logo
Russian woman living in Northland ordered to pay investigators who tracked stolen funds

Russian woman living in Northland ordered to pay investigators who tracked stolen funds

RNZ News24-05-2025
By Jeremy Wilkinson, Open Justice reporter of
The money belonged to the woman and her father, a Russian lawyer and businessman.
Photo:
123rf
A woman took US$10 million (NZ$16.9m) from a bank account she shared with her father and gave most of it to her lover to invest on her behalf, only for him to flee to Italy with it.
Russian woman Inna Shibalova had fallen in love with a married man, Andrey Ivanov, and believed he would invest the money on her behalf, so she could provide for her mother and sister.
Shibalova also believed Ivanov would leave his wife to be with her.
Under the guise of his imminent divorce from his wife, Ivanov travelled to Italy and assured Shibalova that he'd invested the money, but instead, he took the money and disappeared.
When Shibalova, who was living in Melbourne at the time, realised she had been deceived, she engaged Australian private investigations firm MPOL Group Pty (MPOL) to recover the money.
MPOL contracted a Switzerland-based investigations firm to help and, after hundreds of hours of work and almost a decade later, the money was returned to the Shibalova family.
Now, Shibalova has been ordered to pay Swiss firm Business Control Schweiz (BCS) about €2.6m (NZ$5.1m) in commission for its work tracking down her former lover and finding the money he'd taken.
The case is being heard in New Zealand, after BCS tracked Shibalova to Northland, where she now resides, and applied to the High Court at Whangārei to sue her for her breach of contract and claim of its commission.
Speaking to NZME, Shibalova said she was 27 when Ivanov, whom she described as a "professional confidence trickster", took the money in 2005.
"I fell in love and trusted him with my family money," she said.
The money she took was from a Hong Kong bank account she and her father, who was a Russian lawyer and businessman, operated and were both signatories for.
It had come from the sale of shares in a Russian port company of which Shibalova was a majority shareholder, though her father was the beneficial owner.
Shibalova accessed the money to provide for herself, her sister and her mother, as she did not trust her father to provide for them.
While Shibalova told her father she'd taken the $10m to give to the Red Cross, she actually transferred $9.6m of it to Ivanov's account on the promise he would invest the money on her behalf and then leave his wife.
After realising she had been duped, Shibalova hired MPOL to find the money and agreed to pay investigation fees, expenses and disbursements, plus 35 percent commission on any returned money.
During MPOL's investigation, the firm engaged the services of BCS, but Shibalova maintains she hired MPOL, not BCS, and no-one had told her the contract had been assigned to the latter.
"No-one ever told me about this assignment until December 2020," she told NZME, with that date being when BCS filed its claim with the High Court.
"The claim, proceedings and outcome has caused me and my family a great deal of distress and anguish, and continue to do so."
According to the High Court decision released this month, the investigators located the missing money in a Sicilian bank account in 2007 and travelled to Sicily.
Italian police told investigators it was the largest electronic transfer ever made to a Sicilian account.
They were suspicious the money was from the proceeds of crime and the private investigators were arrested.
Eventually, however, they accepted the funds were legitimately obtained by Shibalova's family and had been stolen from her, and the investigators were released, but the mone -, about €7m (NZD$13.49m) - remained frozen by order of an Italian court.
Meanwhile, in 2008, the private investigators discovered Ivanov was living in London with his wife. They advised Italian authorities, and criminal and civil proceedings commenced against him.
In 2012, Ivanov was imprisoned and an order was made for restitution of the stolen funds to Shibalova. The Italian Court insisted the funds could only be returned to her and not to her father.
Her father filed an appeal, which related to half of the frozen funds.
Soon after, the other half was released to Shibalova's Sicilian lawyer, whom she had made power of attorney.
However, the High Court heard that Shibalova had entered into a side agreement with her father, unbeknown to the investigators, for him to help her as a witness in the Italian court proceedings, and, in exchange, any money recovered would be transferred directly to him.
The agreement stated that the money must be transferred, either by Shibalova or her lawyer, to an account nominated by her father. It also forbade Shibalova from making payments to the investigators.
A letter detailing the agreement was produced to the High Court as evidence, but BCS did not accept the authenticity of the letter, nor the agreement, and suggested they may have been fabricated.
In 2015, the remainder of the money was released.
The investigators continued to request payment for their services, but Shibalova's Sicilian lawyer untruthfully told them the money was still being held in a government-controlled fund in Italy.
Shibalova claims she has paid about A$450,000 ($490,000) to MPOL in fees and disbursements, but never paid the 35 percent commission fee on the money returned.
Meanwhile, MPOL went into liquidation in 2013. Its director Mark Grover was charged with improperly taking money from one of his companies and was bankrupted in 2015.
BCS continued chasing the owed commission fee and tracked down Shibalova's father, who agreed to pay it but never did.
The firm went on to file the civil claim against Shibalova in the High Court at Whangārei in 2020.
At a week-long hearing in October last year, Shibalova represented herself and argued against paying the commission.
She claimed she was only required to pay it if MPOL recovered the funds from Ivanov and pointed out the Italian courts had frozen the money and released it to them.
She also argued there was no valid assignment of the contract to BCS and that the funds had been paid back to her father, not to her.
Further, Shibalova submitted that BCS' claim was outside the limitation period for bringing litigation.
However, Justice Michele Wilkinson-Smith disagreed with Shibalova's defence, finding she'd agreed with MPOL freely and the firm had upheld its end of the bargain and she was now failing to uphold hers.
"She contends that she had little choice as there was no other apparent way to secure the return of the stolen money, but that situation was not created by MPOL," Justice Wilkinson-Smith said in the decision.
"It resulted from Ms Shibalova's dishonest actions in taking the US$10m in the first place and transferring it to Mr Ivanov."
Justice Wilkinson-Smith said Shibalova failed to tell the investigators when the money had been released and "deliberately misled" them when they continued to ask.
"I consider that Ms Shibalova was deliberately fraudulent in her dealings with MPOL and BCS and sought to fraudulently conceal the repayment of the money to avoid any liability to pay the commission," Justice Wilkinson-Smith found.
She ruled that failing to pay the commission was a breach of contract and that MPOL did have the right to assign the contract to BCS and that, ultimately, BCS was owed the commission fee.
Justice Wilkinson-Smith ordered Shibalova to pay BCS €2,678,215, which converts to about NZD$5.1m.
She also ordered Shibalova to pay 5 percent interest per year from April 2015.
"Ms Shibalova may not have been the beneficial owner of the money, but she chose to enter into a contract to pay a fee of 35 percent of the money 'collected' on her behalf and returned to her," the decision said.
"It was 'collected' on her behalf and returned to her. What she chose to do with the money did not extinguish her obligations under the contract.
"Her competing obligations to her father did not extinguish her contractual obligations."
BCS chief executive Pascal Oswald told NZME its team of investigators at the firm had done extensive work on Shibalova's case.
"Business Control (Schweiz) AG is committed to vigorously defending the interests of our clients, especially in complex international fraud recovery matters," Oswald said.
"Successfully navigating such cases - particularly in sensitive regions like Southern Italy - requires persistence, discretion, and deep local understanding.
"At the same time, we stand firm when it comes to asserting our own rightful claims. Integrity and determination guide our work, whether we act on behalf of clients or in our own interest."
Shibalova told NZME she was considering her appeal options.
*
This story originally appeared in the
New Zealand Herald
.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

ASB rejects offer to settle class action lawsuit for more than $300m
ASB rejects offer to settle class action lawsuit for more than $300m

RNZ News

timean hour ago

  • RNZ News

ASB rejects offer to settle class action lawsuit for more than $300m

ASB and ANZ have both rejected an offer to settle a class action lawsuit for more than $300 million. Photo: ASB bank has rejected an offer to settle a class action law suit for historic breaches of credit disclosure laws . The offer on behalf of more than 150,000 customers of the ASB and ANZ was to settle for just over $300 million. ASB has joined ANZ in rejecting the offer as a move to influence MPs considering changes to the credit laws to close historic loopholes and bad drafting. ASB said it did not understand how the offer had been calculated, and that it would not put an end to legal action. The consumers' group said the proposed credit law changes might undermine their claim, while the industry said the loopholes posed a multi-billion dollar risk for the financial system. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

New Zealand First's Cash Transactions Protection Bill - What it is and what it could do
New Zealand First's Cash Transactions Protection Bill - What it is and what it could do

RNZ News

timean hour ago

  • RNZ News

New Zealand First's Cash Transactions Protection Bill - What it is and what it could do

A bill put forth by New Zealand First would require stores to take cash for purchases up to $500. Photo: 123rf Explainer - Cash is king, some people say - while others wouldn't be caught dead without their PayWave and Apple Pay. But a new members' bill put forward by New Zealand First would protect cash as a key option in transactions, requiring stores to take it for purchases up to $500. If drawn from the ballot and passed, NZ First leader Winston Peters said it would "provide for the enduring use of cash as a private, accessible, and reliable method of payment". The party cited rural communities, the elderly and low-income earners as being disproportionately affected by businesses that don't accept cash. As a members' bill, lodged 14 July in the name of NZ First MP Jamie Arbuckle, it's still a long while from possibly becoming law, but it does propose sweeping changes in how businesses treat cash and looks at who gets left out in a digital economy. Here's what you need to know. The Cash Transactions Protection Bill would mandate businesses in trade accept cash payment for goods valued up to $500. "The bill ensures that New Zealanders maintain freedom of choice in how they pay, preserving cash as what it should be: an enduring private and reliable option", Peters said in introducing it. "By protecting the sanctity of cash transactions, the bill upholds personal privacy, maintains sovereign control over New Zealand's monetary system, and lessens the risks posed by digital-only payment systems." There are some exceptions given to the bill's requirements, including online retailers and land purchases. The bill also would propose that "payment in cash must be accepted for essential goods or services" - which it defines as food, water, fuel, health care and household utilities. Another part of the bill would require businesses to keep cash on hand for emergencies: "A vendor must ensure they have sufficient access to cash to allow them to continue to trade in the event of a digital or electrical outage that lasts longer than 24 hours." In the introduction, the bill says it "preserves cash as an explicit privacy-preserving payment method, ensuring both freedom of choice and freedom from unwarranted surveillance in financial transactions". "It puts New Zealanders' interests above global trends toward digital currencies, maintaining sovereign control over New Zealand's monetary policy and mitigating the risks associated with digital-only financial systems, like restricted access to funds." The bill also calls for fees or fines from $1000 to a maximum of $5000 for infringements. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii It's quite a long way from that, actually. As a members' bill, it's not yet guaranteed it will ever go to the House for a vote. The bill first will have to be randomly drawn from the ballot to be considered at all in the House, and then undergo the same process of debate and referral to select committees as any other bill. While it's on the members ballot, MPs are allowed only one bill in the lottery at any given time. NZ First has swapped out its bills on several occasions this term, so there's also no guarantees over how long this legislation will remain in the ballot. Speaking to Checkpoint recently, Retail NZ CEO Carolyn Young said she wondered if the bill was "kind of a sledgehammer for a small problem". Marisa Bidois, chief executive of the Restaurant Association of New Zealand, said the bill ignored realities many businesses deal with. "We understand the intent behind the proposed bill - no one wants to see people excluded from accessing essential goods and services. However, requiring all businesses to accept cash for transactions under $500 doesn't reflect the operational realities many businesses face. "We believe businesses should be trusted to make the right decisions for how they operate and serve their customers." Members' bills are often used to float an idea or gauge public reaction to it, Parliament's website notes . Yes, as long as they "clearly inform customers in advance that they don't accept cash before you start shopping or receive services from them", the Reserve Bank of New Zealand said . They can do that with a sign on the premises or telling you in person before you pay. "Most hospitality businesses still accept cash, but a small and growing number are moving away from it, particularly in busy urban areas," Bidois said. "Some customers do push back when cash isn't accepted, especially if they haven't been informed ahead of time. That's why we encourage clear communication." You're also only allowed to pay so much of a bill in coins, by the way, in case you're thinking of clearing out that piggy bank - you're allowed up to $5 of 10 or 20 cent coins, $10 of 50 cent coins or $100 worth of $1 and $2 coins. Shoppers are increasingly using cards over cash. Photo: 123rf According to the Reserve Bank's latest data released in June, 45.8 percent of the population are still using cash sometimes in "paying for everyday things" - although 79.1 percent are using debit cards/EFTPOS also. Only 3.6 percent of people say they "never use cash," while 33.2 percent said they hadn't used cash at all in the past seven days. Cash isn't quite the king it once was. "We know that less than 10 percent of transactions that happen across New Zealand throughout the year now happen in cash," Retail NZ's Young said. "In the cities a lot less cash is used and in rural areas and areas of deprivation there is a higher percentage of cash that is used." Bidois said in the Restaurant Association's latest survey, 40 percent of respondents said cash made up just 5 to 10 percent of their transactions. Still, when it comes to essentials, "there's no supermarket that doesn't take cash," Young said. On Peters' Facebook page, the post announcing the bill has gathered nearly 3000 comments and 15,000 likes, with many expressing support for the idea. "Thank you! I use cash as a way to keep within my budget, as my mother did," one wrote, while another said it was "an essential bill - especially for many of our elderly population". Photo: RNZ / Leonard Powell On the other hand, Young said that electronic transactions are often easier for businesses to deal with. "Electronic transactions are much safer for a wide number of reasons," she said, including less chance of being targeted by thieves or counterfeit money, and less time for staff dealing with transactions. "For many retailers and for hospitalities, cafes and things, cash is not always their favoured method of payment because of those challenges." However, frequently complained-about surcharges such as those for PayWave are "not ideal", she said. Many also have concerns about the privacy and security issues around digital payments and the records they leave behind. Cash also comes back to the table during disasters, such as Cyclone Gabrielle, which saw infrastructure knocked out widely. "We do know that when the cyclones happened in Auckland and Gisborne and Hawke's Bay 18 months ago that the supermarkets were really critical for being able to, especially in those provincial areas … they really provided the cash that people needed to be able to pay for goods and services," Young said. Bidois said that while there was a clear shift toward digital payments, it was all about striking the right balance for businesses. "Many businesses are finding that tap-and-go is what most customers expect, and it makes day-to-day operations simpler. "That said, our members care about customer experience, and most continue to accept cash to accommodate older New Zealanders, tourists, or regulars who prefer it." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Wellington footbridge faces demolition after earthquake closure
Wellington footbridge faces demolition after earthquake closure

RNZ News

timean hour ago

  • RNZ News

Wellington footbridge faces demolition after earthquake closure

The demolition will close roads around Wakefield Street on Saturday. Photo: Nick James / RNZ A Wellington central-city pedestrian bridge will be knocked down on Saturday as part of a series of works underway on streets near Civic Square. The Amora footbridge connects the Amora Hotel to the former Michael Fowler Centre carpark on Wakefield Street. The hotel has been deemed earthquake prone and has been closed since 2017, which made the bridge redundant, and caused it to attract anti-social behaviour, squatting, graffiti and illegal access to the hotel and the adjoining building. Wellington City Council said, while the link bridge was secure, it was prudent to remove it as soon as possible. To safely remove the bridge, the section of Wakefield Street from Taranaki/Wakefield intersection to lower Cuba Street would be fully closed to traffic and pedestrians, with the public asked to follow traffic management plan detours. Over coming months, the council will have several closures in place on nearby roads, as it co-ordinates needed infrastructure work, before it upgrades and reopens Civic Square next year. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store