The scam that crossed five borders
In February 2026, New Zealand’s Financial Markets Authority joined regulators in Tonga, Australia, the UK, and the US in issuing urgent warnings about BG Wealth Sharing, a crypto scheme that had spread through Tongan family networks, church groups, and social media across all five countries. FMA Executive Director of Licensing and Conduct Supervision Clare Bolingford said “people in Tongan communities are losing significant sums of money” across those jurisdictions. BG Wealth Sharing Ltd is not registered to trade in or provide advice on securities or derivatives in New Zealand.
The scheme did not target random individuals. It moved through trust architecture: the aunties, the pastors, the community leaders whose endorsement carries weight precisely because it has been earned over decades. In May 2026, Associate Dean Pacific Sione Taufa described how crypto investment schemes are “spreading across the Pacific, often through trusted family, church, and community networks” and warned that “some schemes carry serious risks and limited protections for investors.” His framing is important: this is a systemic vulnerability, not an individual character flaw.
$265 million lost and most of it never reported
MBIE’s first Reported Fraud Monitor found New Zealanders lost $265 million to fraud in the past year, split between $126 million in authorised scams where victims were manipulated into approving payments and $139 million in unauthorised transactions. Relationship and trust scams, the category capturing affinity fraud through community networks, accounted for $31 million of that total.
Those numbers are almost certainly low. In 2024, the government’s response to the Finance and Expenditure Committee noted that estimates from 11 of New Zealand’s largest financial institutions put losses at just under $200 million, “with most losses going unreported.” In Pacific communities, where shame and family obligation compound the reluctance to report, the true figure is likely far higher.
The vulnerability is structural, not personal
The 2021 Financial Capability Survey by Te Ara Ahunga Ora found Pacific peoples had the lowest financial confidence of all groups in New Zealand, scoring 48 out of 100 on informed financial product choice with only 28% proficiency. Understanding of risk scored just 41% proficiency. But here is the detail that matters: the same survey showed Pacific peoples had strong scores on saving attitudes and impulse control. These are not reckless people. They are disciplined savers operating without the product knowledge to distinguish a legitimate investment from a fraud.
That knowledge gap exists alongside a financial access problem. A 2021 DIA risk assessment found that tightened AML/CFT rules had made it harder for small and medium money remitters in the NZ-to-Pacific corridor to open and maintain bank accounts. Some were forced to use personal accounts or shell companies. For communities where remittances represent 38% of Tonga’s GDP and 19% of Samoa’s, losing access to mainstream financial infrastructure does not reduce demand. It redirects it toward less regulated channels.
Crypto sits outside the framework entirely
The regulatory gap is straightforward. Crypto is not specifically regulated in New Zealand. There is no statutory compensation scheme, no mandatory disclosure regime, and limited recourse when a platform fails or turns out to be fraudulent. IRD’s 2024 Crypto Asset Reporting Framework found that 80% of cryptoasset activity by New Zealanders goes through offshore exchanges, entirely beyond the reach of domestic consumer protection. Between 6% and 10% of New Zealanders own cryptocurrency, per 2022 surveys.
The government’s 2024 response to the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s dual inquiries into crypto and bank scam protections leaned heavily on industry self-regulation for banks and an “innovation-friendly” approach to digital assets. Consumer protection was not the primary frame. That is a deliberate policy choice, and the BG Wealth Sharing case is what it looks like in practice.
$8 billion in GDP, and the warnings still aren’t landing
Pacific communities are not a marginal economic constituency. In 2018, Treasury estimated Pacific individuals and businesses contributed $8 billion to New Zealand’s GDP, with household spending contributing $10.4 billion to the expenditure measure. Pacific churches alone held over $500 million in assets, which helps explain why they are targeted as endorsement channels.
Back in 2020, the FMA published Pacific-specific scam guidance identifying affinity fraud through churches as the primary vector: “Scammers often take advantage of close-knit community groups such as churches, convincing one member who then helps convince others in the group.” Materials were provided in Samoan and Tongan. Six years later, the same mechanism is operating at scale across five countries.
The pro-business position here is not that crypto needs to be banned or that Pacific communities need patronising. It is that market governance requires the rules to actually cover the products people are buying, the warnings to reach the people most at risk, and the banking system to not push vulnerable communities toward the exact channels where fraud thrives. When all three fail simultaneously for a group contributing billions to the economy, the cost is not theoretical. It is capital destruction happening in real time, and the system designed to prevent it is looking the other way.
Sources
- NZ becomes latest to join Tonga, Australia, UK and US in warning BG Wealth Sharing is a scam (2026-02)
- Pacific Communities and Crypto Schemes w/ Sione Taufa | 95bFM (2026-05-21)
- Pacific families warned as scammers target church and trust-based community networks
- New Zealand Financial Capability Survey 2021 (2021)
- NZ-to-Pacific Money Remittance Sub-Sector Risk Assessment (2021-07-21)
- Regulatory Impact Statement: Crypto Asset Reporting Framework (2024-05-08)
- New Zealand Pacific Economy – November 2018 (2018-11)