"King could not get the really risky funding off the poor mums...

"King could not get the really risky funding off the poor mums and dads of Australia so found away to really put at risk NZ mums and dads hard earned money".

Hi Tuart,
I like your logic but the above statement just doesnt ring true for me...
Yes they were short cutting the fund raisings by buying up NZ Financial Companies which I believe took MFS shares for at least part payment..Not happy NOW.imo
BUT I cant agree completely with "risky funding" because the projects and properties were of high quality and only perhaps overpriced but that would have been compensated for by the rising values, over time.Not great tho.
What if "they" put Australian Dollars into these NZ funds for tax reasons? and then used them for Australian projects.
By having the put option in other words MFS AUST. garanteeing the NZ MFS Fund, their own cash was working for them in a tax effective way, was off shore? and garanteed by the mothership.
Could some of the NZ investors be in fact big AUSTRALIAN ones?Did they include the option clause to suit themselves?
Will the Serious Frauds Office help clarify the flow of funds?
Will some of these apparent debts to NZ investors be PIF or ??? someone/or other parts ASSETS.related to OCV.
Is anything strange like this possible?
There really is so little that we know. Or rather that I can understand.
Accountants where are you and why is everything so complicated?