistant at Knight Coldicutt contacted Mr. Blomfield and asked him where he wanted the balance of funds from the settlement deposited. Mr. Blomfield responded by providing one of his personal bank account numbers to Ms Blake. He also asked Ms Blake how much was expected to come to the account and was advised it was approximately $92,000. However that amount was before deduction of legal fees.

Prior to disbursing the funds, Knight Coldicutt had internal discussions regarding deductions to be made from the proceeds of sale of Canongate. Mike Alexander, (at that time a partner at Knight Coldicutt, but now a principal at Heimsath Alexander) appears to have been handling matters pertaining to Mr. Blomfield. Mr. Blomfield had an ongoing relationship with the firm and had incurred significant legal fees which Knight Coldicutt sought to recover from the proceeds of sale of the Canongate properties.

Initial discussions within Knight Coldicutt centred on the allocation of $5,000 as the legal fees to be recovered from the transaction by Knight Coldicutt. Kim Murdock at the time General Manager of Knight Coldicutt, was concerned that $5,000 was insufficient to cover all fees owing. Murdock noted that $6,100 was owed by Mr. Blomfield and that a further sum of $15,000 was also in play although the exact nature of that expenditure, at whose direction and on what was unclear. In any event it appears to have been expected that some of this “Firm Consultancy” could be subject to a write-off.

Mr. Alexander advised that the money from Canongate was Abraham Black money rather than Mr. Blomfield’s personal money. However Cathy Blake countered that:

• the money from Canongate was Plan Z’s money of which Mr. Blomfield was a director and shareholder and
• The $6,100 owing to Knight Coldicutt was Mr. Bloomfield’s personal account.

Mr. Alexander seemed to have some difficulty with this position and advised Ms Blake that Mr. Blomfield was in Plan Z on behalf of Abraham Black on a consultancy basis and that had always been the case; following which he referred the matter to Mr. Blomfield. Mr. Blomfield confirmed back to Mr. Alexander that Knight Coldicutt was to only get $5,000.

The net result was that Knight Coldicutt transferred the sum of $87,230.02 to the Kiwibank Fast Forward Saver account of Mr. Blomfield at or around 4:45pm on the 12th of February 2010.

From the Liquidators perspective it was very clear at this point that Knight Coldicutt new and accepted that the sale proceeds’ from the Canongate properties:

• were either the property of Plan Z or Abraham Black, but in any event,
• were not the property of Mr. Blomfield,
• were paid into a bank account which was a personal account of Mr. Blomfield

Disposition of sale proceeds

The transfer from Knight Coldicutt’s trust account into the personal account of Mr. Blomfield bore the reference “Sale Proceed”. Mr. Blomfield then disbursed the funds from the account as follows:

None of the funds were paid to a bank account of Plan Z. None of the funds were paid into the bank account of Abraham Black. On 18 November 2014 I sent by email a notice under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993 to Mr. Blomfield. The notice required Mr. Blomfield to attend in person at an interview in Auckland on 9th December 2014 where he was to be examined under oath, by the liquidator.

Mr. Blomfield telephoned my office just before 6pm on the same day. He confirmed he had received my letter and wanted to discuss it. A discussion took place over the course of half an hour during which Mr. Blomfield advised me that:

• He did not want to attend a formal meeting with a liquidator and be examined under oath
• If I had questions for him I should put these in writing and he would respond accordingly
• The events relating to Plan Z took place some five years earlier and he wouldn’t have any memory of what happened if required to recall these in a formal meeting, although if I wrote to him he would look at his files and see what he could remember
• Mr. Storm did not give him any company records when he (Blomfield) became a director and shareholder of the company as there were none.
• Mr. Blomfield did not maintain or create any company records himself.

I advised Mr. Blomfield that this was not how it worked and that I needed information that he could provide; essential to what happened to the funds that were in or due to Plan Z. I reminded him of the allegation that he made that these had been paid to Abraham Black and advised him that the Liquidator of that company had not been able to find any funds coming in from Plan Z. Mr. Blomfield then told me that:

• The money that came from the Canongate property sales had been paid to him. “I told the lawyers to pay that to my personal account and they did.”
• He was a bare trustee for Abraham Black and that Abraham Black was his employer.
• Half of the money received was paid in cash to Warren Powell, the shareholder and director of Abraham Black.
• The reason for paying Mr. Powell was that Mr. Powell/Abraham Black/Plan Z/Matthew Blomfield all had the same lawyer (Knight Coldicutt/Mr. Alexander) and that Mr. Powell would find out about the Plan Z sale so he had to pay Mr. Powell his share.
• The reason he took the money was that he had his own creditor problems at the time and that he was facing his own creditor crisis. He needed to put a creditor compromise in place.
• In any event the liquidator of Plan Z could not claim any of the money claimed by Plan Z against Matthew Blomfield as his bankruptcy wiped the slate clean.

Mr. Blomfields position on the Canongate transaction

Mr. Blomfield wrote to me on 22 November 2014. In his letter Mr. Blomfield states:

1. “On or about the 25th of January 2010 I was appointed as the sole director and shareholder of Plan Z Investments Limited. At the time I was working for a consultancy business owned by Warren Powell called Abraham Black Limited. After consultation with Mr Powell and the lawyers acting for Abraham Black Limited it was agreed that I would take on the role of shareholder and director of the company under a bare trustee arrangement between Abraham Black and me. This bare trustee arrangement is referred to in numerous documents that were sent to both John Price and the Official Assignee. For the record I was paid a salary from Abraham Black Limited and met with its owner and director on an almost daily basis. Mr Powell was across all aspects of the business.”
2. “Abraham Black’s decision to take over the Plan Z business was based on the fact that the previous owner had conveyed to us that the business had “good equity” in some properties and very little debt. Of note we also entered in to a similar arrangement with a company called NZ Earthworks Limited at the same time, the same could not be said about NZ Earthworks Limited, within 3 months of my appointment as a director of that company I realised it was insolvent and placed it into voluntary liquidation pursuit to section 241(2)(a) of the CompaniesAct1993. ….”
3. “As to the Cannongate transaction that we discussed on the phone. It went like this on or about the 12th of February 2010 a property owned by Plan Z Investment was sold. I believe ANZ had a mortgage over the property for circa 150k. That was repaid at settlement. The profit from the transaction or equity in the property was circa 80k and I instructed the lawyers to pay that amount into my bank account. This was after a conversation with my boss Mr Warren Powell who suggested that we half the money i.e. 40k each. This was communicated to Kalev Crossland (lawyer for John Price) and John Price on a number of occasions back in late 2010. What I did with that money after it was paid into my personal account is my business.”
4. “On or about the 5th of October 2010 I had a meeting with Struan Macleod who was at the time the accountant for Abraham Black Limited. At that meeting I was asked to update the financial statements for Abraham Black Limited. I was mindful of the fact that Abraham Black had received this money from Plan Z Investments so I explained my part in the transaction and asked that it be recorded in the accounts. On the 19th of November 2010 Mr Macleod sent an email to Mr Powell, the owner of Abraham Black stating that “I spent an hour with Matt on Wednesday and I have noted all of his comments in Purple on each of the sheets”. Attached is a spreadsheet entitled “Abraham Black Limited financial statement FY2010 and FY2011” If you open that spreadsheet you will find highlighted in purple, under a tab labelled AB workpapers, a line that says “Income from Plan Z Investments” then the sum of 43,000.00 and a further comment saying that was the money I had taken from Plan Z. This spreadsheet and the attached email you have as you mentioned it on the phone. I also disclosed this income to my creditors and to the Official assignee.” (the spreadsheet referred to in the email was not provided to the Liquidator)

Liquidators assessment of Mr. Blomfield’s admissions

Notwithstanding Mr. Blomfield’s assertion that he was a “bare trustee” for Abraham Black when he acted as a Director of Plan Z, there is no provision in law for such a position. Rather, Mr. Blomfield became responsible and to the extent the law recognises conduct, misconduct or negligent conduct; liable for prosecution and holding to account under the Companies Act 1993, the Crimes Act 1961 and any other legislation that addresses the duties and responsibilities of directors, officers and/or employees of New Zealand companies.

In my opinion Mr. Blomfield has committed serious breaches of the Companies Act and these will be reported to the Registrar of Companies with a recommendation for investigation and prosecution.

Further I am of the opinion that Mr. Blomfield received funds from the Plan Z without claim of right, disbursing these for his own (and possibly others) personal benefit. I am of the opinion that such conduct amounts to “theft by a person in a special relationship” as defined by section 220 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961. This section of the Crimes Act states

(1) This section applies to any person who has received or is in possession of, or has control over, any property on terms or in circumstances that the person knows require the person—

(a) to account to any other person for the property, or for any proceeds arising from the property; or

(b) to deal with the property, or any proceeds arising from the property, in accordance with the requirements of any other person.

(2) Every one to whom subsection (1) applies commits theft who intentionally fails to account to the other person as so required or intentionally deals with the property, or any proceeds of the property, otherwise than in accordance with those requirements.

(3) This section applies whether or not the person was required to deliver over the identical property received or in the person’s possession or control.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is a question of law whether the circumstances required any person to account or to act in accordance with any requirements. (underline added)

I draw readers attention to subsection (4) of section 220. This is a determination that ultimately a Court will make, following investigation and if appropriate, prosecution of the alleged offence. As such I have referred this, by way of a criminal complaint, to Police.

Warren Powell’s alleged involvement

From my investigation, it appears that Mr. Blomfield has also been challenged, at least in part, concerning these transactions by Mr. Price. Mr. Price did so arising from other liquidations in the Hell Pizza franchise and/or Storm Group related company liquidations. However at the time, Mr. Price doesnot appear to have had the information that I have managed to collate and may not have been privy to a number of the transactions that I have uncovered.

Following purported allegations being made by Mr. Price concerning Mr. Blomfield and his conduct across a number of matters related to liquidations under Mr. Price’s administration, Mr. Blomfield sought intervention from a solicitor engaged by Mr. Price. In addressing the allegations purported to have been made by Mr. Price, Mr. Blomfield said of Plan Z:

“The $100,000.00 from Plan Z Investments Limited was in fact $87,234.19. On (sic) this money was received 5 months prior to my Bankruptcy and I paid $43,000.00 to Warren Powell (Director and Shareholder of Abraham Black and my employer) The remaining was kept by me for fees as I had for a number of months worked for Carl Storm trying to get him through his issues. Further to that on several occasion (sic) I gave Mr Storm money to help him out. I am very comfortable with my position in relation to what I charged him as the time and effort spent on this job was massive.

This transaction was disclosed and has been investigated by the officer looking after Carl Storm on behalf of the Official Assignee. It is also my understanding that they hold two years of my bank statements from Kiwi Bank. At the bottom of this email is evidence that Warren Powell did in fact receive $43,000 first by his own admission and second by copies from my bank statements of the transaction (FYI you will not (sic) that the 60k he mentioned in his email is money I was paid for Marketing work in the twelve month prior). I in fact went to his house at 10:15am on the 22nd of February 2010 fuelling up on the way at Shell Quay Street on the way at 9.57am (I have receipts to verify this) to give him the money as Warren Powell requested. I also do not believe That Plan Z Investments is a creditor of Storm Group (in Liq)”

If the position is as Mr. Blomfield states, i.e. that Mr. Powell received $43,000 in cash from Mr. Blomfield, I have been unable to find an overt basis for Mr. Powell to receive any proceeds of sale from Plan Z assets.

Regardless of whether or not Mr. Blomfield did pay $43,000 to Mr. Powell, Mr. Blomfield acknowledges in the above email and in telephone discussion with me, that he received the sale proceeds from the Canongate properties and that he spent them on personal items unrelated to Plan Z. Mr. Blomfield has also asserted orally and in writing that he was entitled to take these funds as he was the shareholder and director of the company. For the reasons I have set out above, I view those assertions to be risible.

Recovery of the proceeds of sale

Subsequent to the above referred transactions taking place, Mr. Blomfield was himself adjudicated bankrupt on 13 July 2010. I am of the view that the proceeds of sale arising from the Canongate properties, passed to Mr Blomfield by Knight Coldicutt/Mike Alexander, were impressed with a trust in favour of Plan Z. As such any party who dealt with the assets the subject of that trust is accountable for their actions to Plan Z.

In regard to Mr. Blomfield, any indebtedness that Mr. Blomfield had in relation to the proceeds of sale from Canongate, back to Plan Z would be captured in Mr. Bloomfield’s bankruptcy. Mr. Blomfield was discharged from bankruptcy on or about 23 July 2013. However, bankruptcy only relates to civil debts and is not absolution for criminal conduct. As I have stated earlier in this report, it is my belief based upon my investigations and the admissions of Mr. Blomfield, that the conduct of Mr. Blomfield in receiving the proceeds of sale from Canongate into his personal bank account and thereafter dispersing those funds other than to the company to whom they belonged, constitutes a criminal offence of theft by a person in a special relationship.

In regard to Knight Coldicutt/Mike Alexander, I am of the opinion that Knight Coldicutt/Mike Alexander were negligent in their administration of the trust funds in accepting instructions to pass the funds to the personal account of a company director with reasonable knowledge (based upon the extent of the involvement they had with Mr. Blomfield at that time) that the director was not going to treat those funds as being held on behalf of Plan Z, but instead knowing that they were being treated as if they were the property of some other person or entity and disposed of accordingly. This is a matter that I intend to pursue further.

Ongoing Investigation

The investigation into Plan Z is ongoing. The lack of proper company records, including books of account and statutory registers has severely hindered the investigation so far and made this an unnecessarily time consuming liquidation. Nevertheless I intend to persist until I am satisfied the assets of the company have been properly identified and accounted for.

I therefore am unable to determine with any certainty when this liquidation will conclude, however I will continue to report progress as reporting requirements dictate.

David Petterson

Liquidator

Source: http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/54edbd05e298621018683504a1d6e7c9.pdf

So there you have it. Forget the bits here and there in Prentice’s fucked-up email – just who he believes LF is, frankly who really gives a fuck. Prentice simply has no idea just as he has absolutely no idea on anything to do with Blomfield, had he even an inkling of the truth he would be far more inclined to circumspection and much less inclined to use defamatory rhetoric, the sort of rhetoric that may in fact catch up with him in the same way Blomfield had hoped to catch up with Slater.

Of course Prentice’s subliminal comprehension of that possibility is more than evidenced by his abject failure to name anyone in particular, at least the people that he alleges are behind LF, preferring instead to use innuendo that does little more than feed into the idle internet chatroom gossip that Prentice and his mates so love to sporn, gossip and spurious conclusions that then strangely appear in the Standard, posted by anonymous individuals, well at least thats what they like to believe (note 7.1 below):

At the end of the day LF is confident that Slater and those who have been financially screwed by Blomfield over the years will ultimately prevail, that Slater in particular will probably be even stronger, much to Prentice’s chagrin more credible because of it, that credibility having withstood the test of time, Blomfield’s flawed, obfuscatory and malicious litigation and the muddle of confused and spurious commentary that Prentice seems to think will earn him brownie points with his readers and the MSM journo’s that both he and Blomfield have been dating.

It’s all rather tragic really, both for Blomfield’s victims, who’ve suffered more unnecessary public ridicule and for Prentice who will undoubtedly in time suffer the same fate, albeit in a more permanent and very likely expensive way.

From here on in LF will make sure that we spell it out just for Prentice’s sake, the evidence, the criminal offence committed and the likely maximum sentence the offending attracts if Blomfield is eventually convicted.

Team LF have not noted the publishing of the liquidator’s report to date because we have not yet closed our own investigation into the “Plan Z Investments Limited” frauds and thefts. The New Zealand Herald did however immediately produce a piece, albeit a little short on any of the real gritty detail. That can be read here; “Complaints against ex-pizza boss Matt Blomfield referred to police”

It was a paragraph nearing the end of Herald journo Matt Nippert’s article that triggered our involuntary roaring laughter:

Blomfield told the New Zealand Herald he rejected Petterson’s conclusions.

“The liquidator got it totally wrong. His conclusions that he draws in his report are without basis, and he doesn’t back them up,” he said.

Blomfield said he would request Petterson revise his report.

Source; http://www.nzherald.co.nz/matt-nippert/news/article.cfm?a_id=644&objectid=11365434

So what else could Matthew Blomfield have said to Matt Nippert? Nothing much beyond what was said really, but it’s not at all important what Blomfield is purported to have told an APNZ journalist who occasionally works for Fairfax, after all who could seriously believe anything the Herald printed when it comes to Blomfield; except of course the all important nine page liquidator’s report they thought to include with the story.

The simple fact is that Blomfield will not be able to walk away from this one or the other company structures that LF and the various other government agencies, professionsl bodies, insurers and creditors are now investigating, nor will the use of bullshit, bluster and intimidation work.

He may have succeeded with these strategies in the past but his luck will eventually run out and with it the luck of the legal and insolvency practitioners who have profited from Blomfield’s past criminal behaviour.

This is a reality that some among those who have been party to Blomfield’s frauds are well and truly aware of. In fact the lawyer that had signed up to a deal to conceal Blomfield’s true control of Bell Jr Limited, Graham Hare, appears to be amongst the rats and weazels now seeking to abandon ship, although Hare has attached some quite extraordinary proviso’s to his co-operation, the assistance he would give the authorities; all of it obviously designed to save his own arse:

No honest lawyer haggles in this way. When we contacted Hare months ago he assured us that he would co-operate with our investigations, that was never of course his intention. Only now, subsequent to the release of the latest liquidator’s report has the lawyer Graham Hare decided, at least for appearances sake, to have changed his colours:

From: Graham Hare <buzzhare@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Blomfield
Date: 24 November 2014 7:17:50 pm NZDT
To: Marc Spring <marcspringlimited@gmail.com>

Hey Marc

If you/Lauda Finem had been honest with me I would have been in a position to continue to co-operate as I seriously want to. To me your joint fraud has destroyed your and LF’s credibility. I will expose this if /when you subpoena me.

You were underhand, dishonest and verging on Blomfield evil in secretly recording our discreet conversations which were all agreed to as a pre-requisite to the SST articles which I clearly stated to you and “Tony Armstrong” from LF were embargoed until I saw the SST articles. You /LF then used my well intended assistance to defame me. You now lob me in with the “mob” of Blomfield’s “dodgy” lawyers in a complaint to NZLS.

If you/LF undo all that wrong, I am happy to continue to assist in your campaign as I want to see Blomfield’s life in commerce ended ASAP. He is evil. You/ LF will need to apologise publicly to me. I am an honest lawyer and decent citizen who was sucked into Blomfield’s web by the references of people who should have been able to be believed, the “biggest” being Paul O’Connor, who seemingly still “has his back”.

G

LF does not organise to covertly tape conversations with a bent lawyer and then take orders from the subject, a scenario which the subject, Graham Hare, is now euphemistically prefering to claim was some sort of “embargo” – all news to LF of course.

Hare was not even aware that he had been covertly taped and only realised many months later, long after we had contacted him, that the recording had occurred, and only after Hare had been given ample time to cooperate, but failed to disclose any information. The only suspicion held by Hare after the LF sting was that someone may have taken a photograph of him whilst he sat outside a cafe.

When LF first contacted Hare he did not want to talk, he lied and attempted to create a little wriggle room to buy himself time. In fact we’ll say it again Graham Hare is as far as we can see, based on the best available evidence, a complete and utter fraudster. Lets face it no honest lawyer attempts to do deals in the face of such allegations, nor do they sit back and watch the criminal offending roll on unchecked.

In fact LF suggested that Hare attend his local police station and the SFO, again some months ago when we first contacted him. Hare of naturally enough declined, citing his need to get himself, his wife and his assets clear of Blomfield and his criminal cabal first. That was of course Graham Hares decision.

It should also be noted however that as a solicitor of New Zealand’s High Court Hare was in fact legally required to report any suspected criminal offending to the police and or relevant authorities the minute he became aware of it, which Hare at the time obviously didn’t, nor has he to date. Hare was also obliged as a Solicitor of the High Court, given his thorough knowledge of the proceedings in Blomfield V Slater, to have drawn to the court’s attention any other information that may have affected the administration of justice, but again he didn’t.

As the old adage goes, “actions speak louder than words”. Mr Hares words are in all likelihood the purest form of bullshit that we here at LF have ever encountered from someone who holds himself out to be a qaulified legal professional. His inaction and constant attempts to “deal” is way out more than sufficient to evidence mens rae. Hare has literally had months with which to write to team LF and request that the record be set straight, in doing so providing specific details of where exactley LF had managed to get it wrong, he could of course, as a legally trained professional, also have pursued defamation proceedings, but again like Blomfield he hasn’t. Hare has done absolutely nothing to bring Blomfield’s particular brand of, by Hare’s own definition, “evil” to the attention of New Zealand’s authorities, quite the opposite in fact.

LF never does deals with smunts and con men the likes of Graham Hare or Matthew John Blomfield, nor should anyone with an ounce of integrity. Slater on the other hand has been foolish enough to attempt such manoeuvre’s, as evidenced by his two failed attempts to settle Blomfield’s spurious, malicious and purely obfuscatory legal proceedings.

If any of what Hare now claims, at the eleventh hour, is even remotely true then he should be prepared to front a police station and a court of law and leave it to the deciders of fact, a Judge or Jury. Hare himself has spent years blowing smoke up the arses of a whole gaggle of his fellow fraudsters and those pursuing them, lying and misleading everyone starting with the Official Assignee, Anthony Pullan who administered Blomfield’s bankruptcy, the Auckland crown solicitor and the various other people and entities who have had any business dealings with Matthew John Blomfield or Bell Jr Limited – con artists such as law firm Central Park Legal, lawyer Bruce Johnson, law firm Heimsath Alexander, lawyer Mike Alexander, lawyer John Heimsath, law firm Knight Caldercutt (during Mike Alexander’s tenure as a partner), insolvency specialists Gary Whimp, John Price, Greg Sherriffe, accountancy firm Grant Thornton and last but by no means least, Auckland based IT techno whizz Paul O’Connor, Blomfield and Hare’s partner in Bell Jr Limited a director of convenience who has been fronting various other legal entities on behalf of Blomfield since his bankruptcy.

Hare’s latest strategy has been to blame others for having mislead him, starting with Paul O’Connor whom Hare now believes “should have known better”

At the end of the day however it’s all about the contemporaneous documentation thats now available, the many documented bank transactions, which of course rank right up there with the absolute best of evidence, establishing “means rea” and criminality. It’s also somewhat important what Blomfield has advised the liquidator, both in writing and during oral interrogations, past and present, those statements having now passed into what’s also known as evidence. After all as is stated in his report Mr Petterson appears to have served Blomfield with a notice under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993;

261 Power to obtain documents and information

(1) A liquidator may, from time to time, by notice in writing, require a director or shareholder of the company or any other person to deliver to the liquidator such books, records, or documents of the company in that person’s possession or under that person’s control as the liquidator requires.

(2) A liquidator may, from time to time, by notice in writing require—

(a) a director or former director of the company; or

(b) a shareholder of the company; or

(c) a person who was involved in the promotion or formation of the company; or

(d) a person who is, or has been, an employee of the company; or

(e) a receiver, accountant, auditor, bank officer, or other person having knowledge of the affairs of the company; or

(f) a person who is acting or who has at any time acted as a solicitor for the company—

to do any of the things specified in subsection (3).

(3) A person referred to in subsection (2) may be required—

(a) to attend on the liquidator at such reasonable time or times and at such place as may be specified in the notice:

(b) to provide the liquidator with such information about the business, accounts, or affairs of the company as the liquidator requests:

(c) to be examined on oath or affirmation by the liquidator or by a barrister or solicitor acting on behalf of the liquidator on any matter relating to the business, accounts, or affairs of the company:

(d) to assist in the liquidation to the best of the person’s ability.

(3A) Without limiting subsection (3)(a), a person may be required to attend on the liquidator under that subsection at a meeting of creditors of the company.

(4) Without limiting subsection (5), the liquidator may pay to a person referred to in paragraph (d) or paragraph (e) or paragraph (f) of subsection (2), not being an employee of the company, reasonable travelling and other expenses in complying with a requirement of the liquidator under subsection (3).

(5) The court may, on the application of the liquidator or a person referred to in paragraph (d) or paragraph (e) or paragraph (f) of subsection (2), not being an employee of the company, order that that person is entitled to receive reasonable remuneration and travelling and other expenses in complying with a requirement of the liquidator under subsection (3).

(6) A person referred to in paragraph (d) or paragraph (e) or paragraph (f) of subsection (2) is not entitled to refuse to comply with a requirement of the liquidator under subsection (3) by reason only that—

(a) an application to the court to be paid remuneration or travelling and other expenses has not been made or determined; or

(b) remuneration or travelling and other expenses to which that person is entitled have not been paid in advance; or

(c) the liquidator has not paid that person travelling or other expenses.

(6A) A person who fails to comply with a notice given under this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the penalty set out in section 373(3).

(7) Nothing in this section limits or affects section 260

Then of course there’s the documents Blomfield has deliberately neglected to provide the liquidator over the duration of the liquidation, at first claiming no knowledge of the records, or in the alternative that they did not exist, documents that the liquidator had always been legally entitled to, in fact documents and information that Blomfield, as the sole director of Plan Z Limited, was legally obliged to deliver to the liquidator upon his appointment by the court.

As for Blomfield’s assertion to the New Zealand Herald’s Matt Nippert, that he would “request” that Petterson revise his report, well Blomfield is simply deluded if he even so much as believes that he has the right to direct a liquidator, only the courts (if they see fit) can do so, and in our view any such application by Blomfield is destined to go very badly indeed.

Petterson like any court appointed liquidator is not accountable to Blomfield, in fact unfortunately (for Blomfield) the situation is quite the reverse, it is Blomfield, as a director of Plan Z Limited, that has always been accountable to the liquidator for his behaviour in and around “the company” as a distinct legal entity, not the personal cash-cow/ATM that Blomfield seems to have mistaken it for.

But knowing Blomfield he will undoubtedly still attempt to berate and cajole Mr Petterson, as he has others, in yet further attempts to get his own way, almost certainly starting with the threat of litigation in it’s preferred form – defamation.

As the former liquidator of Plan Z Limited, Mr John Price noted back in February 2011, in a email to Warren Powell, one of the recipients of the stolen Plan Z funds, $43’000.00 in cash to be a little more specific;