Search results

This case concerned an attempt by predators based in New Zealand, Malaysia and Hong Kong to gain control of, and strip assets and cash from, a publicly listed New Zealand company (ENC). The predators included a New Zealand businessman, a Malaysian stockbroking firm and two gentlemen referred to throughout the case as ‘Koo’ and ‘Ng’. Koo and Ng were employed by the appellant company, Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd (Meridian) and were, respectively, its chief investment officer and a senior portfolio manager. The appellant company was a Hong Kong investment management company with an Australian parent company, and although Koo was at the relevant time under the appellant's managing director in the corporate hierarchy of Meridian, in practice the evidence showed that he was given a very free rein in the conduct of the business of the company. The group of predators intended ultimately to finance their purchase of a controlling interest in ENC by using its own assets but interim finance was needed in order to buy the shares which would give them control of ENC's monies and assets. This was provided by Koo and Ng out of funds managed by Meridian as they improperly used their authority to act on behalf of Meridian and bought and re‐sold shares in various Asian companies (using the Malaysian stockbrokers who were also involved in this asset‐stripping raid on ENC). However, the plan went awry at the final stage when independent directors of ENC frustrated the predators' use of ENC's funds to repay Meridian. The result was that Meridian's Australian parent had to make good the losses suffered by the managed funds' beneficial owners.

Budget Rent A Car Ltd (Budget) borrowed money from a consortium of financiers and bankers. The advance was secured by a debenture trust deed dated 5th May, 1987, entered into between Budget, Budget Lease Management (Car Sales) Ltd and the Appellant, New Zealand Guardian Trust Co Ltd (the Trust Company). The holders of the debenture were the lenders involved in the consortium. The total sum advanced was £17.25m.

This appeal to the Privy Council from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica concerned the lawfulness of action taken by the Minister of Finance on 10th July, 1996 under statutory powers to assume temporary management of three financial institutions, and the remedies available to aggrieved parties in the event that such action were indeed unlawful. Three financial institutions were concerned (1) Century National Bank Limited, a bank licensed under the Banking Act 1987; (2) Century National Merchant Bank and Trust Company Limited, a merchant bank licensed under the Financial Institutions Act; (3) Century National Building Society, a building society licensed under the Building Societies Act 1986.

This appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC), which is still the highest court of appeal for certain Commonwealth jurisdictions, concerned conduct associated with the Equiticorp group of companies. Equiticorp Holdings Ltd (EHL), the holding company in the group, was formed in March 1984 and went public in June 1984. Its accounts, as at 31st March, 1987, showed total assets of $2.167bn and a group net profit after tax of $104.9m. On 22nd January, 1989, the whole group was placed into statutory receivership and the shares in EHL became worthless. The chairman of the Board of EHL and managing director, a Mr Hawkins, along with companies associated with him, controlled 40 per cent of EHL shares throughout the whole saga.

In the common law of the United ¹Kingdom the objective of any award of damages in personal injuries litigation is to achieve as nearly as possible full compensation for the claimant in respect of the injury sustained.² To achieve that objective the court seeks to award such sum as is notionally required to be laid out in the purchase of an annuity which will provide an annual amount equivalent to the loss for the whole period of the loss.³ The basis of the calculation is an assumed annuity. The court makes an assumption about how the award will be invested.⁴ Lord Fraser of Tullybelton in Cookson v. Knowles ⁵ put it thus:The assumed annuity will be made up partly of income on the principal sum awarded, and partly of capital obtained by gradual encroachment of the principal. The income element will be at its largest at the beginning of the period and will tend to decline, while the capital element will tend to increase until the principal is exhausted.The court is not, in fact, concerned with how the award will be spent:How the Plaintiffs will in fact invest their damages is, of course, irrelevant. That is a question for them. It cannot affect the calculation.⁶

The purpose of this paper is to give a better insight to the legal society, practitioners and legislators of the working mechanisms of money laundering activities, as well as the functionalities of the Anti‐Money Laundering and Anti‐terrorism Financing Act 2003 (AMLATFA) in Malaysia, in curbing money laundering and terrorism funding activities. At the same time, the paper provides an overview on the applicability and practicability of the enforcement mechanisms in Malaysia by exploring legislations from different jurisdictions that are more developed.

The paper achieves this by having a cross‐sectional analysis onto the legislation in Malaysia such as AMLATFA and also similar legislations found in countries such as the UK. A complete insight is further gained by having interviews with experts in the judiciary, Bank Negara, as well as the experts from the Attorney General's Chamber in Malaysia regarding their insight into the subject matter. Last but not least, the authors also surveyed into the different points of view from journal articles in Malaysia and globally.

Malaysia has a legal framework for curbing money laundering but the current AMLATFA provisions are considered to have failed to be effectively enforced. A more comprehensive, specific and well elaborated legal framework will have to be laid down in order to create a better platform for the prosecutors to bring a good case against these money launderers.

This paper will give a deeper insight to the legal society of the capability of AMLATFA and the lack of it, in curbing money laundering in Malaysia and, at the same time, creating awareness among policy makers of the difficulties faced by the enforcement bureaus in prosecuting these money launderers due to the lacunas in the current law.

This paper could be useful source of information for practitioners, academics, policymakers and students and a guide for any possible future amendments to the current insufficiency.

The defendant was a Director and Deputy Chairman of Equiticorp Holdings Ltd, a company based in New Zealand. As part of the company's ‘investment team’, he was asked by the Chairman, Allan Robert Hawkins, to set up a series of companies, an overseas structure, through which transactions could be conducted and the source of those transactions be concealed. This was referred to as the Yeoman Loop. In a series of five transactions it was alleged the defendant and the five other members of the investment team used this Loop to disguise or conceal from the company transactions whereby money was passed through it being converted in most cases into different currencies and finally, in all but one occasion being paid out to the investment team themselves through the company's solicitors. One of those transactions related to shares in Keady Ltd belonging to EIHK, a subsidiary of EHL, which were, after passing through the Loop, transferred to the conspirators and in part sold back to EHL. The trading of those shares was commented upon at a Board meeting of EHL in February 1987 and, although present, no member of the investment team made comment on their dealings. When in May 1987 the auditors asked for confirmation that the independent directors had approved the sale of shares in Keady Ltd to the investment team, the defendant, at Hawkins' request, drafted a minute of a non‐existent meeting wherein two independent directors approved the allocation of shares.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the legal liability of local authorities in New Zealand for the issue of building consents and inspection, in respect of domestic homes where the property proves to be faulty. A local authority may be liable for economic loss. The duty of care extends to the owners of multi‐unit dwellings, but not commercial buildings. A ten year longstop for claims from council approvals applies. Problems with leaky homes have given rise to a substantial number of claims. A government response has been to provide a mediation service, and to assume liability for a percentage of repair costs.

The history of liability of local authorities for negligence in respect of building approvals is assessed, through examination of the statute law and the common law principles.

The findings of liability of local authorities in New Zealand is compared to the legal position in the UK. Conclusions are drawn as to legal and practical outcomes.

Changes under the law have occurred within the last year and the study is original in assessing the legal position and future outcomes. The liability for leaky homes is a major issue in the country.