He was due to be discharged from bankruptcy in October 2012 but that month the Assignee applied to the High Court for a three-year extension.
During the ensuing public examination in court, Peters gave evidence, including witness statements, which was cross-examined, convincing Associate Judge David Abbott that there were insufficient grounds to extend his bankruptcy.
In a December 2013 decision in the High Court, Associate Judge Abbott said evidence provided by the Assignee "was largely circumstantial and lacked sufficient detail (when examined) to support a finding of conduct which warranted extension to the period of bankruptcy, or to satisfy me that Mr Peters was likely to be a risk to the business community if he was discharged without the court imposing conditions on his discharge."
The Assignee wasn't finished, however, and in March last year brought charges against Peters under the Insolvency Act, including concealing funds, misleading the Assignee, carrying on running a business while bankrupt without the Assignee's consent, and that he had "wilfully concealed" property and assets including an $18,000 diamond ring.
But the evidence Peters had given in the earlier bankruptcy hearings played a crucial role in the District Court judge PA Cunningham's decision to dismiss the charges.
At the time Peters gave the evidence, he wouldn't have known that charges were to be laid and could not claim privilege against self-incrimination and wouldn't have refused to answer questions.
For the Assignee to re-litigate the same allegations as criminal charges would be unfair and contrary to natural justice, the District Court heard.
"I am of the view that Mr Peter's fair trial rights have and will be compromised in any criminal proceeding," Judge Philippa Cunningham said in a reserved decision dated March 24.
"I find it difficult to see how the public interest will be served by the criminal charges proceeding, particularly given the outcome in the High Court proceedings."
Former NBR Rich Lister Peters said in a statement today that it was "the second set of proceedings brought against me by the ministry and the second to fail." He said the ministry has told him it won't be appealing the District Court ruling.
The Office of the Official Assignee itself came in for criticism during the hearings, including that its approach was partisan, had a "mindset" against Peters, and used the criminal charges as a back-up plan to punish him when the hearing to extend his bankruptcy failed.
There was also comment that the Assignee failed to provide material requested by counsel for Peters or to put up the officials involved in the Assignee's report for cross-examination.
Read the court's decision here:
