A month after its collapse, South Canterbury Finance has fallen into the hands of the Serious Fraud Office, which is investigating related party transactions on suspicion of false statements or other fraudulent conduct.SCF went into receivership on August 31 and has been in the news ever since. Its fall triggered the government guarantee scheme and prompted questions about whether the collapse could have been averted if one of the offers to buy the company had been accepted.Last week, the Treasury took the unusual step of making public a big pile of documents relating to the company's acceptance into the retail deposit guarantee scheme, and then the extended guarantee scheme, and, finally, the default that triggered the guarantee.A key question asked over and over again related to SCF's acceptance into the extended guarantee scheme, in late March, was: Did SCF deserve that acceptance, or was it considered "too big", so had to be accepted?If there was one reason why the guarantee should not have been approved, or at least delayed until there was more clarity, it was SCF's exposure to its related parties.Documents now reveal this fact was well highlighted by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand in March. In its letter, the RBNZ drew attention to the fact that, as of December 31, 2009, SCF's exposure to related parties was a whopping 250 per cent of equity and its tier one capital was just 1.6 per cent. Over seven months later, the SFO has discovered the related party loans could have an element of fraudulent activity built into them.SCF's books show its related party loans nearly doubled in a one-year period, to NZ$295 million in December 2009, from NZ$162 million a year earlier.  Among them was NZ$65 million to entities that had the "ability to exercise significant influence" over the company; NZ$77 million to parents and ultimate the parent; NZ$38 million to key management personnel, and NZ$52 million to parties related to key management personnel.Reports suggest five of the loans made between 2005 and 2009 are now the subject of the probe. The National Business Review reported one of the loans was to a hotel owned by Peter Symes, brother-in-law of SCF director Edward Sullivan.In an email from the RBNZ to the Treasury on March 17, it questioned whether related party transactions pertaining to transfer of preference share equity in South Island Farms into debt required "specific approval from the Crown" and asked how the value of preference shares were determined.Interestingly, on March 23, the Treasury said SCF was "more likely than not to fail", based on information it held on March 19. "The company has signalled that funding would remain a significant challenge even if it were approved under the extended scheme," the report said.And less than 10 days later, on April 1, the Treasury announced it had approved SCF under the extended guarantee scheme.Meanwhile, Sydney-based Duncan Saville is reported to have put a NZ$1.4 billion deal to the government in the lead-up to SCF's receivership. But Finance Minister