New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Record keeping

Legal area

Court

6 Sept 2021

FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v CLSA PREMIUM NZ LTD [2021] NZHC 2325

Citation

[2021]NZCCLR 16
Court

High Court

Court concluded KVB committed four civil liability acts (failure to conduct/enhanced CDD, failure to terminate when CDD could not be completed, failure to report suspicious activity on nine occasions including very late or missing reports, and failure to keep full records due in part to third-party retention). Starting points adopted were CDD $400,000, termination $50,000, reporting $200,000, records $350,000 (global starting point $1,000,000). A 23% discount was applied for admissions and cooperation. No discount for prior good character was available given prior FMA warning and ineffective…
3 Mar 2020

R v JIAXIN FINANCE LIMITED & ORS [2020] NZHC 366

Citation

[2020] NZHC 366
Court

High Court

Starting points for charges of failing to conduct CDD, failing to keep records and failing to report suspicious transactions were set at a global level equivalent to 60% of the maximum fine for a single charge; Jiaxin fined NZD 2,550,000 (15% reduction from $3,000,000 start), Qiang Fu fined NZD 180,000, Fuqin Che fined NZD 202,000 (including an additional fine for structuring); no custodial sentences imposed because substantial fines alone were adequate to achieve sentencing purposes; alleged foreign convictions were not proved to the required standard and were not used to increase penalty; t…
3 Oct 2019

THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS v JIN YUAN FINANCE LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2510

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2510
Court

High Court

Court found JYFL's breaches were at the higher end of non‑compliance, involving deliberate concealment of multiple undisclosed bank accounts and misleading conduct after DIA engagement and a formal warning; starting points for the discrete breaches totalled $4.1 million, a 15% uplift was applied for misleading conduct and a 15% discount applied for admission (limited cooperation), yielding a final pecuniary penalty of $4,007,750; overlapping penalties for customer due diligence and entering/continuing relationships without identity verification were conflated under s 74.
27 Mar 2019

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THE PHYSIOTHERAPY BOARD v R [2019] NZHC 1516 [2 July 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1516
Court

High Court

On balance of seriousness, mitigation (prior supervision, remedial steps, acceptance of fault, limited experience), and the Act's protective and rehabilitative purpose, the appropriate and proportionate penalty is censure only; no further supervision or training conditions imposed; a modest costs order of NZD 2,500 awarded because the respondent cooperated and faces severe financial hardship making higher contribution disproportionate and counterproductive.
27 Jul 2018

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS v QIAN DUODUO LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1887

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1887
Court

High Court

Court held the appropriate approach was to align the uncapped risk assessment breach with the $2m band used for the most serious specified civil liability acts, then set modest starting points reflecting the admitted conduct, significant mitigating reliance on Starfish and supervisory feedback, absence of actual money laundering, applied totality adjustments under s 74(2), added $25,000 for deliberate misleading/backdating of documents, then reduced the aggregate by 20% for admission and cooperation, resulting in a final pecuniary penalty of NZD 356,000 imposed on Qian DuoDuo Ltd.
28 Sept 2017

Department of Internal Affairs v Ping An Finance (Group) New Zealand Company Limited [2017] NZHC 2363

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2363
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities Ping An committed five civil liability acts under s78 (failure to conduct CDD; failure to adequately monitor; entering/continuing relationships without satisfactory ID; failure to keep records; failure to report suspicious transactions). The reporting obligation in s40 is judged objectively (grounds to suspect that a transaction may be relevant). Given systemic failures, misleading conduct by the director and the statutory factors in s90(4), pecuniary penalties totalling NZD 5,290,000 were appropriate and injunctions restraining Ping An and its director from ca…
10 Aug 2007

PATEL V THE COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE HC AK CIV-2007-404-1818

Citation

openlaw-280c3f34_b76e_4c57_9fff_a9b1d5976021.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the charges demonstrated serious and repeated clinical failings and aggravating conduct (breach of undertakings, misrepresentations), removal from the Register was not necessary because public protection and other disciplinary objectives could be achieved by a substantial suspension (7 months), censure and continuation of strict conditions and supervision given documented remediation, five years without further complaints and supervisory reports indicating compliance and improvement.

New Zealand Case Law

FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v CLSA PREMIUM NZ LTD [2021] NZHC 2325

R v JIAXIN FINANCE LIMITED & ORS [2020] NZHC 366

THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS v JIN YUAN FINANCE LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2510

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THE PHYSIOTHERAPY BOARD v R [2019] NZHC 1516 [2 July 2019]

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS v QIAN DUODUO LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1887

Department of Internal Affairs v Ping An Finance (Group) New Zealand Company Limited [2017] NZHC 2363

PATEL V THE COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE HC AK CIV-2007-404-1818