The following document (below) is the original 1994 transcript of “Quinby Enterprises Ltd (In Liquidation) (a Grant King-created illegal investment company), vs. The General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation Public Limited Company”.
The story this document reveals will in part be familiar to many of Kings 72 fraud victims.
King comes up with a grand scam, takes money off people who trust him, and then tries to get away with keeping the money via manufacturing a “dispute” between the parties.
What isn’t so well-known is that at the time of this case being investigated, King was found to have secured around $750,000 in investment and debt using other peoples money, none of which he invested (except into his own bank account), and that the NZ Justice Department had King dead-to-rights in breach of numerous statutory authorities.
These breaches by Grant King were so significant, that even the Judge who was hearing the “Quinby” case (eventually heard in the Auckland High Court in 1994) expressed his incredulity that, rather than the NZ Justice Department prosecuting King to the very extent of the law regarding the investment fraud, they instead offered King a deal that if he paid back the money and stopped advertising for investors in his scam arrangements, the NZ Justice system would let him off prosecution.
Naturally, King took the deal, but then refused to pay back the money, and was subsequently adjudicated bankrupt in 1991 (Kings first bankruptcy).
This story also reveals an additional $500,000 in fraud committed by Grant Norman King that I was not aware of.
Which now makes Grant King the $4 million-dollar man in terms of the amount of (known) fraud King has perpetuated upon other people during his 33-year criminal career.
Just think: if the NZ Justice system had nailed King in a criminal case in 1991, imagine how many fraud victims of Grant King might have been spared the loss, anguish and trauma they subsequently experienced as a result of Kings multiple illegal fraudulent actions against them?
I have often wondered why Grant King seemed to present so confidently in Court environments, even when the evidence against him has historically been so utterly and completely over-whelming.
After reading this Judgment, I now think I know why: relatively early in his longitudinal criminal career, King won a massive “staring competition” with the NZ Justice system, and I suspect that when that happened, King (understandably, I guess) truly felt that he was untouchable.
The full Judgment is below:
Quinby v Gen Accident Fire 1995 1 NZLR 736
And if anyone thinks that the cause of the fire mentioned in the Judgment was a faulty plug board – then I have a bridge to sell you 🙂
A readers comment probably sums this story up nicely:
“There’s nothing like the disinfecting power of a little sunlight exposing the activities of people such as this. Justice Barker was not impressed with the quality of his (Kings) evidence and it seems not much has changed since”.
Grant King – Convicted Sex Offender.
Grant King Offender Timeline 1982 – present-day
Grant King Media Articles Library Summary
Grant King High Court Public Examination 2014
NZ Gazette Notice of Grant King Public Examination
No Cowboys Rating for Trident Cycles
Pingback: Timeline: Grant Norman Kings Criminal & Fraud Activities, 1982 – Present Day (Updates pending) | Grant Norman King
Wow some one finally telling it as it is in the NZ justice Dept ( see below). Set King up with the confidence and motivation to defraud everybody and anybody that had the misfortune to meet him.
King learnt from this failure of the Justice Dept that he can, could, should and would pursue a profitable career in fraud. Uninhibited and unabated. ( well until now – where the victims have exposed his actions to the NZ media and hence made King an embarrassment to the justice system )
Does this sound familiar to any body from the Police and Justice Dept
“…..sorry its a civil matter …..”
By the way ” …down with the king …” + the other well know description regarding his head
” I regard the dishonest conduct for which Mr King was not charged as more serious offending than the receiving and potentially of greater materiality to the potential insurer. Mr King embarked on a campaign to deceive members of the public. My concern is that Mr King’s
perception of the seriousness of this conduct was blunted by the failure by the Justice Department officials to take any action against him for what seem to have been clear breaches of several enactments. Moreover, they indicated to him that if he ceased advertising and paid back the investors, nothing would happen to him. There is no doubt that Mr King solicited money from the public
on the pretext that it was to go into a contributory mortgage scheme when it went into Quinby’s account. “