Iris Huebler was ordered to repay $869,000 stolen from long-term friend Alexandra Purucker. A grossly one-sided relationship property agreement with husband Rainer signed after the fraud was discovered was set aside by the High Court as a stratagem designed to prevent recovery of money owed.
Ms Purucker emigrated to New Zealand from Germany in 1996 where she later purchased a well-known Takaka café called The Dangerous Kitchen. A close relationship developed with fellow German national Ms Huebler who ran a consulting business from her home near Collingwood.
Ms Purucker came to place complete trust in Ms Huebler to run the accounting side of her business, giving her access to business and personal bank accounts. The Kitchen was sold in 2010. Ms Huebler then provided investment advice, managing term deposits and recommending investments in businesses associated with Ms Huebler. The amount requiring investment grew as a result of inheritances Ms Purucker received following the deaths of her parents.
Investments included a $100,000 loan for Ms Huebler to set up a business called The Super Food Academy. The High Court was told much of this money was used by Ms Huebler to purchase an online management course provided by a Calfornia-based company. Ms Purucker’s bank did contact her to verify approval for the offshore payments, causing her to check with Ms Huebler. Ms Purucker told the High Court she was misled as to the reason for the off-shore payments and would never have approved them if told the real reason for the bank transfers.
When Ms Purucker was travelling through Europe in 2018, she received a phone call from Ms Huebler saying Ms Purucker’s bank accounts had been hacked in a massive internet fraud. Ms Purucker laid a complaint with police after returning to New Zealand, finding her bank accounts had been emptied.
Ms Huebler was subsequently convicted of theft, sentenced to four year’s imprisonment.
Within days of learning that Ms Purucker was taking legal action, Ms Huebler and her husband transferred all funds held jointly into a bank account controlled by Mr Huebler alone and signed a document stating they had agreed to separate.
Later, a formal relationship property agreement was signed dividing their assets: 97 per cent to Mr Huebler; three per cent to Ms Huebler. The High Court was told this ratio represented the relative value of their assets on emigration to New Zealand some twenty-five years previously.
Justice Isac ruled the relationship property agreement invalid, signed for the dominant purpose of defeating Ms Huebler’s creditors.
He doubted whether the two had in fact separated. There was evidence they continued to live at the same property in Golden Bay after supposedly separating and had been seen locally in one another’s company. This apparent cohabitation ended only when Ms Huebler was taken into custody.
Justice Isac ruled Ms Huebler was liable to repay Ms Purucker $868,900 for money stolen together with exemplary damages of $50,000 for the manner of her systematic fraud carried out at a time when she pretended to have Ms Purucker’s best interests at heart.
Justice Isac dismissed Ms Huebler’s claim that no money was ever stolen. Any ‘missing’ money had been repaid, she said. And any losses were due to Ms Purucker’s lavish spending on overseas travel and improvements to her home, she claimed. No evidence was provided to support these claims.
Her husband Rainer Huebler was held jointly liable to repay $155,100; funds belonging to Ms Purucker banked to the Hueblers’ joint account or received in cash. This joint bank account was used to pay household expenses and supplies for his electrical business.
Purucker v. Huebler – High Court (18.08.23)
23.139