psyc

NZTR condones Fraud

12 posts in this topic

How is it a transaction can take place with 5 or 6 zero's with no sales and purchase agreement and NZTR will transfer the ownership????? As a governing body should part of their responsibility be the tracking of sales and ownership of horses and leases??? According to the Rules of Racing they have complete discretion so why do thy not take due diligence to monitor these transactions???  I am not certain but the Fraud Act puts responsibility on governing bodies to identify and monitor exchanges of this type?? In fact I think the Fraud Amendment Act has stated a timeline of 2019?? Correct if I am wrong?

In my opinion as a layman NZTR is remiss in this area. I have spoken with a representative ( a Lawyer) from NZTR who informs me these things have not been looked at or updated since the 1970's. Is that how you run a modern business??? Poor buggers, I guess they will want more money to bring the operation into this century.

If an organisation does not proactively takes measures to meet legal requirements (Fraud Act) then are they condoning poor behaviors of people in the industry??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS Psyc you are becoming quite the resident nutter, either that or you simply cannot read and comprehend.

I remind you of the Shez Sensational case (sp?), when the lessors changed the ownership and some terms of the lease whilst that mare was racing, without the leasees knowledge or consent.

At that time NZTR said no NZTR registered lease was a legal binding document from an ownership perspective.....it was just a registration 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Breeder said:

poundforpound

I was not aware of the case you mention, but just out of interest, does your explanation mean the changes made had no legal standing?

Correct.

Google the case, bear in mind I may have spelt the mares name wrong 

Alan Sharrock and the Mike Tololi interests were the parties involved 

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11158720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, poundforpound said:

FFS Psyc you are becoming quite the resident nutter, either that or you simply cannot read and comprehend.

I remind you of the Shez Sensational case (sp?), when the lessors changed the ownership and some terms of the lease whilst that mare was racing, without the leasees knowledge or consent.

At that time NZTR said no NZTR registered lease was a legal binding document from an ownership perspective.....it was just a registration 

 

What if both parties have not signed the lease? NZTR under their rules have the discretion to decide what ever they want regardless of law regarding contracts. Check the rule book

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Insider said:

I would have thought that if both parties signed the “Change of Ownership Form” that would indicate that both parties were in agreement!

What more do you want?

Be careful what you think or assume. I know a lease that has only the husband signed and not the wife even though they have joint ownership. The lease is in dispute and the NZTR have upheld the lease at their discretion. If you read the rules they are entitled to do this. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Insider said:

I would have thought that if both parties signed the “Change of Ownership Form” that would indicate that both parties were in agreement!

What more do you want?

Correct if both or all parties sign then the ownership is transferred. I am talking about cash transactions designed to avoid tax or conceal fraudulent behaviour. I would like to see a sales and purchase agreement mandatory for ownership details to be transferred. Signed by all stakeholders including agents. Full disclosure so that no one gets ripped off and no tax evasion or fraud occurs. Surely this would be the "aboveboard" approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

psyc...this will not become a court of public opinion...as I said many have given advice on what you should do...please follow their advice thanks a lot..hope it works out for you.

We have all heard your side and thanks for that but there is always two sides and until both are heard I will not allow you to post a one sided argument...sorry it is unfair to the other party concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'We have all heard your side and thanks for that but there is always two sides and until both are heard I will not allow you to post a one sided argument'

 

 

well post the other side of the argument FFS!

What  can an interactive discussion forum be ,other than to entertain different opinion and commentary!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, flockofewes2 said:

'We have all heard your side and thanks for that but there is always two sides and until both are heard I will not allow you to post a one sided argument'

 

 

well post the other side of the argument FFS!

What  can an interactive discussion forum be ,other than to entertain different opinion and commentary!

It’s the prerogative of the trainer involved to go public and give his side of the story, no obligation on Scooby here fella.

The only point of interest in this case is that Psyc has been allowed to air what’s clearly a civil case here, and in doing so taint the reputation of a hard working trainer.

This matter should be decided in Small Claims....end of story.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, flockofewes2 said:

'We have all heard your side and thanks for that but there is always two sides and until both are heard I will not allow you to post a one sided argument'

 

 

well post the other side of the argument FFS!

What  can an interactive discussion forum be ,other than to entertain different opinion and commentary!

No I wont be airing anything...and I wont be letting the guy who wont even front up with his name keep bagging someone without knowing the REAL story...if you have issues with that then I am sorry...but thats the way I see it...He asked for advice was given it by a few posters then proceeded to air his dirty laundry so to speak...this is a discussion forum not a court of public opinion...cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now