Home > Uncategorized > National Provident Fund Final Report [Part 5]

National Provident Fund Final Report [Part 5]

Today we continue the re-publication of the serialized edited version of the National Provident Fund Commission of Inquiry Final Report that first appeared in the Post Courier newspaper in 2002.

NPF Final Report

This is the fifth extract from the National Provident Fund (now known as NASFUND) Commission of Inquiry report. The inquiry was conducted by retired justice Tos Barnett and investigated widespread misuse of member funds. The report recommended action be taken against several high-profile leaders, including former NPF chairman Jimmy Maladina. The report was tabled in Parliament on November 20 by Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare.

Term of Reference 1(g)

“All investment transactions including those relating to Highlands Pacific Limited, Itemus Inc. (formerly Vengold Inc.), Lihir Gold Limited, Cue Energy Resources N.L., Macmin N.L., Steamships Trading Company Limited and Collins & Leahy Limited and the failure to inform the full Board of Trustees of the transaction”

Each of these investment is reported upon in a separate schedule to this report, each of which has its own executive summary.

The major loss making investments of STC and CXL, HPL and Vengold are briefly covered also in this report at paragraph 11 above, as are the smaller investments in Macmin and Cue. As pointed out repeatedly in the schedules, the failure by management to inform the full Board of Trustees of the transactions was endemic. This is illustrated by the tables in the schedules.

Term of Reference 1(h)

“The decision to finance the Poreporena Freeway, and the role of any trustee or officer or employee of the fund or of any other person or entity in reaching this decision”

Creation of intermediary company Curtain Burns Peak

The full report on the loans provided by NPF to finance the construction of the Poreporena Freeway is set out in Schedule 7B. The executive summary is quite comprehensive and refers to relevant paragraphs in the schedule.

It describes how the State initially intended to borrow the necessary funds offshore but faced opposition from the World Bank.

To overcome this opposition, it decided to set up a company to be jointly owned by the State and the construction company (Curtain Bros Papua New Guinea) to be called Curtain Burns Peak Pty Ltd, which would then borrow the funds and finance the construction work, with the State providing a guarantee to the lender.

The State sought loans from DFRBF, POSF and NPF. It was a difficult situation for the State, which had recently failed in a lawsuit with Curtain Bros.

The other superannuation funds refused to be involved because their lawyers pointed to possible constitutional problems with the way the State proposed to fund the construction by off-budget, non-appropriated payments through Curtain Burns Peak Pty Ltd as an intermediary.

Blake Dawson Waldron had advised POSF and DFRBF that this method of funding, with a guarantee being given by the State, violated Section 209(1) of the Constitution.

State applies pressure despite conflict of Interest

The Minister for Finance Mr [Chris] Haiveta, the Secretary of DoF Gerea Aopi, and the First Secretary of DoF’s Commercial Investments Division Vele Iamo were all actively seeking funds to commence the troubled venture and NPF effectively became the banker of last resort.

Mr Aopi and Mr Iamo were also chairman and Public Service representative trustee of NPF respectively, so their conflict of interest was acute. 

The first loan agreement for K3 million was worked out in discussions between Mr Aopi and NPF managing director Robert Kaul.

From then on, it was clear that the State was pushing hard for NPF to provide further funding. The next K10 million loan was approved by Minister Haiveta even before the NPF board had resolved to seek it.

This was a large commitment for NPF, which rose eventually to a loan of K62 million. There were real doubts about the constitutional validity of the loan and whether the way the loan was structured could eventually be disadvantageous to NPF, as there was a mismatch between the terms of the loan agreement between the NPF and the lender bank (ANZ) and the terms on which NPF on-lent to Curtain Burns Peak.

The NPF board was divided whether to provide the loan or not.

Contrary Legal opinion withheld from NPF Board

The Blake Dawson Waldron opinion was provided to NPF management and it then sought and obtained a contrary legal opinion from John Batch on November 7. Although Mr Batch felt the loan was not unconstitutional, he pointed out that if the court decided otherwise, the loan would not be repayable to NPF nor would the State guarantee be enforceable in favour of NPF.

When the NPF board deliberated on the matter, management did not advise it of the very worrying Blake Dawson Waldron opinion. Nor was any expert investment advice given to, or sought by the NPF board.

Mr Aopi and Mr Iamo played an active part in the NPF board’s deliberations, without disclosing the conflicting double role they were playing. The employee representatives, Mr Paska, Mr Gwaibo and Mr Leonard, voted against providing the loan. Had Mr Aopi and Mr Iamo refrained from voting because of their conflict of interest, as they should have, the resolution may not have been carried.

The key players in initiating this loan were Mr Aopi and Mr Iamo, both of whom were in breach of their fiduciary duties to NPF members by taking part in the vote and by not disclosing their conflict of interest. Another key player was managing director Robert Kaul who must have witnessed that conflict of interest in action yet failed to seek independent investment advice for the Board of Trustees. Noel Wright also failed to advise the NPF that there was senior legal opinion that the loan would be unconstitutional and that NPF risked losing the amount of the loan and the interest owing.

Advantages and disadvantages of the investment

As reported in Schedule 7B, successive loans raised the amount to K62 million and it seriously distorted NPF’s investment portfolio by creating an over exposure to the State. When economic conditions turned against NPF, it proved difficult to “sell” the loan as the State guarantee was not transferable. As the “mismatch” problem did eventuate, making the loan no longer favourable to NPF, it was eventually transferred to the Bank of Hawaii, at a discounted profit. Later again, the Bank of Hawaii transaction had to be unravelled.

In fairness to those who supported these loans to the State, it needs to be said that they genuinely believed that NPF was getting a good deal. In fact, these Freeway loans turned out to be far more profitable than most of NPF’s investments.

All these matters are fully reported in Schedule 7B and its Executive Summary.

Term of Reference 1(i)

“Whether there was any manipulation or attempted manipulation of the fund’s financial results or its financial position and whether any such transaction benefited any trustee, officer or employee of the fund or any other person or entity”

The two main instances of manipulating the funds financial results have been discussed above under term of reference 1(c) namely the:-

  • Bank of Hawaii transaction when the K18.5 million profit was all brought to book in 1997, thereby contributing to the payment of a bonus to senior management (Schedule 1 Appendix 20 paragraph 20.7.2.1) and; The K10 million “reserve” provision where, by using incorrect accounting, K10 million of the 1996 large profit was taken out of the 1996 accounts (when maximum bonus was already payable) and brought to account in the less profitable 1997 accounting year which boosted the book value of the 1987 end of profit. This enabled the payment of a bonus of K52,941 for senior management which would not otherwise have been payable.

This contributed to an increase in senior staff bonus payments (Schedule 1 Appendix 20 for a detailed discussion of problems associated with the bonus scheme. The K10 million reserve is reported at paragraph 20.6.4(d)(vi) and findings at paragraph 20.7.2).

Term of Reference 1(j)

“The construction, contract negotiations and renegotiations of the Tower building and the role of any trustee or officer or employee of the fund or of any other person or entity”

deloitte-tower

The commission’s investigations into the NPF Tower were greatly facilitated by an excellent report provided by the DoF Finance inspectors who had previously investigated many matters connected with the construction of the Tower.

They pointed the way for this commission to follow, using its greater powers of investigation. Schedule 2B and 6 contain different topics of the report on the Tower.

Schedule 2B – NPF Tower Financing and Construction

Schedule 2B reports on the decision to construct the NPF Tower, the construction contracts and the PNGBC loan facility which financed its construction. The decision to borrow K50 million for this purpose was taken by the NPF board on a very poor briefing by management, which failed to explore the commercial viability of the large project.

NPF went into this project with no expert advice about the demand for office space in Port Moresby, no pre-agreed “signed-up” tenants and no expert advice about the dangers inherent in the terms of the loan agreement.

The PNGBC entered the agreement without carrying out adequate due diligence into those matters and above all, without assuring itself that NPF had the power to borrow funds for this purpose.

It was initially intended that PNGBC would lend funds to the Tower Ltd, a company incorporated by NPF to build and own the Tower building. At the last moment, however, the loan agreement was signed with the NPF itself and this invalidated the agreement because NPF had no power to borrow.

Schedule 2B reports upon management’s poor performance in reporting to the board on the administration of the loan and in particular its failure to obtain board approval for increases in the loan facility, which eventually expanded to more than K59 million. The schedule introduces six (6) suspicious matters, which the Finance inspectors thought required special investigations. The commission’s investigation into those matters is reported at Schedule 6.

The executive summary provides a detailed summary of the main themes and paragraph references to Schedule 2B.

Schedule 6 – NPF Tower Investigations

Schedule 6 reports upon the six matters, which the Finance inspectors had reported required specific investigation, as follows:-

In-ground works variation costs of K3,006,270.26

These costs were incurred on top of the agreed construction cost because of engineering problems in the foundations caused by the difficult soil substrata on the building site.

The commission concluded that the costs were genuine and recommended no further action.

Builders and other works variations

The commission accepted the professional opinion of Rider Hunt and Pacific Architects Consortium (PAC) and found that the variation costs were genuine and recommended no further action.

The first acceleration fee – K1.4 million

This fee of K1.4 million was paid in order to speed up the work in order to recover time lost because of the in-ground work delays.

Though there is reason to doubt whether NPF gained much benefit from this expenditure, the commission is satisfied that the decision to seek the acceleration was genuinely made and that the acceleration costs agreed upon were within reasonable bounds.

Professional fees

The commission investigated to see whether NPF had been overcharged pursuant to the consultancy agreement for professional fees. It found that there is ambiguity in the terminology used in the 23-page consultancy agreement and its appendices on the one hand and the wording in an appendix to a letter dated August 23, 1994, which is referred to in the consultancy agreement. The ambiguity has caused a difference of opinion about whether or not NPF has been overcharged for professional services.

The commission finds that it is a genuine dispute, common to such projects, which may need to be resolved through court processes.

A Kina fluctuation claim

A second acceleration claim

The contract was a fixed cost agreement with no provision to vary it because of fluctuations in the value of the kina.

The kina did, however, undergo significant devaluation, which seriously eroded the builders profit margin.

NPF’s consulting engineers, Rider Hunt, and PAC, advised NPF that it would be advisable to pay Kumagai an appropriate amount to compensate for the kina devaluation as otherwise it could mean cessation of work on the project.

Negotiations occurred which made it clear that an increase in the contract price to K51.5 million would satisfy Kumagai.

At that stage, however, Mr [Jimmy] Maladina and Mr [Herman] Leahy removed PAC from the negotiations, and discussions continued between them and Kumagai direct. At this stage also a spurious second acceleration claim was introduced.

After hearing evidence from the senior managers of Kumagai and PAC and after thoroughly studying the relevant correspondence and documentation, the commission found that Mr Leahy deliberately misled the (newly appointed) NPF board members to agree to a settlement price between K53 million and K55 million to settle both the kina devaluation and the second acceleration claim; when K51.5 million was on record as being Kumagai’s agreed settlement price.

The result was that an extra K2.5 million of NPF’s funds was paid to Kumagai. This had previously been agreed by Kumagai management at the insistence of Mr Maladina just prior to his appointment to the NPF Board of Trustees.

He had threatened to deny Kumagai the currency depreciation payment (after his expected appointment) unless they co-operated. The agreement between Mr Maladina and Mr Leahy with Kumagai managers was that Kumagai would return the extra K2.5 million of NPF funds to Mr Maladina plus an extra K150,000 of Kumagai’s own money as Mr Maladina’s personal “commission”.

An elaborate scheme was put in place, including the fabrication of false documents, so that Kumagai’s return payments to Mr Maladina could be laundered through the personal account of Ken Yapane and the account of his company Ken Yapane and Associates.

The pretext for these payments was to be a spurious sub-contract between Kumagai and Ken Yapane and Associates whereby Mr Yapane would pretend to provide extra labour and to do fictitious on-site work.

Kumagai duly received the “padded” K2.5 million as settlement of its kina devaluation/second acceleration claim and in return, made six progress payments for Mr Maladina’s benefit.

The first four payments were to Mr Yapane or his firm. The last two payments went directly to Mr Maladina’s law firm Carter Newell (After Mr Yapane refused to allow his bank account to be used to launder these payments).

The “cover-up”

After the Commission of Inquiry was established in April 2000, there was an attempt to “cover-up” what had occurred by fabricating false documents and correspondence between Kumagai and Ken Yapane and concealing Mr Maladina’s involvement.

Ms [Barbara] Perks and David Lightfoot of Carter Newell were involved in providing false documents to the commission and they have been referred to the Commissioner of Police to investigate whether their involvement was criminal.

Mr Lightfoot has also been referred to the PNG Law Society.

Mr Yapane initially gave false evidence to the commission in support of these false arrangements. When confronted with the consequences of his statements, and after receiving good legal advice, Mr Yapane changed his testimony and disclosed what had really happened.

The commission has recommended that he be referred to the Commissioner for Police to investigate his part in the fraud committed against the NPF.

The money trail

The commission embarked upon an intensely detailed exercise to trace the money paid by Kumagai’s six progress “payments”, totalling K2,649,999.70 to the ultimate recipients.

The tracing is described in paragraphs 7.1 to 7.6.2 in Schedule 6 and is also depicted diagrammatically by charts, which are attached to both Schedule 6 and its executive summary.

In essence, the commission has found that the money was “laundered” through the books of account of Carter Newell Lawyers and PMFNRE.

The investigations showed that PMFNRE is actually beneficially owned by Peter O’Neill and that he and Mr Maladina obtained substantial benefits from the proceeds of the NPF Tower frauds, either personally or through their companies and families.

Other beneficiaries of the NPF Tower fraud money can be ascertained by following the money trail on the NPF Tower charts, which are attached to Schedule 6 and its executive summary.

Term of Reference 1(k)

“The Waigani land proposal, and the role of any trustee or officer or employee of the fund or of any other person or entity taking account of the Department of Finance and Treasury inspectors’ recent investigation report”

By Term of Reference 1(k), the commission was specifically directed to investigate the attempted sale of land at Allotment 2 Section 429 Hohola, referred to here as the Waigani Land.

It was a long and difficult investigation, which was made more difficult by the “cover-up” activities of the parties involved and lawyers acting on their behalf.

Allocation of Waigani Land lease to Waim No.92 Pty Ltd

At Schedule 5, the commission reports how Mr Maladina before and during the time he was chairman of NPF, was the secret owner of Waim No.92 Pty Ltd the shares of which he initially owned through his wife Janet Karl, and an accountant Phillip Eludeme.

Ms Karl’s share was later transferred to Phillip Mamando who resided at the Mr Maladina’s residence.

Mr Maladina was responsible for bribing Land Board chairman Ralph Guise and Lands Minister Viviso Seravo, to ensure Waim No.92 was granted the lease of the Waigani Land on very favourable terms.

Part of the bribe was the performance by Mr Eludeme of free professional services for Mr Seravo prior to the allocation of the lease in order to obtain the Minister’s support.

Inflated land valuations and valuation fees

Mr Maladina then organised two inflated valuations of the land from valuers Mariano Lakae and Iori Veraga.

He arranged for NPF to pay the valuers a “double fee” which he then shared with them.

Mr Maladina’s secret commission on the valuation fees, amounting to K60,000, was paid into the account of Carter Newell and subsequently paid for his own benefit and to pay off Mr Guise and Mr Seravo and for the benefit of Herman Leahy, his co-conspirator.

At approximately the same time, Mr Maladina was also using the same two valuers to obtain inflated valuations of the NPF Tower as part of a scheme to sell off 50 per cent of the Tower (Schedule 6). He organised for NPF to pay them double fees for the Tower valuations and took half of it for himself, amounting to K175,000.00.

Mr Maladina’s was laundered through the accounts of Carter Newell and PMFNRE.

The Tower valuation fees are reported in Schedule 5, along with the Waigani Land valuation fees.

Continued tomorrow

Advertisements
  1. Samuel Kuri
    August 11, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    The white coller crime at its best when the technology and laws were’nt strong.unbelievable findings.

  1. May 9, 2016 at 9:03 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: