logo
Nurse conned $112k from colleagues for gigs, gambling

Nurse conned $112k from colleagues for gigs, gambling

- By Belinda Feek, Open Justice multimedia journalist
A nurse who took more than $100,000 from three sympathetic colleagues after claiming her mother had died and her dad was sick spent the money on gambling and trips overseas.
She even attended a Taylor Swift concert in Sydney and a Yankees game and Justin Timberlake concert in New York.
Angelina Nicole Therese Avisado Reyes, a nurse at Waikato District Health Board at the time, was so persistent with one victim that he ended up transferring $107,000 to her over six months.
That victim cashed in investments, withdrew savings and handed over part of his inheritance from a dead grandparent, after Reyes claimed she had tried to commit suicide because she was so stressed.
Reyes, who no longer works at the DHB, eventually confessed and told him she'd lost $18,000 of his money gambling.
The 33-year-old appeared in the Hamilton District Court recently, where she pleaded guilty to three charges of obtaining by deception, one of which was representative, after taking $112,000 from her colleagues.
Her counsel, Raewyn Sporle, asked Judge Noel Cocurullo not to enter convictions as she would be applying for a Section 106 discharge without conviction at her sentencing in October. 'Can't afford a burial plot' for purportedly dead mother
Reyes, who is now on bail, unsuccessfully challenged a media request for a copy of court documents detailing her offending. A judge granted NZME permission to have them.
According to those documents, the first victim was made aware by her manager in early December 2023 that Reyes' mother in the Philippines was sick and in hospital.
In March 2024, she was told Reyes' mother had died. When she later saw Reyes and noticed she was crying they spoke.
Later that morning, the victim got a message from Reyes saying her mother had died, she had no money, and couldn't afford a burial plot in the Philippines for her.
After speaking to her husband, the victim agreed to transfer $2000 to Reyes.
Around the end of the month, the second victim saw Reyes and noticed she seemed distracted, was always on her phone, and asked if she was all right.
Reyes said her mother in the Philippines was sick.
Over the next couple of weeks, Reyes said her mother had a heart attack, was hospitalised, then discharged, then later readmitted, and then died.
Another time, she said her father had been hospitalised with a 'brain problem' and that it was 'very serious'.
On April 11, the victim got a Facebook message from Reyes saying she was back home, her father was in hospital, and asking if she could borrow some money and that she would pay her back on payday.
When asked how much she needed, Reyes said $3000. 'Tell your parents you've been scammed'
In January 2024, Reyes told the third victim her mother was in hospital and needed $10,000 for the cost of heart surgery.
She contacted him a week later saying her mother had a heart attack and she needed the money 'immediately', but it was now going to cost $90,000 for the surgery and hospital expenses.
She asked for $35,000.
At the time, the victim didn't have the money directly, so he cashed in some investments and withdrew some savings totalling $36,000.
Reyes promised to pay him back by the end of the year.
On February 11, she advised her boss that her mother had died during surgery and told several other colleagues over the following days.
Immigration records revealed Reyes flew to Sydney overnight on February 23 to attend a Taylor Swift concert. During this time, she'd also falsely claimed two weeks of bereavement leave.
On March 9, Reyes contacted the victim again, saying she needed $1000 that day to pay the funeral director to have her mother's body released, but said she needed it in e-vouchers, due to sending it to the Philippines.
She was back in touch again on May 6, saying her father now needed surgery and required $6000. The victim was only able to transfer $1000.
The victim inherited more than $60,000 from a deceased grandparent on May 10, and told Reyes he could loan her more money if required.
She asked for $40,000, which they agreed to transfer.
Three days later, Reyes asked for another $10,000 to travel home to see her sick father.
In July, she contacted the victim again, saying she was in the Philippines and had been hospitalised after trying to commit suicide and had incurred a debt of $30,000.
The victim didn't have that much and instead transferred her $600 and gave her a $400 pay safe card.
He then cashed up more investments as he wanted to help her and put $18,000 in her account.
However, Immigration records showed she was in New York between June 16 and July 14 last year, and attended a Yankees baseball game and a Justin Timberlake concert.
On July 23, she called the victim and told him she owed lawyers $100,000 and if she didn't pay it, her father would go to jail.
She also claimed to be suicidal again.
The victim said he didn't have any money, but Reyes told him to tell his parents he had been scammed out of the money.
However, he declined to do that.
The next day, she video-called the victim and said she had flights booked back to New Zealand but couldn't leave the country until she paid the $100,000.
She later told him she had lied about owing the $100,000, and had lost $18,000 gambling. 'Mum and Dad are alive and well'
Reyes siphoned $107,200 from that victim alone due to the stories she had told him.
When questioned by police, Reyes said she had a 'big gambling problem'.
She also admitted lying about her mother's death, that her father was sick, and that she had attempted suicide so the victim would give her money.
Reyes also confirmed that her mother and father were 'alive and well' in the Philippines.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Couple take previous home owner to court after she refuses to leave
Couple take previous home owner to court after she refuses to leave

Otago Daily Times

time16 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Couple take previous home owner to court after she refuses to leave

A couple who bought a Pāpāmoa Beach house needed a High Court order to remove the previous owner after she refused to leave the property. New owners Benjamin and Chelsea Brown bought the two-bedroom home at a mortgagee sale this year, with settlement taking place on May 21. But the previous owner, Terina O'Connell, said she had been trying to "negotiate a solution with ASB for two years" and had not consented to the sale of her home. As a result, she refused to move out and even went as far as reaching out to people on social media and asking them to come to her home and support her before settlement day. The new owners sought a trespass order on May 22 to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work, they took their case to the High Court. 'The bank does not own my property' According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on June 6, where O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties. The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house. There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a "call-out" for support, saying "all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday, 20 May 2025 – tomorrow". She said the purchasers had "made a deal with the devil" and that "the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made". She posted that she "would appreciate some support at my home ... tomorrow afternoon ... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days". While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media in which she explained her views on the "alleged debt" owed to the bank. In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested or answer questions she had. Judge: Any issues between her and bank, not new owners The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB. O'Connell told the court she'd tried to "negotiate a solution" for two years, had not consented to the mortgagee sale and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway. She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating. O'Connell said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been "harassed". She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to "support her through this stressful time" and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship if forced to leave. But Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were "between her and ASB". "These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property," Justice Gardiner said. The judge said while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case. She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters. The High Court judgment also noted that while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness. They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default. The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, June 9. Are mortgagee sales on the rise? Cotality New Zealand data showed a "minor lift" to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter when there were 52. This marked the highest number since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales. However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was "still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis". "I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party." OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as "mortgagee sales" in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting at just over 38,000. New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks are responsible lenders. They typically have dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty and mortgagee sales were "rare and always a last resort". "There are several options that banks may offer ... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments." Beaumont said in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers. "As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments." By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter

Couple take former home owner to court after she refuses to leave
Couple take former home owner to court after she refuses to leave

Otago Daily Times

time16 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Couple take former home owner to court after she refuses to leave

A couple who bought a Pāpāmoa Beach house needed a High Court order to remove the previous owner after she refused to leave the property. New owners Benjamin and Chelsea Brown bought the two-bedroom home at a mortgagee sale this year, with settlement taking place on May 21. But the previous owner, Terina O'Connell, said she had been trying to "negotiate a solution with ASB for two years" and had not consented to the sale of her home. As a result, she refused to move out and even went as far as reaching out to people on social media and asking them to come to her home and support her before settlement day. The new owners sought a trespass order on May 22 to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work, they took their case to the High Court. 'The bank does not own my property' According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on June 6, where O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties. The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house. There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a "call-out" for support, saying "all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday, 20 May 2025 – tomorrow". She said the purchasers had "made a deal with the devil" and that "the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made". She posted that she "would appreciate some support at my home ... tomorrow afternoon ... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days". While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media in which she explained her views on the "alleged debt" owed to the bank. In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested or answer questions she had. Judge: Any issues between her and bank, not new owners The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB. O'Connell told the court she'd tried to "negotiate a solution" for two years, had not consented to the mortgagee sale and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway. She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating. O'Connell said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been "harassed". She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to "support her through this stressful time" and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship if forced to leave. But Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were "between her and ASB". "These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property," Justice Gardiner said. The judge said while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case. She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters. The High Court judgment also noted that while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness. They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default. The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, June 9. Are mortgagee sales on the rise? Cotality New Zealand data showed a "minor lift" to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter when there were 52. This marked the highest number since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales. However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was "still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis". "I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party." OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as "mortgagee sales" in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting at just over 38,000. New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks are responsible lenders. They typically have dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty and mortgagee sales were "rare and always a last resort". "There are several options that banks may offer ... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments." Beaumont said in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers. "As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments." By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter

Couple take former Pāpāmoa Beach home owner to court as she refuses to leave after mortgagee sale
Couple take former Pāpāmoa Beach home owner to court as she refuses to leave after mortgagee sale

NZ Herald

timea day ago

  • NZ Herald

Couple take former Pāpāmoa Beach home owner to court as she refuses to leave after mortgagee sale

The new owners sought a trespass order on May 22 to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work they took their case to the High Court. 'The bank does not own my property' According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on June 6, where O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties. The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house. There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a 'call out' for support, saying 'all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday 20 May 2025 – tomorrow'. She said the purchasers had 'made a deal with the devil' and that 'the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made'. She posted that she 'would appreciate some support at my home ... tomorrow afternoon ... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days'. While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media where she explained her views on the 'alleged debt' owed to the bank. In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested and answer questions she had. Judge: Any issues are between her and the bank, not the new owners The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB. O'Connell told the court she'd tried to 'negotiate a solution' for two years, had not consented to the mortgagee sale and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway. Terina O'Connell says she had not consented to the mortgagee sale but ASB went ahead with it anyway. Photo / Hannah Bartlett She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating. She said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been 'harassed'. She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to 'support her through this stressful time' and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship if forced to leave. But Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were 'between her and ASB'. 'These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property,' Justice Gardiner said. The judge said while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case. She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters. The High Court judgment also noted that while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness. They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default. The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, June 9. There has been a slight increase in the number of mortgagee sales this year. Photo / 123rf Are mortgagee sales on the rise? Cotality New Zealand data showed a 'minor lift' to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter when there were 52. This marked the highest number of mortgagee sales since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales. However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was 'still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis'. 'I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party.' OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as 'mortgagee sales' in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting just over 38,000. New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks are responsible lenders and typically have dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty and mortgagee sales were 'rare and always a last resort'. 'There are several options that banks may offer ... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments.' Beaumont said in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers. 'As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments.' Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.

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