Posts Tagged ‘Bank of PNG’

National Provident Fund Final Report [Part 2]

August 6, 2015 1 comment

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.

This is the second 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 chairman Jimmy Maladina. The report was tabled in Parliament on November 20 by Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare.

Sale of the Waigani Land and tracing the proceeds

The commission investigated the subsequent sale of the Waigani land to a Rimbunan Hijau subsidiary company by sale of shares in Waigani City Centre Ltd (formerly Waim No.92) and reported upon further corrupt procedures and crimes in the Lands Ministry and the Lands Board involving Dr [Fabian] Pok, Mr [Ralph] Guise and Mr [Jimmy] Maladina, for which all have been recommended for referral to the Police and the Ombudsman Commission (See Schedule 5, paragraph 31.4 and the list of referrals below at paragraph 15.6).

The commission also traced the way the moneys obtained by the NPF Tower fraud were “laundered” through the books of Carter Newell and PMFNRE. This showed up the involvement of Peter O’Neill as one of those who benefitted from the Waigani Land and NPF Tower frauds.

The investments that caused the greatest losses and those which illustrate outstanding examples of corporate maladministration will be examined briefly below in paragraph 10.


Commissioner Manoa’s conflict of interest

From the mid 1990s to 2000, Commissioner Manoa was a member of the Board of ANZ. He declared this to the commission at a public hearing on August 9, 2000 (Transcript p.1352) and thereafter took no part in hearing or deliberations involving the ANZ.

Features of the borrowings

Each of the main borrowings (from PNGBC, ANZ and BSP) is reported upon in the Schedules in category 2. The features common to all the borrowings include:-

(a) The banks failed to perform adequate due diligence and so entered into loan facility agreements without ascertaining that NPF lacked the power to borrow or to pledge its assets (Schedules 2A, 2B and 2C). ANZ eventually obtained this advice from Allens Arthur Robinson on May 26, 1999, (Schedule 2E paragraph 19.6 – Appendix 6).

Being ultra vires the NPF Act, the loans were invalid and it is doubtful whether interest was payable. As a result of the loans, which were advanced for specified purposes agreed between the banks and the NPF, money was spent on those purposes, interest payments were made and, during 1999, the NPF was obliged to sell off shares and other assets at a massive loss in order to repay the banks. This applied particularly to the ANZ, which obliged NPF to transfer share scrip as securities and to embark upon the big asset selldown.

It is possible that ANZ would be vulnerable to a suit brought by or on behalf of the NPF members directly for losses suffered by way of interest and bank charges and possibly for losses incurred as a result of ANZ’s pressure on NPF to sell off its assets at a loss (Schedule 2E see discussions at paragraph 11.2 and the criticisms of ANZ in paragraph 17).

The NPF Trustees were also in breach of their fiduciary duty to the members by entering the loan agreements with the various banks without obtaining independent expert advice about NPF’s power to borrow. They also could be liable to the members for losses suffered by their breach of duty (unless they can establish that they acted in good faith). If such an action was brought by the members as a class action against the NPF board, the bank could perhaps be joined as a third party (Executive Summary 2E, paragraphs 10.5, 13).

(b) On many occasions, management failed its duty to fully inform the board and seek approval before entering the loan facility agreements and before making drawdowns (Schedule 2A, paragraph 8.4,

Schedule 2E, paragraph 5.10 and paragraph 5.21 and 6.2). For instance, the PNGBC overdraft, which had risen to K6.77 million by 1998, had been in existence for several years before management made even partial disclosure of its existence to the board. In fact, its existence had been hidden in the NPF books of account by incorrect accounting procedures (Schedule 2A, paragraphs 4.1.9 & 4.3).

(c) There were several instances when loans were agreed or drawdowns were approved by the bank concerned without required ministerial approval (Schedule 2A, paragraph 9.3 and Schedule 2E, paragraph 5.15).

(d) NPF management rarely kept the board informed about the state of the loan accounts (Schedule 2E, paragraph 5.10 failure to advise board of additional K20 million facility obtained from ANZ; Executive Summary, paragraph 8.5.1). It was normal, for instance, that ANZ managers had far more knowledge of NPF management’s plans and strategies for using the drawdowns than had been disclosed to the NPF Board.

(e) Mr [Noel] Wright frequently pledged large parcels of share scrip to banks as security without consulting or advising the NPF board (Executive Summary 2E, paragraph 8.5.1(d)).

(f) The DoF was rarely consulted by NPF or the Minister and provided minimal input (Executive Summary 2E, paragraph 8.7.1).

(g) The ANZ’s review of the loan facilities extended to NPF were often superficial, without considering obvious risk factors (Executive Summary 2E, paragraph 8.10).


Management fails to advise NPF Board about negative expert advice

In October 1997, Mr [David] Copland and Mr Wright supported by then chairman Gerea Aopi, proposed issuing an $A54 million bond. If this happened, it would be the first such bond issue in PNG and NPF management lacked the necessary skills. It was also commercially impractical.

Expert advice from Consultant Jacob Weiss, BPNG and the ANZ opposed the idea, believing NPF could lose heavily if the kina depreciated in value. Mr Copland and Mr Wright persevered, however, and gained the NPF board’s immediate approval of the idea on a simplistic board submission, without disclosing the cautionary advice from the experts. The board accepted the idea enthusiastically, without insisting on expert opinion.

The dubious Canadian Jai Ryan (associated with Ambusa Sawmill) introduced an even more dubious Canadian Rudi Cooper, of Warrington International, a company registered in the tax haven of Antigua. Warrington became the proposed purchaser of the bond.

Every inquiry and every step taken raised further suspicion about Warrington, which was pointed out by NPF’s international lawyer, Clifford Chance. However, Mr Copland and Mr Wright kept up the pressure to proceed with the bond.

Governor of the BPNG intervenes under pressure

For a while the BPNG delayed the scheme when its Foreign Exchange Controller Benny Popoitai withheld essential approvals. This blockage was removed when Mr Copland, using his influence as a former director on the BPNG board, approached the Governor of the BPNG Mr Tarata directly and applied pressure. Mr Popoitai was then overruled by the Governor, who signed the approval papers himself (Schedule 2F, paragraphs 14.15, 13.1 and 13.2). Similar pressure was later brought successfully on Mr Tarata’s successor as Governor, John Vulupindi, when NPF was seeking an extension of the approval given by Mr Tarata (Schedule 2F, paragraph 14.15).

Mr Wright acts without authority

Negotiations to complete the agreement with Warrington proceeded for many months. During this process, Mr Wright frequently exceeded his authority in his desperate endeavours to complete the deal (He needed the money to pay outstanding interest on NPF’s debts and to provide more securities for the banks). Mr Wright’s unauthorised actions included-

  • Approaching Nara Investments (Mr Ryan) and granting a 5 per cent commission (Schedule 2F, paragraph 6.1);
  • Paying Mr Ryan an unauthorised advance of $US15,000 (Schedule 2F, paragraph 6.3);
  • Assuring Warrington that its profits would be tax free and giving a guarantee that NPF would itself meet any tax liability imposed on Warrington
  • Offering NPF share scrip worth $A77 million as security for the bond (Schedule 2F, paragraph 11.3) and transferring share scrip without authority (Schedule 2F, paragraph 14.3 & 14.8).

Advised by Clifford Chance, NPF’s lawyers held out against Warrington’s pressure by insisting that an appropriate security guarantor must be found.

Brown Bai leads NPF to terminate negotiations

When Warrington notified NPF it intended to assign NPF’s securities to a shady entity known as the RH Foundation of Anacirema, Mr Leahy and Mr Fabila confronted Mr Wright and Mr Copland in an endeavour to have NPF withdraw from the negotiations. Eventually, on the eve of the signing of the agreement, Mr Bai, who had recently become chairman of NPF, guided the NPF board to terminate the agreement with Warrington at the 115th NPF board meeting on November 6, 1998.

It had, however, been a wild and giddy ride and Mr Wright and Mr Copland almost succeeded in exposing NPF to a dubious international organisation, which may well have been involved in illegal activities and money laundering.

Had the bond been issued, there seems no way that NPF could have met the $A54 million bond plus 14.67 per cent interest in nine years time. This would have endangered NPF assets.

Mr Wright, Mr Copland and Mr Leahy and all NPF Trustees at the time were in serious breach of fiduciary duty to the members of the Fund (See comments and findings Schedule 2F, paragraph 16 titled concluding comments and paragraph 17 which discusses the roles and responsibility of the major participants).

Fortunately, it did not succeed but in the process it showed the BPNG can be moved by insistent lobbying. The attempt to issue the bond cost the NPF K244,762 in legal fees and a great deal of management time and effort.

The commission has found that Mr Wright was guilty of improper conduct by making false representation and by exceeding his authority on many occasions. There were numerous serious breaches of fiduciary duty by the trustees and by Mr Leahy, who failed to advise the trustees that NPF had no power to borrow or issue a bond and by Mr Wright for not passing on Gadens lawyers advice that NPF lacked the power to borrow.


Occasions arose throughout the period under review when the NPF was called upon to provide money to the State to fund infrastructure projects and to meet other requirements or obligations of the State. Occurrences of this nature which the commission was asked to investigate were the:

  • Loans to fund the Poreporena Freeway (Schedule 7B)
  • NCD Water and Sewerage loan (Schedule 7C)
  • K17 million Southern Highlands 4 Roads Project (Schedule 7D) and
  • Niugini Insurance Corporation K2 million loan (Schedule 7A).

There was also a loan component associated with the transfer of former POSF members to NPF upon the corporatisation of Air Niugini, PostPNG Ltd and Telikom PNG Ltd. This was because the State was unable to fund its obligation to pay its unpaid employer’s contributions and, in effect, NPF “loaned” back the K24.4 million due to NPF at a commercial rate of interest (Schedule 8).

In each of these loan to the State projects, there were common features:

(a) The Government’s need was great and considerable political pressure was therefore applied to NPF to provide the funds.

(b) NPF had to borrow the funds from the commercial banks at a commercial rate of interest in order to be able to on-lend to the State.

(c) There were serious conflicts of interest when senior DoF officials made recommendations to the Minister advising the Minister to approve loans from NPF to the State. Both the Minister and the public servants had duties to consider the interest of the State as well as to the NPF.

The conflicts of interest were particularly acute for the Secretary of DoF, who was also the chairman or nominator of the chairman of NPF as well as being responsible for administering the finances of the State. Vele Iamo as Deputy Secretary for DoF and a very long time Trustee of the NPF had a similar conflict.

(d) The loan arrangements and even the ministerial approvals were often put in place between DoF officers and NPF management prior to consultations with the NPF board.

(e) NPF management failed to keep the NPF board properly informed and to always obtain board approval.

(f) NPF management and trustees failed to seek independent expert advice outside of DoF (which in these situations was biased in favour of the State and unable to give truly independent advice to NPF).

(g) There was a mismatch between the arrangements between NPF and the lending banks on the one hand, which were at variable rate of interest repayable at call and the arrangements between NPF and the State on the other hand, which were at a fixed interest rate for a fixed term of years. There was thus a potential risk for NPF if interest rates payable by NPF to the bank rose, as it would erode the profit on its fixed rate of interest from the State.

This potential risk eventuated and these “investment loans” became less and less profitable for NPF.

There was also the problem that the so called “road stock”, which NPF acquired through the Poreporena Freeway loans aggregating K62 million, were not readily assignable, as the State guarantee was not transferable.

(i) Because of Government pressure for NPF to provide funding in this way NPF distorted the balance of its portfolio in favour of this government “stock”.

(j) Despite these problems these investment loans were “safe” and provided a reasonable return, in marked contrast to most of NPF’s other investments.

Each of these loans to the State is reported upon in detail in a separate schedule. The executive summaries provide easy access to the schedules by stating main themes and giving references to relevant paragraphs in the schedules.

The transfer of members from POSF to NPF described in Schedule 8, raises many other issues as well as the issue of the loan which NPF was reluctantly obliged to provide.

The whole transfer process was badly planned and it started before basic political and administrative decisions had been made. The State had not been paying its employer contributions to POSF so members transferring to NPF were justifiably anxious about their entitlements and did not trust the State’s intention or ability to pay them. This stimulated demands for extra-legal payouts of entitlements under threat of industrial action. NPF was pressured by the Sate to agree to payouts to some employees, which were contrary to the NPF Act. This raised serious questions of improper political interference (Schedule 8, paragraphs 4.22, 4.22.1). Having reluctantly organised the lending of K24.4 million of borrowed funds to the State, NPF management was negligent in administering the loan, causing a loss of K4 million.

As further corporatisation of public institutions is likely, these issues need to be addressed. See concluding comments (Executive Summary 8, paragraph 33).


Acquisition of STC shares “on-market”:

NPF commenced to buy STC and CXL shares on-market in March 1996. The NPF board had approved by circular resolution, the purchase of K1 million worth of STC shares in 100,000 share lots for a price between $A2.85 and $A3 per share. Mr [Robert] Kaul, however, misrepresented this resolution and obtained Minister [Chris] Haiveta’s approval to buy one million shares at that price. He also failed to mention the limitation on the size of the parcels, which had been imposed by the board. Mr Haiveta approved the application without seeking or obtaining DoF or any other expert advice. Management then proceeded to buy one million shares in larger sized parcels. This was far more shares and at far greater cost than the board had authorised.

The authorisation had been by circular resolution, which was not a valid means of decision-making. The purchase was not subsequently ratified by the board at a face-to-face meeting. This single approval demonstrated many of the faults which plagued NPF investments throughout the period:

(a) It was a risky and inappropriate investment.

(b) The NPF board approved the resolution by way of illegal circular resolution with little briefing by management and no expert financial advice.

(c) Management then misrepresented the limited nature of the board’s approval and obtained ministerial approval for the expenditure of a far larger sum

(d) Mr Haiveta neither sought nor received expert advice from DoF or elsewhere before granting the excessive approval.

(e) Management then purchased the excessive number of shares at prices, which sometimes exceeded the maximum price approved by the board

(f) the circular resolution was not ratified by a subsequent face-to-face board meeting

(g) The NPF Board of Trustees did not criticise or reprimand management for failing its duty to the board by exceeding their authority

(h) BPNG foreign currency exchange approval was not obtained for all of the transactions (Schedule 4D, paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2).

Acquisition of CXL shares “on-market”

Also in April, the NPF approved, by circular resolution, the purchase of up to K1 million worth of CXL shares. Again, Mr Kaul twisted the wording of the board’s resolution and obtained Mr Haiveta’s approval to buy one million CXL shares. This time the DoF did provide a recommendation to the Minister. However, it contained no critical analysis of NPF’s request but merely repeated the points made by NPF.

Mr Haiveta then gave an open-ended approval for NPF to acquire CXL shares for prices between $A2.20 and $A2.50 in 100,000 share lots without setting a total purchase limit. Again, management acquired many more shares than authorised by the board for significantly more cost.


Why is TI silent on the prominent role of Rex Paki in our State owned entities?

October 29, 2012 9 comments

Businessman Rex Paki has been heavily criticized in a number of investigations into alleged corruption and fraud involving millions of kina.

His business activities have attracted the censure of two Commissions of Inquiry and the Auditor Generals in a special investigation; he has been investigated twice by the Public Accounts Committee and Mr Paki has been described as “evasive and dishonest” by the Supreme Court which also found his conduct to be “improper, unreasonable and blameworthy”.

The Finance Department Commission of Inquiry found Paki’s firm RAM Business Consultants helped Andrew Mald inflate damages in a legal action against the State. The Commission found “Ram Business Consultants deliberately inflated the [value] by K4,659,650 for reasons known only to themselves… we conclude that the Cash-flow projection was specifically engineered in a way to inflate the yearly income projection… so the damages claim would be high”.

The Public Accounts Committee in a completely separate investigation found that RAM was paid K1,561,062 over an 18 month period by the Public Curator’s Office, yet “there was no formal contract… there was no check of the claimed hours worked and no evidence that any benefit flowed to the Public Curator at all”. The Auditor General found that after eighteen months of work, the Public Curator could only report that a small amount of computer equipment was provided.

Yet, Rex Paki sits on the Board of the Bank of Papua New Guinea, is Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and has more recently been appointed to the Board of the PNG Sustainable Development Program.

Why is Transparency International so quiet on the apparent disconnect between Rex Paki’s dubious business history and his prominent public roles?

One observer has pointed out that Lawrence Stevens, Chairman of TI PNG is a program manager employed by PNG Sustainable Development Program – where Rex Paki is now a Director.

It is to be hoped that Lawrence Stevens does not feel constrained by this relationship and that the silence of TIPNG is not a result of any undue pressure.

It is time for TI to speak out on the inappropriate role Rex Paki has in the governance of some of our key institutions.

The Evidence on Rex Paki: A Reply to Kusai Mahn

October 24, 2012 3 comments

Dr Kristian Lasslett | International State Crime Initiative (ISCI)

In a recent ISCI report on the demolition of Paga Hill, the prominent businessman Rex Paki received mention. According to Investment Promotion Authority records, he had been intimately involved in the Paga Hill property development during 1997-2000. ISCI queried Paki’s involvement in light of serious allegations laid against him by two Commission of Inquiries, two Public Accounts Committee inquiries, an Auditor General special investigation, and PNG’s Supreme Court.

Following the publication of our report, social media commentators noted with concern that Rex Paki has also been appointed to the Papua New Guinea Sustainable Development Program Ltd (PNGSDP) Board of Directors, by PNG’s Treasurer. According to PNGSDP’s 2011 Annual Report, Rex Paki is “a member of the Board of Bank of PNG and is the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority”, as well.

After these concerns were aired in PNG’s blogosphere, a supporter of Rex Paki, who goes by the name of Kusai Mahn, composed an article slamming the ISCI’s findings, see here. Mahn writes, “a recent report on the ‘Demolition of Paga Hill’ by a UK-based non-government organization…is merely a character assassination of Mr Paki on issues that are considered water under the bridge” (ISCI is in fact a research centre not an NGO, and it is run by King’s College London, Harvard University, the University of Ulster and Hull University).

Mahn continues, “Rex Paki has appeared before only the NPF Commission of Inquiry (COI) and not the Finance Department COI as alleged”. Of course, the report never said Paki appeared before the Finance Department COI, it said Paki’s firm Ram Business Consultants was censured by the Finance Department COI after it allegedly helped Andrew Mald inflate damages in a legal action against the PNG state. You can read the COI findings here. Though here is one telling extract from the report:

Ram Business Consultants deliberately inflated the NPV [Net Present Value] by K4,659,650 for reasons known only to themselves… From the review of the cash flow projection prepared by Ram Business Consultants we conclude that the Cash-flow projection was specifically engineered in a way to inflate the yearly income projection including NPV so that damages claim would be high. The Ram Consultants Report was based on mere trading assumptions supplied by Andrew Maid, not on proper business records and tax returns.

Mahn also argues: “Rex Paki was never ‘intimately’ involved in the Paga Hill development as alleged. He is not a director or shareholder and his only involvement was providing professional accounting services to the project developer for which he was duly paid”. According to Investment Promotion Authority records, Mahn is simply wrong. These records state Paki was a Director, Secretary and shareholder in the Paga Hill Land Holding Company (PHLHC), which was awarded an Urban Development Lease over Paga Hill in 1997 (you can view the lease here). Additionally, Paki’s firm Ram Business Consultants was PHLHC’s registered business address. You can see PHLHC’s company extract here.

Finally, Mahn claims, in reference to a recent Supreme Court decision, “Rex Paki was not ‘evasive and dishonest’ about his role as liquidator of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Ltd (MVIL)”. Once again, neither ISCI’s report or the Supreme Court said this. The Supreme Court’s remarks were in reference to Paki’s evident concerted attempts to avoid the legal process of discovery. Here is the relevant passage for Mr Mahn’s information, though the full decision can be read here:

It is clear to us that the appellant [Paki] was attempting to avoid giving discovery; the refusal was repeated, chronic and designed to conceal the true state of affairs. He was evasive and dishonest. He gave different reasons for not producing the invoices. He said copies of the invoices were available for inspection at Namaliu & David Lawyers, that the originals were in archives at Korobosea, that the copies on his computer have been lost because the computer crashed, that copies have been misplaced and he needed time to locate them, that copies were available at MVIL or at the offices of Mr. Kerenga Kua, a lawyer. He did not give discovery despite agreeing to Consent Orders of the National Court requiring him to produce the invoices for the entire period of the liquidation. Two (2) years after he verified a list of documents, the appellant was still looking for copies of the invoices. In fact, he never gave discovery. He was required by law to retain the accounts and records of the liquidation for seven (7) years (section 306 (1)(b) of the Companies Act). We agree with Mr. Brookes that the actions of the appellant have caused the respondent an enormous amount of wasted time, effort and money. We are of the view that the conduct of the appellant was improper, unreasonable and blameworthy.

And of course, Mahn failed to comment on the successive inquiries into the Public Curator’s Office made by the Auditor General’s Office and Public Accounts Committee. Here, once again, Ram Business Consultants came under fire. Despite being paid K1,561,062 over an eighteen month period, the Public Accounts Committee (2006) allege,

“there was no formal contract … there was no check of the claimed hours worked and no evidence that any benefit flowed to the Public Curator at all. The Auditor General finds that after eighteen months of work, the Public Curator could only a report that a small amount of computer equipment was provided”.

To conclude, there is one allegation Mahn makes which is rather serious, if credible: “Rex Paki was appointed to the PNGSDP Board by the Minister for Treasury as the State’s representative. He was not appointed by Prof Ross Garnaut who nonetheless values Mr Paki’s contributions as a Board member and will defend his appointment. CEO David Sode also holds Mr Paki in high regard”.

I have no evidence to suggest that what Mr Mahn says is true – my focus has been on Paga Hill –  but if the Treasurer, Prof Ross Garnaut and CEO David Sode, are not concerned by the findings of two COIs, two Public Accounts Committee inquiries, one Auditor General’s Office special investigation and a Supreme Court decision, that would indeed be a worrying new revelation.