Quote from: Timelord2067 on March 29, 2021, 11:38:55 PM

Quote from: JollyGood on March 29, 2021, 10:36:36 PM

I thought I replied to this earlier.

Thank you for the links. You put a lot of effort in to your thread highlighting and capturing details about the scam, all readers and victims should have a look at it.

I cannot understand how the New Zealand police decided to not prosecute Dawson and/or Clark. If they were not guilty of orchestrating and conducting the scam and nobody else could be proven then does that mean the Auckland police should call in a neighbouring police force to carry out a review of the whole process and see if they can question potential perpetrators?

From recollection the last time I looked in on their statements (as covered via Stuff.co.nz etc) the NZ Police's investigation is "on going" and they (NZ Police) aren't giving a running commentary on their investigations. IIRC the media said something along the lines of all employees have been questioned as well as board members etc.

This would mean those interviewed would have done so under what we call "under caution" - similar (but not the same as) the U.S.' "right to silence" (which in itself is not the same thing as that countries' Fifth Amendment" - i.e. refusing to answer questions under oath)

I wonder if any of those statements will be ever be made public. I would like to know what Dawson and Clark said at the time of the event.

Below is what I wrote in February 2020 about my opinions:

Quote from: JollyGood on February 14, 2020, 01:02:56 PM

I do not know any of the main protagonists but it did seem clear Intranel were investors that had long term plans to take over the whole company or a majority stake at least and when the company failed there was no need for their Managing Director Dave Sanders to turn up at Court. When Booth took his $400,000 pay off when he was sacked for the disastrous 8 month tenure he effectively severed ties with the company and would not be interested in Court proceedings so would have no reason to attend other than from a moral stand-point where he could have done it.

As for Clark and Dawson they seem to have kept a low profile after calling the liquidators but they did benefit financially overall before the company closed as their properties seem to show. Mrs Clark also seems to have received a pay-off or settlement when she quit but that should not stop any of them attending Court just to see what was going on. Their presence would not mean any innocence or guilt on their part but it would mean they had executed their moral responsibilities towards investors by taking more than a passing interest in what was going on.

I am just not surprised by anybody who once held an authoritative position within the company deciding to not attending Court to see how proceedings were going. It is clear to me it was an inside job. Exactly who did cannot be ascertained but any one person or any permutation of the following could be involved though none have been charged:

Clark
Mrs Clark
Dawson
Mrs Dawson
Booth
Any number of Intranel staff
Any number of Cryptopia staff
Maybe even John Gotts

At one time or another, they all had access to the office where Cryptopia was operated from