If it were a film script, it reads like a scam built on a scam. Entrepreneur Chris Huljich is chasing down proceeds of a USD 1.5 million investment stolen by a Hong Kong based investment broker and now allegedly misappropriated a second time by a UK-based recovery agent who was hired to follow the money. Following an undefended High Court hearing, recovery agent Patrick John McCaffery was ordered to pay NZD 12.8 million. There is no evidence McCafferty has any assets in New Zealand available to satisfy this court judgment.
The High Court was told Mr Huljich placed USD 1.5 million for investment in 1999, only to see the funds disappear within a year; part of a multi-million dollar theft by a Hong Kong based investment broker described in court only as ‘Mr H.’ Twenty-five years on, all Mr Huljich has is promises by a recovery agent that the proceeds have been tracked down.
Evidence was given that Mr Huljich signed up in 2003 with a fraud detection service called TASK International Ltd. It undertook to trace where the stolen money had gone; in return for twenty per cent commission on any assets recovered, plus expenses covered in part by a USD 30,000 retainer. TASK was recommended by the same adviser who recommended placement of the earlier stolen investment; a Mr Olliver.
Mr McCaffrey was the TASK contractor on the job. He reported that some of the stolen money was used to buy valuable collectables: paintings, rare watches and pens, plus gold coins. He said TASK did not have the resources to recover any of these items.
Subsequently, Mr McCafferty offered personally to recover the assets, sell them and account to Mr Huljich for the proceeds. A formal contract was signed in 2012, after Mr McCafferty stated he was holding the assets in a UK warehouse, ready for sale.
The 2012 contract was not straightforward. A string of individuals stood in line to receive payment from any funds recovered: first a 7.5 per cent commission payable to Auckland barrister Charles Sturt (who witnessed the agreement); $100,000 due Mr Olliver for past expenses; then thirty per cent of the remainder for Mr McCafferty. Any surplus after full repayment of Mr Huljich’s USD 1.5 million was to be split between Mr Huljich and Mr Olliver on a sliding scale.
Mr Huljich was provided with an inventory of assets seized, together with presumed values. Mr Olliver reported that in the company of Mr McCafferty he had sighted the assets in warehouse storage in the UK.
A 2021 asset schedule sent to Mr Huljich valued the collectables in storage at GBP 8.8 million.
He was told intended sales of these collectables and conversion to cash had been complicated by death of one of the warehouse owners. Mr Huljich told the High Court current whereabouts of these assets is now unknown.
In New Zealand, Justice O’Gorman ruled Mr McCafferty liable for breach of contract; failing to sell the reportedly seized assets and to account for the proceeds as promised in their 2012 contract. Damages were calculated at NZD 12.89 million; being seventy per cent by value of the assets listed in the inventory supplied as valued by Mr McCafferty.
Huljich v. McCaffrey – High Court (28.02.24)
24.063