NZ First Foundation case: Second defendant pleads not guilty, maintains name suppression

Two people are facing charges after a Serious Fraud Office investigation into the NZ First Foundation. "No party member has been implicated or charged by the SFO," NZ First leader Winston Peters told reporters. Video / Will Trafford

The second person charged by the Serious Fraud Office after an investigation into the NZ First Foundation has pleaded not guilty today.

The defendant, who continues to enjoy name suppression, appeared this morning before Judge Allan Roberts in the North Shore District Court on a single charge of obtaining by deception.

The accused pleaded not guilty and was remanded on bail, with conditions not to contact any of the SFO's listed witnesses, until another hearing next month.

Judge Roberts also told journalists in the courtroom: "There is to be no publication of this man's name."

The brief appearance came after a hearing yesterday for the first defendant, who sought to postpone their scheduled first call and suppression argument.

They argued they were the "target" of media set loose on them, a victim of leaks to journalists, and had been denied the right to properly prepare for today's hearing.

Judge Roberts permitted the first defendant, also charged with obtaining by deception, to enter a not guilty plea yesterday and also remanded them on bail until next month.

Neither of the accused is a minister, sitting MP, candidate in the election or a member of their staff, or a current member of the New Zealand First political party.

Whether both accused's interim name suppression - which the media attempted to overturn before the election - was to continue was also due to be argued today.

However, the court has postponed any arguments until next month's hearing.

Charging documents allege the pair deposited $746,881 between September 30, 2015 and February 14 this year with "intent to deceive the donors of the monies, the party secretary of the New Zealand First Party and/or the Electoral Commission".

"The defendants adopted a fraudulent device, trick or stratagem, whereby party donations for the party were paid into the bank accounts of [suppressed] and the New Zealand First Foundation and not notified to the party secretary, or declared by the party secretary to the Electoral Commission," the papers read.

"Those undeclared funds thereby became available to [suppressed]/New Zealand First Foundation to use as the defendants saw fit, and were used to pay expenses of the party and to develop a fundraising database for the benefit of the party and [suppressed]."

Read More

• NZ First Foundation case: Media lose argument for voters' right to know who accused duo are bef...
• NZ First Foundation: Media companies lodge urgent appeal over name suppression - NZ Herald
• New Zealand First Foundation SFO case: Accused pair to keep names suppressed - NZ Herald
• New Zealand First Foundation scandal: Charged pair alleged to have deposited $740,000 - NZ Hera...
• NZF Foundation spent $130k on company run by Winston Peters' lawyer - NZ Herald

Before the general election the Court of Appeal declined to hear a second appeal from the media companies wishing to name the duo before voters entered the ballot box.

The two accused have not been named after a series of hastily arranged court hearings and interim suppression orders were made after the SFO laid charges on September 23.

The court hearings, which were not listed on court proceeding notices and held in the absence of journalists, included NZ First's failed attempt to stop the charges becoming public until after a government is formed.

NZ First leader and former deputy prime minister Winston Peters has distanced himself from the foundation - reported to have bankrolled the political party - and has denied any wrongdoing after it first came under scrutiny last November.

After charges were laid, Peters claimed he and the party were "exonerated".

At a press conference he was also highly critical of the SFO and its decision to lay charges so close to the election, threatening legal action against the prosecution office.