Allan Hubbard again ...

Mark Hubbard's picture
Submitted by Mark Hubbard on Wed, 2010-08-18 01:31

It is starting to look like, from various reports, the SFO may be having trouble making a case here. But that's not the point of this post. Copying and pasting direct from interest.co.nz:

[I'm in the Marlborough Sounds and have very limited Internet access until next week, but I'll break my 10mb a day for this.]

Is no one else worried when they read this sentence about the current SFO investigation of Allan Hubbard, quote:

The source understood in return [for relinquishing his business empire to the State] Hubbard would not face any charges that may arise from the current Serious Fraud Office investigation into his affairs initiated two months ago.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/busi...

More precisely: South Canterbury founder Allan Hubbard would be required to relinquish all ownership of South Canterbury and associated companies.

There's only two ways to interpret that.

a) A government that begins an investigation - on for all we know trumped up charges - then says, 'oh, we'll drop the investigation, but, in return for this you have to hand us your business empire'. That level of corruption - and what else is that? - is just one tiny step away from outright totalitarianism whereby the State simply takes an individual's property without first bothering to invent the trumped up charges.

Or b) And remembering I'm a very much the Allan Hubbard Supporter, it's saying the State to turn events to its advantage can completely interfere with the legal process to the point it would let an individual off with what it has been intimating is a 'complex and intricate' fraud.

If there is fraud here, then AH should be tried. No government of a 'free' country can have the power to override the rule of law as this single sentence signifies.

Yet no member of the MSM has even highlighted this sentence as unusual? It's a stunning sentence in it's implications.


( categories: )

As I understand

gregster's picture

The business he was in had no need for public scrutiny. It was agreements between traders. And now we're bailing it out!?

A farce. The SFO just another strong arm of government. There will be more to come no doubt. Disgraceful.

Well said.

Peter Cresswell's picture

Point well taken.

And at least one member of the non-mainstream media did take up arms: DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Hubbard, Hickey & Hillbillies

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.