John Banks – A Tale of Two Cheques

26 May 2015 Frank Macskasy 2 comments

On Radio NZ’s Morning Report, on 20 May, John Banks admitted to Guyon Espiner that he had requested a donation from Kim Dotcom for his mayoral campaign in the 2010 local body elections;

@ 4:42 –

Espiner: “You got five donations of $25,000, all were

recorded as anonymous. How did Kim Dotcom know to

split his donation into two lots of twentyfive thousand

dollars?“

Banks fudged the question and repeated that he had been exonerated under the Electoral Act.

With constant probing and deft dismissal of Banks’ obfuscation, Espiner persisted until he got a truthful response from Banks;

@ 5:56

Espiner: “Did you ask Kim Dotcom for money?”

Banks: “Yes. And that is the evidence. You should have

a look at the evidence.”

So three questions remain;

Why did Kim Dotcom split his $50,000 donation into two lots of $25,000?
Why was Kim Dotcom’s two donations recorded as “anonymous”, when the name “Megastuff” was clearly imprinted on his cheques?
Who were the other three $25,000 anonymous cheques from? Were they all from one donor, splitting his/her $75,000 donation into three lots to avoid requirements to name benefactors?

Plus, there are other matters of Banks “forgetting” that he had met Kim Dotcom; forgetting that he had asked for a donation; forgetting taking a helicopter ride to his Coatesville mansion, etc.

Banks referred several times that the Court of Appeal had vindicated him and his wife;

“I have been completely exonerated.” (@ 2:05)

No such thing has occurred. His case was dismissed on a technicality. The evidence – including any new evidence – was never put before a jury to determine.

I submit to the reader that judicial “vindication” by technicality is no vindication at all.

Banks’ claim to innocence should be regarded as a mere “technicality”, at best.