THE MECHANISM - How The Fraud Works
Investigation document: THE MECHANISM - How The Fraud Works
================================================================================
THE MECHANISM
================================================================================
HOW THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CARTEL EXTRACTS VALUE FROM TARGETS
================================================================================
This document explains the METHODS used by the network to systematically
extract value from multiple targets. These are not separate schemes - they
are variations of the SAME MECHANISM applied to different targets.
################################################################################
MECHANISM 1: IDENTITY THEFT / FABRICATION
################################################################################
================================================================================
THE RYDER IDENTITY THEFT SCHEME
================================================================================
OVERVIEW
--------
A fabricated identity "Jens Ryder Jenssen" was created in 1987 to intercept
court-awarded fishing quota that should have gone to the real Jens Jenssen
family. The real person exists but has no control over the identity used
in company records.
THE REAL JENS JENSSEN:
- Lives in Bayview (Napier area)
- Is retired with nothing
- His son David works as crew for Sanfords (not as owner)
- Matthew Jenssen attended David's wedding at the real Jens's house
- The family "got fuck all" from the court victory
THE FABRICATED "JENS RYDER JENSSEN":
- First appears in 1987 (Gannet Distributors)
- Holds equity in 7 active companies
- All companies administered by Oldershaw & Co
- Address eventually updated to match real person's area
- Is not controlled by the real person
THE DOUBLE SPELLING MECHANISM
-----------------------------
Two spellings are used to separate assets from liabilities:
"RYDER" (no H):
- Used for SUCCESSFUL companies
- 7 active companies
- Holds the valuable assets
- Continues to operate
"RHYDER" (with H):
- Used for FAILED company
- Jenssens Fish Supply Limited (2006) - REMOVED from register
- Absorbed the liabilities
- Allowed to fail
This is deliberate. The spelling variation allows:
- Assets to accumulate under "RYDER" spelling
- Liabilities to be dumped into "RHYDER" spelling
- "RHYDER" company fails, liabilities disappear
- "RYDER" companies continue with clean assets
TIMELINE OF THE SCHEME
----------------------
1986: QMS (Quota Management System) introduced in New Zealand
- Fishing quota becomes valuable tradeable asset
- Creates incentive to capture quota from existing fishers
1987: "Jens Ryder Jenssen" identity FIRST APPEARS
- Gannet Distributors Limited
- Identity created BEFORE court case
- This is PREMEDITATION
1988: Deep Sea Fisheries Ltd WOUND UP
- Original Jenssen family company destroyed
- Willis Toomey Robinson acts as local agent
- Bell Gully (Wellington) behind the action
- Charles Ashton Limited used as vehicle
1991: COURT CASE - Jenssen v. Director-General CA 313/91
- Jens Jenssen WINS his case
- Court awards quota to "Mr. Jenssen"
- Case is "unreported" - details hidden
1991: Sea Ventures Limited CREATED
- Same year as court victory
- Captures the court-awarded quota
- Shareholders include:
* "Jens Ryder Jenssen" (fabricated identity)
* Lawrence Willis (the LAWYER) - 20%
* David Jens Jenssen
* Richard Jens Jenssen
- Registered at Gardiner Reaney (= Oldershaw)
2006: Jenssens Fish Supply Limited created
- Uses "RHYDER" spelling
- This company later FAILS
- Liabilities absorbed here
2010: Jenssen Fish Supply (2010) Limited created
- Uses "RYDER" spelling
- Clean company, no liabilities
- Continues to operate
PRESENT: Real Jens Jenssen has NOTHING
"Jens Ryder Jenssen" has equity in 7 companies
All controlled by Oldershaw & Co
THE PROOF
---------
- SPELLING VARIATION: "RYDER" vs "RHYDER" is not accidental
- TIMING: Identity created 1987, before 1991 court case
- LAWYER AS SHAREHOLDER: Lawrence Willis took 20% equity
- SAME ADMINISTRATOR: All entities at Oldershaw/Gardiner Reaney
- REAL PERSON HAS NOTHING: Jens Jenssen retired in Bayview with nothing
- FAMILY TESTIMONY: Matthew Jenssen confirms family got nothing
================================================================================
THE PAPER IDENTITY MECHANISM
================================================================================
HOW IT WORKS
------------
- CREATE: Fabricate an identity using a real person's name with variation
- REGISTER: Use the identity to register companies
- CAPTURE: Use companies to capture assets (quota, property, trust funds)
- CONTROL: Lawyers/accountants control the identity through company structure
- EXTRACT: Professionals take equity stakes and fees
- CONFUSE: Real person may see their name, not realize they don't control it
- PERSIST: Update address to match real person over time
WHY IT WORKS
------------
- Real person exists, so identity appears legitimate
- Spelling variation creates plausible deniability
- Company records are public but complex
- Real person may not check company register
- Professionals control all paperwork
- Courts see "Jenssen" and assume it's the real person
EVIDENCE OF PREMEDITATION
-------------------------
The identity was created in 1987 - BEFORE the 1991 court case.
This proves the scheme was planned in advance:
- 1986: QMS makes quota valuable
- 1987: Identity created to capture future quota
- 1988: Original company destroyed
- 1991: Court awards quota, identity captures it
The network KNEW the court case was coming and prepared the capture vehicle
in advance.
################################################################################
MECHANISM 2: COMPROMISED AGENTS
################################################################################
================================================================================
THE LAWYER-AS-SHAREHOLDER CONFLICT
================================================================================
OVERVIEW
--------
Lawyers who should represent client interests instead take equity stakes
in the companies they create, directly profiting from client assets.
THE LAWRENCE WILLIS EXAMPLE
---------------------------
Lawrence Willis was a lawyer at Willis Toomey Robinson.
His firm wound up Deep Sea Fisheries Ltd (1988) - the original Jenssen company.
He then became a SHAREHOLDER in Sea Ventures Limited (1991) - the company
that captured the court-awarded quota.
This is a DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
- Lawyer destroys client's company
- Same lawyer takes equity in replacement company
- Lawyer profits from client's loss
THE PATTERN
-----------
This is not isolated. The same pattern appears across the network:
- Lawyers take equity in client companies
- Accountants become directors of companies they audit
- Trustees profit from trusts they administer
------------------------------
Gerald McKay was a lawyer at McKay Hill.
He was CONVICTED in 2016 of stealing from client trust funds.
This PROVES lawyers in this network steal from clients.
If Gerald McKay did it openly enough to get convicted, what are the others
doing more carefully?
================================================================================
THE TRUSTEE CONTROL MECHANISM
================================================================================
OVERVIEW
--------
Professional trustees are supposed to act in beneficiaries' interests.
Instead, the network uses trustee positions to control and extract from trusts.
NAPIER INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES (NIT)---------------------------------
NIT is a network of 90+ shell companies controlled by Langley Twigg.Each shell company can serve as "independent trustee" for a different trust.
This creates the APPEARANCE of independence while maintaining ACTUAL control.
Example:
- Trust A has "NIT McKay No. 1" as trustee
- Trust B has "NIT McKay No. 2" as trustee
- Trust C has "NIT McKay No. 3" as trustee
- All three "independent" trustees are controlled by Langley Twigg
THE EXTRACTION PATTERN
----------------------
- Become trustee of target trust
- Control trust decisions
- Direct trust assets to network entities
- Charge fees for "administration"
- Beneficiaries receive less, network receives more
################################################################################
MECHANISM 3: REGULATORY CAPTURE
################################################################################
================================================================================
THE QMS WEAPONIZATION
================================================================================
OVERVIEW
--------
The Quota Management System (QMS) introduced in 1986 was supposed to protect
fishing resources. Instead, it was weaponized to strip quota from existing
fishers and concentrate it in corporate hands.
HOW QMS WAS WEAPONIZED
----------------------
- COMPLEXITY: QMS rules are complex, requiring legal/accounting expertise
- CAPITAL: Quota became tradeable asset requiring capital to hold
- COMPLIANCE: Small fishers couldn't afford compliance costs
- CONSOLIDATION: Professionals helped corporations acquire quota from individuals
THE JENSSEN EXAMPLE
-------------------
- Pre-QMS: Jenssen family operated Deep Sea Fisheries Ltd
- 1986: QMS introduced, quota becomes valuable asset
- 1988: Company wound up (couldn't afford compliance?)
- 1991: Court awards quota to Jenssen
- 1991: Quota captured by Sea Ventures (controlled by lawyers/accountants)
- Present: Real family has nothing, professionals have equity
The regulatory system that was supposed to protect fishers was used to
strip them of their assets.
================================================================================
THE MĀORI LAND COURT MECHANISM
================================================================================
OVERVIEW
--------
The Māori Land Court system, designed to protect Māori land rights, has been
used to displace and disinherit Māori landowners.
THE PAPA WINIKEREI CASE
-----------------------
- Ancestor: Papa Winikerei (also known as Wini Kerei Parawhau)
- Issue: 1947 succession orders placed ancestor in WRONG LOCATION
- Actual connection: Mahia Peninsula / Wairoa (Hawke's Bay)
- Record location: Mercer (Waikato) - WRONG REGION
- Result: Descendants displaced from rightful land
This is "geodetic displacement" - moving an ancestor's recorded location
to sever connection to their actual land.
APPLICATION STATUS
------------------
- Filed: 2016 (Section 45 application to Chief Judge)
- Status: OUTSTANDING FOR 8+ YEARS
- Purpose: Correct the 1947 error
- Result: Justice delayed is justice denied
The same professional services network (Langley Twigg specializes in Māori
land law) has access to these processes and can manipulate them.
================================================================================
THE GAMING TRUST MECHANISM================================================================================
OVERVIEW
--------
Gaming machine trusts are supposed to return profits to community purposes.
Instead, the network extracts value through fraudulent grants and fees.
THE INFINITY FOUNDATION CASE----------------------------
- Entity: Infinity Foundation (Hastings)
- Crime: Fraudulent gaming grants
- Defendants: Rodney Green (also Aquiline shareholder)
- Trustees: Patrick Dennehy (also Aquiline shareholder, also Coroner)
The same people who committed gaming fraud were also investors in Aquiline
Holdings. This links the criminal activity to the investment network.
DIA GAMBLING COMPLIANCE 2024----------------------------
The Department of Internal Affairs has brought charges related to gaming
trust fraud. This is ongoing prosecution of the same network.
################################################################################
MECHANISM 4: SHELL COMPANY STRUCTURES
################################################################################
================================================================================
THE TWO-NAME FIRM TRICK
================================================================================
OVERVIEW
--------
Oldershaw & Co and Gardiner Reaney are the SAME FIRM using different names.
This creates the illusion of independence when the same accountants control
multiple sides of transactions.
HOW IT'S USED
-------------
- Company A registered at "Oldershaw & Co" address
- Company B registered at "Gardiner Reaney" address
- Appears to be two different accountants
- Actually the same firm controlling both
In the Jenssen case:
- Sea Ventures (1991) at Gardiner Reaney address
- Jenssen Fish Supply (2010) at Oldershaw address
- Same firm controls both, different names hide the connection
================================================================================
THE NUMBERED SHELL COMPANY NETWORK
================================================================================
OVERVIEW
--------
NIT operates 90+ shell companies with sequential numbering:
- NIT McKay No. 1 Limited
- NIT McKay No. 2 Limited
- ... through ...
- NIT McKay No. 40+ Limited
PURPOSE
-------
- ISOLATION: Each shell isolates liabilities
- APPEARANCE: Each appears to be "independent" trustee
- COMPLEXITY: 90+ companies makes tracing difficult
- CONTROL: All controlled by same people (Langley Twigg)
The "McKay" naming is notable - same surname as convicted lawyer Gerald McKay.
================================================================================
THE ASSET/LIABILITY SEPARATION
================================================================================
OVERVIEW
--------
The RYDER/RHYDER spelling variation demonstrates deliberate separation of
assets from liabilities.
THE PATTERN
-----------
- Create company with spelling variation A (RYDER)
- Create company with spelling variation B (RHYDER)
- Put assets in company A
- Put liabilities in company B
- Let company B fail
- Company A continues with clean assets
EVIDENCE
--------
- "Jens RYDER Jenssen" - 7 active companies (assets)
- "Jens RHYDER Jenssen" - 1 company, REMOVED from register (liabilities)
This is not accidental. This is deliberate asset protection through
controlled company failure.
################################################################################
MECHANISM 5: INFORMATION CONTROL
################################################################################
================================================================================
THE "UNREPORTED" CASE MECHANISM
================================================================================
OVERVIEW
--------
The 1991 court case Jenssen v. Director-General CA 313/91 is "unreported."
This means:
- The case exists
- Jenssen won
- But full details are not publicly available
WHY UNREPORTED?
---------------
Unreported cases are harder to research. By keeping the case unreported:
- Details of the quota award are hidden
- How the quota was captured is obscured
- Future researchers can't easily find the full story
================================================================================
THE COMPLEXITY BARRIER
================================================================================
OVERVIEW
--------
The network creates complexity that prevents victims from understanding
what happened to them.
ELEMENTS OF COMPLEXITY
----------------------
- Multiple company names for same firm (Oldershaw/Gardiner Reaney)
- 90+ shell companies (NIT network)
- Spelling variations (RYDER/RHYDER)
- Multiple addresses
- Decades-long timeframes
- Technical legal/accounting language
- Unreported court cases
A victim trying to understand what happened faces:
- Which company is which?
- Who controls what?
- Where did the assets go?
- What do the documents mean?
The complexity is a FEATURE, not a bug. It protects the scheme.
################################################################################
SECTION 6: THE UNIFIED METHOD
################################################################################
All mechanisms work together as ONE SCHEME:
- IDENTIFY TARGET
- Māori family with land claims
- Trust with assets
- Gaming revenue stream
- GAIN ACCESS
- Become trustee of target's trust
- Gain regulatory position affecting target
- CREATE CAPTURE VEHICLE
- Fabricated identity
- "Independent" trustee
- EXTRACT VALUE
- Take equity stakes
- Charge fees
- Manipulate regulatory processes
- OBSCURE THE TRAIL
- Shell company networks
- Spelling variations
- Unreported cases
- Complexity
- PERSIST
- Update records to appear legitimate
- Let liability vehicles fail
- Maintain asset vehicles
================================================================================
END OF THE MECHANISM
================================================================================