Two people have been warned by police after they falsely claimed to be present at the Christchurch mosque shootings in order to receive a Victims Support payment of $17,000.

Police said there have been "some concerns" about people trying to "illegitimately" access the $10.7 million Victims Support Christchurch attack fund - which is paying out final lump sums to families of those who lost their lives, or wounded in the March 15 attacks.

In a statement to the Herald, police confirmed that two people had received written police warnings for making a false claim that they were present at the time of the shootings.

"Some individuals thought they may qualify as victims because they were nearby, but were actually witnesses, as outlined in the Victim of Offences Act.


"Once these people were spoken with, most understood the difference."

It is not clear whether the two individuals who were warned by police were simply confused over this distinction, or were making a completely false claim about being present in the Al Noor mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre.

Victim Support's Givealittle page raised more than $2 million in the first two days after the shootings and was closed on May 30, having reached a total of $10.7m from more than 100,000 donors.

There were 51 people killed in the attacks, and a further 49 injured.

Victim Support chief executive Kevin Tso announced plans for the last distribution of donated funds to the victims on Thursday.

While more than $7m has already been paid out in the "emergency phase", over the past month Tso has met more than half of the 291 victims currently on the police list in their homes, in hospital wards, and at nearby venues to hear their views on how the rest should be distributed.

The official police victim list covers immediate family members of the deceased, people who were inside either mosque when the gunman was present and others shot at in a public place.

Tso has also spoken on the phone with victims based overseas, including Pakistan, India and Australia, and also heard views of others who emailed in.


"Victim Support realised after numerous conversations in the community that there was no single leadership group who could speak on behalf of all the victims," Tso said.

"Initially, our priority was to get donated funds to those as it was needed. Once the police list was available, we could use this data and its categorisation to make a range of lump sum payments.

"As we approached the last phase of payments, we knew that there would be vastly different views among victims about how these remaining funds should be prioritised. This became more evident as 14 different distribution approaches were suggested by the victims. These ranged from evenly distributing the funds across all victims, to only supporting the bereaved and injured."

Key themes emerged from victims on how the final payments should be made.

They included:

Ratio-based: While distribution preferences were varied and sometimes none were expressed, the most common preferences were for ratio-based distributions (increasing amounts distributed across escalating categories).

Prioritise the bereaved and severely injured: There is deep concern that those bereaved and the severely injured be adequately supported.

Take account of mental trauma: Those suffering mental trauma expressed their need to be included in the distribution.