Delamere faces trial over migrant scheme

Tuariki Delamere

Former Immigration Minister and New Zealand First MP Tuariki Delamere will stand trial over his alleged involvement in a "money-go-round" immigration scheme.

Delamere's defence counsel Paul Dacre conceded yesterday during the final day of depositions at the Auckland District Court that a case existed for a trial to be held.

He said the complicated legal issues in the case were more appropriate to be heard by a judge in a trial.

Neither his client nor his immigration consultancy had done anything unlawful, as alleged by the Serious Fraud Office, Mr Dacre said.

The two JPs remanded Delamere on bail until February 9, when a trial date would be set. Delamere was not formally charged yesterday but is expected to face seven counts of intending to defraud by use of a document for pecuniary advantage and three counts of forgery.

The SFO alleges Delamere recycled the same $1 million contributed by his Chinese business partner to support the residency applications of seven Chinese nationals.

Earlier, the court heard Michael Carley, the Immigration Service's manager of business migration, concede partial blame for declining the residence permit of one of Delamere's clients.

Mr Carley said it did not make "rigorous" assessments of the suitability of the client's investment, although more blame lay with the investment company Golden Harvest (set up by Delamere and his Chinese partner) for its unwillingness to provide the information requested. Mr Carley accepted that Immigration had asked a female client to supply the accounts of Golden Harvest to show an investment had taken place over two years.

He said the client, whose name is suppressed, was granted temporary residency on grounds that she had met the requirements under the business migration category, which requires $1 million to be invested continuously over a two years in an "acceptable" New Zealand company or investment.

Later, her application for an indefinite residence permit was declined. Mr Carley said the Immigration deemed the investment was not acceptable.

Mr Dacre suggested the Immigration Service did not have the power to go back two years and decide investments it had deemed acceptable then were unacceptable two years later. Mr Carley said officials had been following policy.

Mr Carley agreed there was no issue with authenticity of documents indicating a transfer of $1 million into a New Zealand bank account had taken place.

He also agreed that the client had done nothing wrong in the two years leading up to her application for an indefinite residence visa.

When asked on what grounds her application was declined, Mr Carley said that immigration officers had received two documents supporting her application that did not have proper letterheads. Subsequent requests for more information did not satisfy their concerns.

All seven clients had their residence permits revoked on October 5, 2005.