(ed: frank macskasy unpacks the ross/bridges brouhaha..)
National Party President Peter Goodfellow confirmed unequivocally that no ‘$100K’ donation had been received by the National Party office;
“There was no such donation. The Botany Electorate of the National Party received eight donations and Mr Ross declared eight donations to us.”
It will be a simple matter for Police to conduct a forensic accounting investigation.
Once deposited into the Botany-National account the electronic money trail will be relatively straight forward to follow.
If – as Peter Goodfellow claims and Ross outlined in his recorded conversation with Bridges – it was deposited in smaller amounts, again it would be straight forward to trace the source(s) and donor (s).
If dodgy dealings were involved and the $100k was split into ‘eight donations’ – an electronic trail will reveal the donor(s).
The Police probably have those details by now.
Furthermore if seven of those ‘eight donations’ were individuals who happened to receive an identical sum of say $12,500 from Zhang Yikun; and those seven individuals then donated precisely the same sum of say $12,500 to Botany National – then a prima facie case exists that an attempt was made to circumvent the Electoral Act 1993.
If it became known that Mr Zhang received that $100,000 from a foreign government – or state-sanctioned entity controlled by a foreign government – that would be explosive! It would cripple the National Party for years to come.
The bottom line is that a donation was made.
The question is: how was it made?
Both claims of a single $100k donation and ‘eight donations’ cannot be reconciled.
Someone is lying.
By now the Police probably have a good idea who.