The NZ law firms that lobbied government revealed

NZ law firms that lobbied government did business with Mossack Fonseca

RNZ's Gyles Beckford, Patrick O'Meara, Jane Patterson, TVNZ's Lee Taylor, Jessica Mutch, Andrea Vance, & Nicky Hager*

EXCLUSIVE - Panama Papers NZ - New Zealand law firms that lobbied the government in 2014 against shutting down the foreign trust industry in this country had extensive links to Mossack Fonseca.

Photo: RNZ / James Sandy

Radio NZ,

10 May, 2016

Four of the five firms that met with and lobbied the then Revenue Minister Todd McClay have done a varying amount of business with the controversial Panamanian law firm, with Auckland-based firm Cone Marshall featuring most prominently.

The Panama Papers also show the man who has long handled Prime Minister John Key's personal legal matters, Ken Whitney, had links to Mossack Fonseca through two companies - registered in the British Virgin Islands, with Mossack Fonseca as their agent. Mr Whitney also acted as a referee for Karen Marshall of Cone Marshall in 2009.

Foreign trusts and New Zealand's rules have been under the spotlight since the release of the Panama Papers, which revealed how the Panamanian law firm orchestrated a worldwide web of companies designed to let people hide money and avoid taxes.

A collaborative team of reporters from RNZ, One News and the investigative reporter Nicky Hager has been working together, examining a database of 11 million leaked documents and identifying stories linked to New Zealand.

Panama Papers NZ - Click here for full coverage

More Panama Papers coverage

• NZ at heart of Panama money-go-round
• New Panama revelations explained
• Dunne never alerted to foreign trust 'explosion'
• Panama Papers: The story so far
• Mossack Fonseca NZ's registered office responds

Directors for hire

The Pamana Papers show that along with Roger Thompson of Bentleys, a group of New Zealand law firms has been doing a significant amount of business with Mossack Fonseca, setting up companies and trusts.

Various lawyers also act as directors, secretaries, treasurers and liquidators for dozens of trusts and companies set up and registered overseas, many of them in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). In some cases, the law firms also provide registered addresses for the companies and trusts to use.

The Papers show lawyers who made a strong representation to the government about maintaining the status quo, concerned about rumours the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) intended to shut the industry down, have done a significant amount of work with Mossack Fonseca.

Representatives of five New Zealand law firms met with the then Revenue Minister Todd McClay at the end of 2014, concerned the Inland Revenue Department was moving to "shut down" New Zealand's foreign trust industry which the lawyers argued has a "high profile" in international circles, and provides a valuable contribution to the New Zealand economy.

The Papers show all of the law firms present in that meeting, except Antipodes Trust Group, have done business with Mossack Fonseca. There are documents up until the end of 2015, but there is nothing to suggest the companies' contact with Mossack Fonseca has ceased.

Cone Marshall Director Karen Marshall Photo:Supplied: PCC + Co.

The Auckland based law firm Cone Marshall is the most active.

To put it into some context, that firm is mentioned 357 times in the Papers. Its director, Karen Marshall, is listed as being a past or present director, secretary or treasurer of 214 Panamanian registered companies, and 1023 in New Zealand.

Her partner Geoffrey Cone shows up in the Papers 181 times, and registers in similar numbers to Karen Marshall on Panamanian and New Zealand registered companies - 181 Panama and 1017 in New Zealand.

Cone and Marshall partner Geoffrey Cone Photo:Supplied: PCC + Co.

Other firms featured in the Papers include Anchor Trustees, John W. Hart and Asiaciti Trust. A meeting note from Mossack Fonseca in late 2012 logs a meeting with Mr Hart and Mossack Fonseca representatives during which Mr Hart "clearly understands our industry and was very open to work with us", while noting he was already working with some other firms in Panama.

Mr Hart was in Panama for a conference when he attended the meeting; at the time he was the President of STEP New Zealand, an association that describes itself as a "worldwide professional association for those advising families across generations".

However, the Papers also show Mr Hart had been doing business with Mossack Fonseca as far back as 2007.

Close connections in the industry

The people working in the foreign trust industry work together closely.

John Hart. Photo: SUPPLIED / New Zealand Bar Association

Ken Whitney acted as a referee for Karen Marshall and in the same way, Mr Hart vouched for lawyers Michael Reynolds and Nicholas Shepherd in 2009, saying he had known them for 15 years, both professionally and personally.

Mr Reynolds and Mr Shepherd have both done business with Mossack Fonseca as part of Anchor Trustees International Limited over past years.

Anchor Trustees International is owned by Anchor Trust Limited which is owned by Anchor Group Limited.

Anchor Group Limited is registered in the Bahamas and has Mossack Fonseca Panama as a client - therefore linked to a further 4363 companies, registered in jurisdictions ranging from Niue to Seychelles to BVI.

One of the questions we asked Roger Thompson of Bentleys was whether he acts as a "director for hire", to which he responded:

"Like many accountants and lawyers I will accept professional director appointments for well-regarded clients after undertaking satisfactory due diligence."

Michael Reynolds of Anchor Trustees  Photo: Supplied / Anchor Trustees

We also put a range of questions to Cone Marshall, Anchor Trustees, Asiaciti Trust, and John W. Hart about their business dealings with Mossack Fonseca, the due diligence they carry out on prospective clients, whether they act as 'directors for hire' and whether they actively promote New Zealand to potential clients in South America.

None have responded to requests for either an interview, or a written response.

"Eligible Introducers"

Bentleys did a lot of work establishing foreign trusts for Mossack Fonseca clients, often aided by one or more of the other foreign trust companies.

The way other New Zealand firms worked with Mossack Fonseca is demonstrated in emails sent during October 2014, when the Auckland firm Cone Marshall was seeking status as an "Eligible Introducer" with the Panamanian law firm.

Mossack Fonseca advised Karen Marshall that under the BVI Anti-Money Laundering Code of Practice, the criteria for Eligible Introducers included "conducting, verifying and obtaining Customer Due Diligence" of their clients, having all information readily available if authorities request it, and being a "regulated person in their respective jurisdiction".

Karen Marshall assured Mossack Fonseca the company was regulated by the New Zealand Law Society and while not currently covered by New Zealand Anti-Money Laundering laws, it "complies with all standards of the legislation."

Cone Marshall was duly confirmed as an "Eligible Introducer" for Mossack Fonseca in November, just a month before company representatives would meet with and lobby minister Todd McClay.

Prime Minister John Key has said Ken Whitney gave him assurances he had no link to Mossack Fonseca. Photo: RNZ/ Jane Patterson

Ken Whitney's connections

Ken Whitney has for many years handled John Key's personal legal matters; Mr Key no longer refers to Mr Whitney as "his lawyer" because he has let his practising certificate lapse. When Mr Whitney's name first surfaced in relation to the meeting between the group of trust lawyers and Todd McClay, Mr Key defended his integrity.

According to the Prime Minister, Ken Whitney gave him assurances he had no link at all to Mossack Fonseca, either past or present, after the first release of the Panama Papers in early April.

However, the Panama Papers show Mr Whitney was a director of the Rothschild Trust (NZ) Limited, which owned and was the sole director of a company registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) that had Mossack Fonseca as its agent - Capewood Investments.

Ken Whitney of Antipodes Trust Group   Photo:SUPPLIED / Foundation North

The Papers demonstrate the complex ownership structure: the sole shareholder of Capewood was Arrow Master Holdings - which is fully owned by Rothschild NZ.

Or in simpler terms, Rothschild NZ was the actual owner of Capewood, and the Director.

Mossack Fonseca was the registered agent of Capewood when Rothschild NZ took over in 2012.

Alongside Mr Whitney on the Rothschild NZ board were a number of New Zealand lawyers, who appear time and time again in the Panama Papers, most notably Karen Marshall of Cone Marshall (and Claire Cooke of Cone Marshall).

Mr Whitney resigned as a director of Rothschild NZ sometime after April 2014.

Rothschild NZ was also the owner and a director of Exchange Securities Limited - it too had Mossack Fonseca as an agent and was registered in BVI.

Exchange Securities was liquidated by Mossack Fonseca in 2014.

A Rothschild staff member wrote to Mossack Fonseca directing it to proceed with the liquidation because "the company is held by a Trust and all the trust funds have been appointed to the beneficiary". That beneficiary is not identified in the email exchange.

That company had a similar structure to Capewood - Rothschild NZ was one of the directors and Arrow Master Holdings was the shareholder (itself owned by Rothschild NZ). Ken Whitney was still a director of Rothschild NZ at the time, according to the documents.

Mr Whitney also acted as a reference in January 2009 for one of the lawyers who would go on to do a significant amount of work with Mossack Fonseca, Karen Marshall.

We posed a number of questions to Mr Whitney, including about his links to Mossack Fonseca and the assurances he gave to the Prime Minister, but Mr Whitney repeatedly told us he had no comment to make.

Key's blind trust 'Aldgate Trust'

Making one, brief appearance in the Panama Papers were lawyers from the firm that runs the Prime Minister's blind trust the Aldgate Trust, Taylor Grant Tesiram.

Taylor Grant Tesiram senior associate Israel Vaealiki. Photo:Supplied / Taylor Grant Tesiram

A meeting between Richard Taylor and Israel Vaealiki and Mossack Fonseca's Rogelio Fernandez and Egbert Wetherborne was logged in 2012. During the meeting they discussed the company structure in New Zealand and the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) legislation.

The Mossack Fonseca representatives made the following observations: "The meeting was a very good opportunity to ask several questions in regard to onshore products from NZ like NZ Trust, LTCs and LPs.

Taylor Grant Tesiram partner Richard Taylor.    Photo:Supplied Taylor Grant Tesiram

"They shared with us some of their thoughts in regard to AML legislation, and some of the substance requirements that NZ companies must have. They said that Due Diligence varies depending on the client and the type of business."

They said they shared information with the Taylor Grant Tesiram lawyers "in regard to Mossfon products" but said the two lawyers did not show "much interest" in that. They conclude while the meeting was positive they didn't feel the Auckland firm was a ""potential provider/client for Mossack Fonseca".

*The investigation into New Zealand links in the Panama Papers is a journalistic collaboration by reporters from RNZ News, One News and investigative journalist Nicky Hager, and with the assistance of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and the German newspaperSüddeutsche Zeitung.

From Nazional New Zealand - 05/02/206

Shit just got real if you are throwing your lawyer under a bus – Key shoots his money man live on Radio

By Martyn Bradbury 

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/05/02/shit-just-got-real-if-you-are-throwing-your-lawyer-under-a-bus-key-shoots-his-money-man-live-on-radio/

Shit just got real if you are throwing your lawyer under a bus as Key did this morning on Radio NZ.

Key buried his own lawyer so far down, Ken Whitney’s forgotten what sunlight means.

Shredding his own lawyers reputation doesn’t come cheap. Key has obviously had explained the ramifications of being seen to have gone soft on cracking down on Tax Havens after his own personal Trust Lawyer used his name to get the Minister to eventually cave in and not order a crackdown.

The perception of corruption alone is crucifyingly damaging in of itself, let alone any actual conflict of interest. Kiwi’s may not get mass surveillance and the twists and turns of Dirty Politics, but their conservatism detects a crook when they see it.

Thanks to David Farrar’s polling expertise last time, Key knew exactly when to cut loose Judith Collins in the middle of the Dirty Politics tempest, Key’s decision to knife his own lawyer on live National radio suggests Mr Farrar was up very late last night briefing the Prime Minister on his latest polling over the weekend.

The Great White Shark dead eyed ruthlessness of a Prime Minister trapped is a thing to behold.

John’s Key’s “lawyer” is not a lawyer

SIMON LOUISSON

April 21st, 2016

John Key, explaining why he had an account with tax avoidance specialists Antipodes Trust Group, said he used the firm because his long-term friend, Ken Whitney, is a principal at the firm and has been his private lawyer for many years.

Trouble is Whitney is not a lawyer.

According to the NZ Law Society, Whitney surrendered his legal practicing registration in February.

“If you provide any legal services without a current practising certificate you must not describe yourself as a lawyer, law practitioner, legal practitioner, barrister, solicitor, attorney-at-law or counsel. To do so is an offence under Section 21 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act,” the Law Society’s Senior Solicitor Regulatory, Charlotte Walker, told TS.

When TS contacted Whitney to ask him if he was Key’s lawyer, he said: “Yes.”

Later he conceded he was retired from legal practice, although he said he was a consultant with Alexander Dorrington Lawyers, the practice that bought Whitney’s practice, Ross & Whitney, in February 2014, which he shared with Ian Ross.

Whitney said he was aware he was not registered. “I’m not calling myself a lawyer, Mr Key is.”

Alexander Dorrington do most of the actual legal work on his advice, he said.

Asked if, given the publicity generated by the revelation that Key had an account with Antipodes, which specialises in offshore trusts, that Whitney did not have a responsibility to clarify the situation, Whitney said: “No, I didn’t feel any need to comment.”

Key, who surely is also aware of Whitney’s non registration as a lawyer, has also seen fit not to clarify the situation.

Michael Macaulay, Director of Victoria University’s Institute of Governance and Policy Studies told TS that anyone can take legal advice from whomever they you want to – a friend or a former lawyer – “but when it comes to matters of such national importance as the trust issues, which is clearly going to have ramifications for a long, long time to come, it is just common sense to use transparent, legal advice.”

“Anyone who uses a firm for serious legal advice, they should be aware of the status of that person in that firm, particularly if you are the prime minister.”

“If you are taking legal advice and you are using that to make your public and political judgements, you want to be aware of that status of that person in that firm.”

Key said Whitney was “highly ethical” and that was why he chose him as his lawyer.

“I don’t deal with people unless they’re highly ethical and they do things well. He’s changed firms and that might get everyone else excited but from my point of view it’s situation normal.

“I have to look down the barrel of the camera and make sure everything’s right”.

“I’ve covered my affairs the entire time I’ve been Prime Minister exactly the same way. My lawyer’s changed firms; that’s the end of the matter.

“It wasn’t embarrassing seven years ago, it’s not embarrassing today.”

Whitney letting his registration lapse is not a simple matter of oversight. He surrendered his law practicing registration when he set up Antipodes, which clearly was done with the intention of cashing in on New Zealand’s tax haven status, that John Key has been instrumental in maintaining.

Whitney openly told TS he specialises in setting up trusts for foreigners. On its website, Antipodes describes itself as “a specialist provider of trustee services for foreign trusts using New Zealand as their jurisdiction of choice.” Such trusts offer “a well-established vehicle for carefully managing the inter-generational transfer of wealth”.

It points to the tax-free benefits, as well as the lack of inheritance taxes and laws that protect client confidentiality and “limited” reporting requirements which mean the identities of settler and beneficiaries do not need to be disclosed.

Whitney said Antipodes doesn’t give tax advice at all. “We are simply trust administrators.”

The aim of his “discreet personal service” is to carve out a slice of the $25 million to $50 million in fees that John Key thinks is an important part of the economy, whereby foreigners are able to use New Zealand’s legal tax-free status for foreign trusts to dodge tax at home.

The Companies Office registry show Whitney and Ross are directors of scores of firms, a good proportion of which have offshore owners and many of which are no doubt taking advantage of NZ’s lax disclosure laws and the no tax provisions for foreigners that Key says do not amount to being a tax haven.

Key said foreign trusts are a legitimate business and aren’t “the devil incarnated”.

Given the release of the Panama Papers, where 11.5 million documents have revealed a pandemic of tax dodging, Whitney’s timing may have been inopportune.

There are very serious questions raised about Key’s relationship with his “lawyer” and long-term friend Whitney, who is running what amounts to business that facilitates tax avoidance.

Given that Key says he has been friends with Whitney for many years, and Whitney says on his Linked-in profile that he has had expertise in offshore trusts for years, presumably Key has been fully aware of Whitney’s dark skill sets.

And to what extent is Key influenced in his belief that New Zealand is not a tax haven and has adequate disclosure rules by the fact that his mate and lawyer has just established a business that is dependent on such a regime continuing.

As well, following the public uproar about his claim that New Zealand is not a tax haven, did it sway his decision to appoint John Shewan, a declared proponent of low tax and an adviser on the Bermuda tax haven, to review New Zealand’s offshore tax and disclosure rules?

Key was blindsided when Parliament’s Register of MPs’ Pecuniary Interests showed he had a short-term deposit with Antipodes.

He insisted last week that if the Panama Papers included anything that showed him in a bad light, it would be out by now, not the most convincing declaration of innocence.

Since becoming Prime Minister, Key has put his investments in a blind trust, the Aldgate Trust. He is also a beneficiary of the Key family trust. Whitney is a director of Whitechapel, the corporate trustee of Aldgate.

Questions have been raised about how much Key knows about his blind trust. Having as a director of the trustee someone who heads a business which proclaims to be a specialist provider of trustee services for foreign trusts using New Zealand as their jurisdiction of choice, makes you wonder if some of Aldgate/Whitechapel’s funds have been invested in foreign trusts.

Macaulay said the Panama Papers exposure, which has revealed people in high places around the world using tax havens to dodge taxes, had raised immense issues of ethics and justice and these papers were likely to be just the beginning.

“I think this is the tip of the tip of the iceberg. The Panama Papers are just one set of papers – god knows what exists in other tax havens around the world,” he said.

“People need to be transparent about these things because the whole issue is about secrecy.”

Macaulay noted that Key said one of the reasons why people use trusts is that they don’t trust the system “but that doesn’t seem a good reason to go and hide things offshore, does it?”

Using offshore trusts may not be illegal in a concrete sense, “but the question then becomes, how fair are the laws? There you have a massive ethical gray area because some laws are skewed towards the benefit of some rather the benefit of all – that’s not an ethical issue, that’s a justice issue.”

“When you look at the trillions and trillions of dollars stashed away, we probably could have solved most social problems many times over.

“The majority of people in New Zealand have enough to have a reasonable life, but a lot of people have absolutely nothing and it’s absolutely wrong.”

Minister Chris Finlayson:I’m no secret fascist

The Minister responsible for Security Intelligence Services, Chris Finlayson.

Stuff,

25 August, 2015

Security services minister Chris Finlayson says he is not a "crypto-fascist" stealthily imposing "secret courts." 

A last-minute change to new health and safety laws would have allowed hearings behind closed doors to protect national security. The Law Society said the Crown could introduce evidence which could be withheld from a defendant or their lawyers.

Finlayson - who is also the Attorney-General - says the amendment was scrapped a week ago. And he doesn't like the term "secret courts" describing it as "hyperbolic."

READ MORE: New health and safety laws contain 'secret courts' provision

But although the Law Society were commenting on an old version of the legislation, it appears their original fears still stand.

Finlayson told reporters: "I saw some article in the Dominion Post that suggested I was some sort of crypto-fascist behind this particular secret court. But it was nothing of the sort.

"It was a [Supplementary Order Paper] that was introduced to deal with the circumstances in which you would deal with a hearing behind closed doors. Where did the [Law Society]  go wrong? Well, probably, what they did is that they didn't really understand the legislative history and hadn't picked up on the most recent SOP."

The bill - which is progressing through committee stages at Parliament - now makes clear that all parties should have access to classified evidence relevant to proceedings.

But it also allows a court to exclude "any person" from the hearing, or to appoint a special advocate with security clearance to view classifiedclass="Apple-converted-space" evidence on a defendant's behalf.

The Law Society won't comment further until it has received the new SOP. 

The health and safety laws also now allowsclass="Apple-converted-space" the directors of the Government Security Service or Security Intelligence Service to deem that the legislation or regulations do not apply to their agencies.

'NOTHING SINISTER' IN THIS

Finlayson defended last minute changes to the legislation, relating to the security services. 

"Sometimes issues do arise at the 11th hour," he said. "Did it justify actually turning it back to the select committee for a hearing? The answer is no. In the overall scheme of things it's a very small corner of the legislation, that's just the way in which you deal with the issue of classified information."

He says there is "nothing surprising or sinister in any of this." And he argues current laws don't clearly set out how security information should be dealt with in the courts.

Anti-terror laws passed last year to target foreign fighters introduced closed proceedings for appeals and judicial reviews in cases where a passport has been cancelled.

And legislation currently before Parliament strips coronersclass="Apple-converted-space" of the automatic right to investigate combat deaths. Under the guises of protecting national security, the military will investigate deaths in-house.

Secret courts - or closed material procedures - are increasingly a feature of the UK justice system, as the British Government moved to protect the disclosure of intelligence provided by US agencies. It argued it was forced to pay compensation because it couldn't reveal some evidence in court. But critics say it skews some cases in the Government's favour and is unfair.

'HYPERBOLIC AND UNHELPFUL'

Finlayson denies the Government is moving to establish secret courts.

"The term secret courts is, with respect, hyperbolic and unhelpful. But there will be situations in a variety of cases - be it a patent case, an immigration case, I suppose it could arise in a coronial inquiry where there will be a need to grapple with the issue of dealing with classified information...Do you deal with it in particular pieces of legislation or could it perhaps be dealt with generically in the evidence act? And personally I could see that there is a case to be made there as well."

He slammed the Law Society for choosing "to comment on legislation via press release."

The Law Society first wrote to Workplace Relations and Safety minister Michael Woodhouse on August 21, and also notified his office before issuing their statement.

A spokeswoman for Finlayson, acting as attorney-general, later said that a prosecuting authority cannot use classified security information if the defendant does not also have access to it.

She later clarified: "There may be situations when a non-Crown Defendant wants to use classified security information. If they do not have the appropriate security clearances to allow direct access to this information, the Special Advocate provisions...are there to ensure that non-Crown individuals and non-Crown entities can make use of classified security information in their defence through use of a Special Advocate."

LABOUR BACKS LAW SOCIETY

Labour's David Parker backed the Law Society, saying some of their concerns remain true.

"First, that this was introduced without submissions. Second, that there was no assessment of whether it is an infringement of civil liberties in breach of the Bill of Rights, given the right to a fair trial. Both of those criticisms by the Law Society are undoubtedly true and nothing the Attorney General has provided suggest otherwise."

The new amendments are "hard to fathom."

"If that means...that the parties to the proceedings including the accused,class="Apple-converted-space" have had to hadclass="Apple-converted-space" access to all the classified information, not just some of the classified information, the rest of it becomes a nonsense. Why would you have the ability ...to make an order excluding an accused person or their lawyer from part of the courtsclass="Apple-converted-space" proceedings?"

Welcome to Nazional New Zealand.

---Comment

“All New Zealanders should be very worried” - Law Society

Last minute changes to new laws initially drafted in response to the Pike River Mine tragedy could impact constitutional rights, the New Zealand Law Society says.

NZ Lawyer,

26 August, 2015

After three days of intense debate, the Health and Safety Bill could see its third and final reading as soon as tomorrow.

The bill is a 273-page omnibus one which will overhaul New Zealand’s workplace health and safety system, replacing the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and the Machinery Act 1950.

But the Law Society has written to Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse, expressing concern around the last-minute insertion to the bill of provisions for a closed material procedure for court proceedings where national security is involved, saying the provisions should not have been inserted at this late stage of the legislative process.

The provisions will allow a person to be tried and convicted of a criminal offence without seeing all the information relied on by the Crown and without the right to be present - or to have their representative present - during all the proceedings.

This is inconsistent with the fundamental right to a fair trial, the Law Society said in a release yesterday.

Law Society president Chris Moore recommended the removal of the provisions from the Bill, to await the outcome of an inquiry the Law Commission is carrying out on National Security Information in Proceedings.

“The Law Commission has already identified significant issues about the matters covered by the provisions which have been inserted in the Bill, and it does not appear that these have been taken into account.”

The processes inserted by Schedule 2A directly impact on very significant constitutional rights, he said.

“Because Schedule 2A was not in the Bill when introduced, it has not been subject to the Bill of Rights vetting process and will miss public consultation and input.”

Mr Moore felt that the Government’s advisers believed there would be relatively few circumstances where secure handling of classified information would be needed as part of any health and safety investigation or legal proceedings where national security is involved.

“However, Schedule 2A has a very wide definition of ‘classified security information’. The Law Commission – which, it is important to stress, has been actively researching this very matter – has identified some major human rights issues in this matter.”

The Law Society has also advised the Minister that Schedule 2A attempts to remove the power of the courts to review a determination that certain information is ‘classified security information’.

“New Zealanders should be very worried when the powers of our courts to review any decision made by civil servants are curtailed, as could happen here.”

The Law Society said that if the provisions are to be retained in the legislation, they should be more narrowly cast “at a minimum” and it strongly urges that the outcome of the Law Commission review be awaited.

The Bill has attracted some controversy; with opposition MPs angered by the Government’s decision to dairy, beef and sheep farms as low risk, while classifying worm farms as high risk. That has since been changed.