Court bans Peter Huljich for seven years over Pushpay insider conduct

FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v HULJICH [2026] NZHC 2313 [10 August 2026] IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV-2022-404-073 [2026] NZHC 2313 BETWEEN FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY Plaintiff AND PETER KARL CHRISTOPHER HULJICH First Defendant SARAH ANN HULJICH (NÉE ELDER) Second Defendant Hearing: On the papers Counsel: B H Dickey KC, A D Luck and C S A Jordan for Plaintiff J C L Dixon KC, H M Z Lanham and S R Holden for Defendants Judgment: 10 August 2026 JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J [banning order] This judgment was delivered by me on 10 August 2026 at 12 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016. Registrar/Deputy Registrar ………………………………… Solicitors/Counsel: B H Dickey KC, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland J C L Dixon KC, Auckland H M Z Lanham, Auckland Chapman Tripp, Auckland

[1] This proceeding seeks a declaration against Mr Huljich for contravening a civil liability provision, namely s 243 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA) in respect of insider conduct. [2] Shortly after this proceeding was commenced, Mr Huljich was charged criminally for the same conduct. This proceeding was subsequently stayed by consent, pending the determination of those criminal proceedings. [3] Mr Huljich was found guilty at trial in August 2023. A conviction was entered on 3 November 2023. His conviction was subsequently upheld on appeal.1 As such, the criminal proceedings have now been finally determined. [4] Accordingly, it is appropriate for the stay in this proceeding to be lifted. [5] The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) now proceeds with an interlocutory application for the following banning order against Mr Huljich, pursuant to ss 517 and 518 of the FMCA: Mr Huljich is prohibited from being a director or promoter of, or being in any way (directly or indirectly) concerned, or taking part, in the management of a financial markets participant (as defined in the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011), or a company that has resolved to become a financial markets participant, for a period of seven years from the date of his conviction (3 November 2023), without leave of the High Court. [6] The banning order is available because: (a) the FMA is an “entitled person” for the purposes of s 517(1) of the FMCA, and so has standing to seek the order;2 (b) Mr Huljich has been convicted of an offence under an Act referred to in pt 1, sch 1 of the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011, being an offence under ss 240, 243(1) and 244 of the FMCA for insider conduct;3 and 1 Huljich v R [2025] NZCA 155, [2025] 2 NZLR 658; leave to appeal declined Huljich v R [2025] NZSC 99. 2 Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, s 517(3)(a). 3 Section 517(1)(b).

(c) an application for a banning order may be made in the course of any civil or criminal proceedings, or at any other time. 4 [7] The FMA submits that the terms of the banning order are appropriate in the circumstances, including the following: (a) Mr Huljich was convicted of criminal insider trading for advising or encouraging in one instance trustees of a trust to trade. Insider trading is an inherently serious contravention as it significantly undermines the integrity of New Zealand’s financial markets. That is especially so in the case of criminal insider trading. (b) Mr Huljich’s conduct involved a “serious breach of trust” on account of his senior role within Pushpay.5 It is through that position that he was in possession of the material information. At no point though did Mr Huljich share the material information. It was also not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he advised or encouraged the trustees to trade “because of” the material information (i.e. having been motivated by his possession of it).6 (c) It is inherent in the jury’s verdict that Mr Huljich knew that the information was material information (as defined in s 231 of the FMCA) and that it was not generally available to the market (as defined in s 232 of the FMCA). As the Court of Appeal recognised, insider conduct is a form of fraud that undermines public confidence in the integrity of the stock market.7 4 Section 517(4). 5 R v Y [2023] NZHC 3101, [2023] NZCCLR 13 at [29(a)]. 6 At [32]; Huljich v R (CA), above n 1, at 160. In the context of the Crown’s appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal noted at [164] that, if it was to consider the matter afresh “the starting point should not have been less than two years’ imprisonment to reflect the culpability of the offending. A starting point of three years’ imprisonment would only have been appropriate if the Judge had found Mr Huljich provided the advice or encouragement because of the material inside information.” 7 Huljich v R (CA), above n 1, at [162].

(d) Mr Huljich has expressed statements, at various points in the life of this matter, indicating a lack of remorse for his conduct. Those include the observations recorded in the pre-sentence report;8 and subsequent statements in the media, following the Court of Appeal’s judgment, denying wrongdoing. (e) Mr Huljich has a previous conviction for breaching financial markets legislation, having been convicted in 2011 for contraventions of ss 58 and 59 of the Securities Act 1978.9 Mr Huljich was the director of a family business that operated a KiwiSaver scheme. In that capacity, he was the promoter of eight offer documents issued by the company, and he also arranged for the company to enter into a number of undisclosed transactions at undervalue. As a result, the offer documents misrepresented the scheme’s performance.10 [8] The FMA submits that the Banning Order: (a) is limited to entities that are, or that have resolved to become, financial markets participants, reflecting the fact that Mr Huljich’s previous convictions are for conduct specifically in breach of financial markets legislation; (b) is of a duration commensurate to the seriousness of the proven conduct and the other matters set out above; and (c) commences from the date Mr Huljich’s conviction was entered, that being the earliest point from which such an order could have been sought. [9] Mr Huljich does not oppose the making of the Banning Order. 8 R v Y, above n 5, at [48]. 9 R v Huljich DC Auckland CRI-2010-004-020598, 20 December 2011. 10 Securities Commission of New Zealand v Huljich Wealth Management Ltd DC Auckland CRI-2010-004-020598, 20 December 2011.

[10] I accept the orders are appropriate for the reasons outlined above. [11] The FMA has discontinued, with no issue as to costs, against the second defendant Once the banning order is made, I understand that the balance of the proceeding will be dealt with by a notice of discontinuance. Result [12] By consent, I lift the stay granted by Venning J on 11 April 2022. [13] Without opposition, I make the following banning order against Mr Huljich, under ss 517 and 518 of the FMCA: Mr Huljich is prohibited from being a director or promoter of, or being in any way (directly or indirectly) concerned, or taking part, in the management of a financial markets participant (as defined in the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011), or a company that has resolved to become a financial markets participant, for a period of seven years from the date of his conviction (3 November 2023), without leave of the High Court.

---

O’Gorman J