Alexandra Purucker is now suing for the return of her money, stolen by her former bookkeeper who's now in prison. Photo / Tracy Neal
Alexandra Purucker is now suing for the return of her money, stolen by her former bookkeeper who's now in prison. Photo / Tracy Neal
A woman robbed of her life savings by a once close friend is now suing her in the hope of clawing back hundreds of thousands of dollars siphoned from her accounts over six years.
Iris Huebler was sentenced late last year to four years in prison for the money she stole from Alexandra Purucker from April 2012 on the pretence she was investing on her behalf.
Huebler eventually admitted five charges of theft by a person in a special relationship in five categories totalling $700,000 reduced from $767,468 as part of a last-minute plea bargain.
Purucker told the Herald after sentencing in the Nelson District Court last October the money stolen included earnings from the Takaka café she once owned and the proceeds of its sale, plus inheritance from her family in Germany.
Purucker’s accounts had been completely drained and she was left with a $14,500 credit card debt.
Iris Huebler in the High Court in Wellington. She was sentenced late last year to four years in prison for the money she stole. Photo / Ethan Griffiths
She hasn’t seen a cent of the $80,000 reparation order made at sentencing and was left to survive on welfare after the theft of her life savings, a large chunk of which was an inheritance from her parents.
Purucker was now seeking more than $800,000 in damages and compensation for what the High Court at Wellington heard today was an “egregious breach of trust”.
The civil fraud case hung on the financial differential between a $100,000 loan Purucker claimed she was tricked into giving Iris Huebler for a new business venture and the $700,000 which was the focus of the criminal matter.
Purucker’s lawyer Joshua Pietras claimed that it was through Iris Huebler’s establishment of the business called the “Superfood Academy” that the fraud happened.
The business was to have been secured against funds allegedly held by the Hueblers in their Swiss bank account, but Pietras argued the money was sent to an American company supposedly offering online marketing courses.
No security was ever given, and interest was never paid.
Purucker’s position was that the funds would never have been advanced without Huebler’s assurance that they would be secure.
Purucker’s bank contacted her before the first tranche of payments were made from her account and unsuspecting of any fraud she permitted the payments.
The arrangement of how the business was set up, and if it was a partnership or Iris Huebler’s alone was tested under cross-examination today.
As well as damages sought from Iris Huebler, Purucker was also seeking to recover misappropriated funds she alleged had been directly received by Rainer Wolfgang Huebler, from whom Iris Huebler claimed to have separated in late 2018, soon after she was served civil proceedings.
Of the $873,000 that Purucker claimed had been misappropriated without her authority, she alleged that $138,000 was paid directly into a joint bank account in the names of Rainer and Iris Huebler, and another $19,300 was cashed by Rainer Huebler from cheques drawn against Purucker’s accounts.
The Hueblers’ defence was based on claims that the funds in issue, the loan, had been returned to Purucker.
Purucker was also testing the validity of the couple’s separation agreement, to prove that money and assets removed from joint ownership and placed in Rainer Huebler’s name was an “elaborate sham”.
She claimed it was done ahead of Purucker’s anticipated claims on their property, and to “remove the matrimonial home from the reach of the creditor”, and to confine debt owed to Purucker as a personal debt of Iris Huebler.
Huebler claimed after she and her husband separated, their finances were divided up in accordance with a German Marriage Agreement dated January 17, 1994.
Pietras argued today that after Huebler was charged in 2019 she was released on bail to the family home, and there was “no dispute she continued to live there while going through the criminal proceedings”.
He said the pair remained close, despite Huebler now being in custody, and that Rainer Huebler had offered the home as the address for when she was released on parole.
The hearing began today with an application from Iris Huebler for leave to disregard her convictions as part of the civil proceedings.
She wanted to introduce exculpatory evidence to question the validity of her convictions.
At one point Huebler apologised to the court, saying that management of Purucker’s money had been “handled far too casually”.
A note pinned to the wall of Alexandra Purucker's home in Golden Bay. Photo / Tracy Neal
However, Justice Andru Isac was not satisfied there were exceptional circumstances made out that would allow Huebler to contradict in evidence her conviction of last year.
“My current view is that you pleaded guilty, were convicted and sentenced for fraud of $700,000 and that very much can’t be put as an issue again here,” Justice Isac told Huebler, who was self-represented.
It followed his decision in late April to dismiss an application by Huebler for the appointment of a court expert, and to adjourn the trial.
Huebler felt that an independent financial expert was needed to ensure a fair trial.
Justice Isac was not satisfied that it was appropriate to appoint a court expert and that Huebler’s role as a bookkeeper meant she could be expected to be financially literate and, therefore, well-able to address the factual issues she wished to advance in her defence.
He added the proceeding had been in train since 2018, and the request for the appointment of an expert had been made at the last minute.
Purucker told the court today her trust in others had been tainted by the betrayal, and she had at times struggled with being “second-guessed” by some people within Golden Bay where she lived.
She needed anti-anxiety medication and therapy and lived with the guilt of having let her parents down with the theft of their money.
She had gone from being comfortable to living on Government support for the first time in her life and being unsure about her future.
Purucker told the court she had also spent $113,000 in legal fees so far.
“Every day I wonder if I will be able to keep living in my beloved home of 22 years.”
