link to page 1
Overseas Investment Office
Radio New Zealand House
155 The Terrace
PO Box 5501
Wellington 6145
New Zealand
+64 4 460 0110
www.linz.govt.nz
The below excerpts are from the Overseas Investment Assessment Report regarding Colin
Rath’s acquisition of approximately 28.74 hectares of sensitive land in 244-246 Georges Road,
Waipara, Canterbury, dated 19 January 2018 (the
Report).
1. Paragraph 4 of the Executive Summary to the Report:
Matters relating to good character of the individual with control include Mr
Rath’s suspected breach of section 43 of the Overseas Investment Act 2005
(“Act”), and charges relating to burglary and reckless driving under influence
allegations in the 1980s. We have investigated the incident of the suspected
breach, and did not find sufficient evidence in support of any breach of the
Act. Charges for the historical matters were dropped, Mr Rath paid fines and
completed required driving courses, with no similar incidents occurring since.
2. Paragraph 7 of the Report:
We note that this is a late submitted application considering the Agreement
and Lease were entered into over one year ago, and we have concerns on
whether the Applicant intended to avoid or circumvent the Act. However,
after investigation, we are satisfied that there is no sufficient evidence of any
breach of the Act due to reasons outlined in the good character section
outlined in paragraphs Error! Reference source not found.-0.
under the Official Information Act 1982
3. Paragraph 28 of the Report:
We have also conducted open source background checks on Mr Rath, and
have recently investigated Mr Rath’s suspected breach of section 43 of the
Act. Mr Rath has also provided information in relation to good character.
Released
Below is a summary and our assessment relating Mr Rath’s good character
which have been considered under the criterion set out in section 19 of the
Act.
Suspected breach of section 43 of the Act
Mr Rath obtained the Lease of the estate including the vineyard and
associated properties in October 2016, well before he first submitted an
application for consent under the Act in August 2017. Initially we were
concerned Mr Rath may have attempted to avoid or circumvent the Act by
entering into the Lease for the purpose of undertaking the proposed
development as outlined in the business plan enclosed in the application for
consent.
During investigation the Overseas Investment Office (“OIO”) found
insufficient evidence that Mr Rath breached section 43 of the Act. First, Mr
Rath submits that the Lease was only entered to secure his family’s residence
and to demonstrate his intention to reside in New Zealand to the regulators
(being the OIO and Immigration New Zealand “INZ”). Second, the Lease is
for a period of less than three years, and was signed before a recent
periOIOdical article warning against transactions where the applicant had
entered into a short term lease in order to commence the proposed
development works prior to consent granted. Third, Mr Rath has not
commenced significant steps on the property development as proposed in his
application for consent. Mr Rath submits that investment on the Land so far
is merely general maintenance of the vineyard during the term of the lease;
the proposed development plan such as the expansion and renovation of
existing buildings and vine replacement etc. will only commence if consent is
granted.
As insufficient evidence was found to support Mr Rath knowingly or recklessly
entered into the Lease with the purpose of circumventing the Act, we are
satisfied that this matter does not adversely affect the good character of Mr
Rath.
Burglary and reckless driving allegations in the 1980s
Mr Rath submitted that he committed burglary and reckless driving in 1983
and 1984 respectively when he was a student and involved in a fraternity at
the University of Colorado. The burglary occurred during a rush initiation
and a group of fraternity members were arrested after staying overnight in
an abandoned building which was considered as illegal trespassing in
under the Official Information Act 1982
Colorado. Mr Rath submitted that there were no fines, and charges were
dropped.
In 1984 Mr Rath was twice convicted of reckless driving under the influence
(DUI). The first DUI happened when he drove fraternity brothers back from
a rally, and the second one after a football game. Mr Rath submitted that
both the DUI charges were dropped; he paid his fine, and completed alcohol
education cour
Released
se level 1 and 2.
We consider the disclosures relating to burglary and DUI are serious matters.
However, considering the following reasons we do not think such matters
adversely reflect the good character of the individual with control: First, Mr
Rath voluntarily submitted these historical matters with the application.
Second, these matters are over 30 years old, all the charges were dropped,
and there have been no further incidents revealed since. Third, these
disclosures relating to Mr Rath’s character have been considered by other
regulators (i.e. INZ) and no further regulatory action is required.
Page 2 of 3
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released
Page 3 of 3
