Key Takeaways
- Inland Revenue failed to alert the police about the alleged violent kidnapping of a whistleblower who threatened to expose a multimillion-dollar tax fraud scheme in the kiwifruit industry.
- The lack of disclosure from the tax department led to a costly delay in the police investigation, which may have jeopardized the gathering of evidence.
- Poor information-sharing between government agencies has been highlighted as a significant barrier to tackling organized crime in New Zealand.
- The alleged kidnapping victim, an illegal migrant, was told by Inland Revenue that his complaint would be referred to the police, but it was not reported.
- The case has sparked concerns about the need for a national plan to facilitate information-sharing between government agencies and the establishment of a dedicated ministerial portfolio to focus on organized crime.
Introduction to the Case
The Inland Revenue department in New Zealand failed to report an alleged violent kidnapping of a whistleblower who threatened to expose a multimillion-dollar tax fraud scheme in the kiwifruit industry. The whistleblower, an illegal migrant, was recruited as a "money mule" and had over $3 million deposited into his bank account, which he then withdrew as cash on behalf of a group he called "The Syndicate." When he threatened to expose the tax evasion scam, he claimed he was kidnapped, assaulted, and told to keep quiet or he would be killed.
Breakdown in Communication
The lack of disclosure from the tax department meant that detectives only learned about the alleged kidnapping 18 months later when a newspaper started asking questions about the case. This costly delay has hindered the police investigation and disappointed the alleged victim. The case highlights the need for better communication and information-sharing between government agencies, including Inland Revenue, the police, and Immigration New Zealand. A panel of experts advising Cabinet ministers has noted that poor information-sharing is a significant barrier to tackling organized crime in New Zealand.
Inland Revenue’s Response
Inland Revenue declined to explain why the alleged kidnapping was not reported to the police, citing clauses in New Zealand’s tax law that require "all sensitive revenue information" to be kept confidential. The department has a memorandum of understanding with the police that allows information to be proactively shared for the prevention, detection, and investigation of serious crimes. However, this framework is not applied consistently across government agencies, and there appears to be a deeply rooted culture of a risk-averse approach towards proactive sharing of information.
The Alleged Victim’s Story
The alleged victim, who wishes to be identified only by his surname, Singh, entered New Zealand on a student visa that had expired in 2017. He did not report the alleged assault to the police at the time because, as an illegal immigrant, he was scared about being deported or going to prison in New Zealand for money laundering. Singh eventually approached Inland Revenue and was interviewed about the tax scam, and he also told them about the kidnapping. He was reassured that his complaint would be referred to the police, but it was not reported.
Implications and Recommendations
The case has sparked concerns about the need for a national plan to facilitate information-sharing between government agencies and the establishment of a dedicated ministerial portfolio to focus on organized crime. The expert panel has recommended that information-sharing benchmarks be set as performance measures for the chief executives of government departments, and that a "data lake" be established to make data easy to search. The panel has also suggested that a proposed government minister with a dedicated focus on organized crime should be established to push new laws and policy development, hold agencies to account, and lead public awareness campaigns.
The Alleged Victim’s Current Situation
Singh fears being deported back to India and is waiting to hear whether the police will charge anyone for kidnapping him. He has made several visa applications, which have been refused, and is planning to make another application to the associate Immigration Minister, Chris Penk. Penk has confirmed that a visa applicant giving evidence as a prosecution witness could be a relevant factor in considering their application. However, Singh’s situation remains uncertain, and he is frightened about what might happen to him if he is deported back to India.
Conclusion
The case highlights the need for better communication and information-sharing between government agencies to tackle organized crime in New Zealand. The lack of disclosure from Inland Revenue has led to a costly delay in the police investigation, which may have jeopardized the gathering of evidence. The alleged victim’s story is a testament to the need for a national plan to facilitate information-sharing and the establishment of a dedicated ministerial portfolio to focus on organized crime. The government must take action to address these concerns and ensure that whistleblowers like Singh are protected and supported in their efforts to expose organized crime.