Home
The governments plan to disband the Serious Fraud Office, which deals with ‘white collar’ crime such as fraud, tax evasion and insider trading, has been in the news this week after the opposition National party came out against the plan (an unusual move compared with other changes to crime related legislation). National’s justice spokesperson, Simon Power told Radio New Zealand that now is not the time to scrap the SFO, which recently announced three investigations into failed finance companies. The government plans to disestablish the Serious Fraud Office and have its staff absorbed into the new Organised and Financial Crime Agency, losing some of its powers in the process. Under the new agency suspects will able to refuse to answer questions, a right not available to them when they faced Fraud Office questioning. The new agency will also have to convince a judge to order suspects to hand over documents for investigation.
David Bradshaw; the former director of the Serious Fraud Office has also criticised the move. Telling ONE News:
Logically you don’t disband your most effective law enforcement agency and reduce its powers to address serious or complex fraud under the guise of getting tough on organised crime
Critics however have said that under Bradshaw’s leadership the Serious Fraud Office’s performance was “patchy”. There were some good wins, but also some notable and high-profile failures, such as a bungled attempt with an invalid search warrant to seize computers from a firm of Auckland solicitors in a bid to prove some of its partners were in cahoots with their client, who was still under investigation as of February this year, on suspicion of stealing nearly $15m. Company receivers and liquidators who have a statutory duty to report fraudulent activity to the Companies Office told the Star-Times earlier this year that they have all but given up on reporting their findings to enforcement agencies as there is seldom any response to their complaints. With $40 stolen through white collar crime for every dollar stolen through ‘blue collar’ crime* (theft, robbery etc) it appears the governments ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric is rather hollow.
*See Greg Newbold, Crime in New Zealand, 2000. Ch.2
RSS 
Logically you don’t disband your most effective law enforcement agency and reduce its powers to address serious or complex fraud under the guise of getting tough on organised crime
That's fundamentally flawed because most of the SFO officers would be working in OFCA. I think the OFCA would remain just as effective and would have a broader canvas to operate upon.
