Agreement for Sale and Purchase of real estate, 11th edition 2022

The ADLS and REINZ Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate, 11th edition 2022 (3) (ASPRE), will be released on Tuesday 9 May.

This will coincide with the date that the second tranche of provisions under the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2022 come into force. The amendments in the 11th edition 2022 (3) reflect the new improved requirements for pre-purchase disclosure to protect buyers of unit titles.

In light of these regulatory changes and feedback received, the amendments include:

■ a new function to allow parties to enter a LIM, building report, OIA, Land Act and toxicology dates and, as a consequence of this function, an amended procedure as to how to satisfy or waive conditions under clause 9;

■ clarification to the compensation clause to clarify each

Continued from page 10 party’s rights when a reasonable claim is made; and

■ reinsertion of the original warning under the signatory provisions.

For unit title sales, there will be:

■ a new requirement that all rights to cancel or defer settlement as provided by the Unit Titles Act are satisfied or waived before the deposit is released;

■ clearer obligations requiring the vendor to show periodic contributions to the operating account on the settlement statement; and

■ new provisions under clause 8, specifically relating to new vendor warranties.

To register for an upcoming ADLS webinar discussing the Unit Titles Act changes in May and explaining the changes in the latest version of the ASPRE, please click here ■

The increased visibility that sentencing guidelines can bring is important for addressing either the presence of, or the potential for, institutional bias.

Independence of the judiciary is essential. And at least some level of discretion is necessary to ensure the judiciary can consider all relevant factors when making sentencing decisions. However, where there is complete discretion, there will be disparities.

Some of the clearest illustrations of these disparities can be seen in how we respond to financial fraud.

Sentencing disparity

Historically, there have been clear differences in the numbers of investigations and prosecutions, and severity of sentences, for tax evaders and benefit fraudsters. That said, this is changing. A similar number of tax evaders and benefit fraudsters are now prosecuted in New Zealand.

But there are still stark differences in how different types of financial fraud are dealt with.

My research, to be published later this year, found that between 2018 and 2020, most benefit fraud cases were prosecuted under the Crimes Act (83%) with 17% charged under the Social Security Act 1964. This situation reversed for tax cases, where 84% were prosecuted under the Tax Administration Act and 16% were prosecuted under the Crimes Act 1961.

The Crimes Act provides for harsher sentences than the Tax Administration Act. This is despite the tax offences typically comprising higher average values of offending.

Sentencing guidelines cannot address inconsistencies of treatment prior to sentencing, such as the use of different charging legislation, or even choices about who is, or is not, investigated or prosecuted.

However, guidelines can limit discrepancies in the sentence. Moreover, they can provide an opportunity for greater public engagement, as justification is typically required when sentences are outside the specified range.

With this in mind, there is a strong case to revisit introducing sentencing guidelines in New Zealand for financial fraud – and potentially many other offences.

Perhaps the strongest argument is that of fairness. To the extent that sentencing guidelines can minimise the potential for different outcomes for offenders who commit similar offences, they can positively contribute to the justice system. ■

Lisa Marriott is a Professor of Taxation at Victoria University of Wellington ■