Disbarred lawyer Rohineet Sharma allegedly used the victim's stolen money to pay $50,000 in fees to Diocesan School for Girls.
An elite Auckland private school refused to return a scam victim’s stolen funds after learning a disbarred lawyer accused of money laundering had allegedly used the tainted cash to send his daughter to the exclusive college.
The victim says Diocesan School for Girls - a wealthyAnglican school in Epsom that encourages students to embrace “Gospel principles of love generosity, justice, hope and service” - has a moral duty to refund the fraud proceeds rather than accepting money from a client who is now an accused criminal.
However, a legal expert believes even if the money came from a “questionable source” there is nothing to compel the school to return the funds - despite a potential moral obligation and possible negative publicity.
It told the victim that while its position may be “frustrating for you, I am sure you will understand that we are a school and also have accountabilities and commitments”.
Disgraced solicitor Rohineet Sharma faces up to seven years in prison if convicted of washing the proceeds of a complex investment scam which siphoned $400,000 from Far North luxury yacht skipper Tim Michalick in January last year.
Police say the money landed in Sharma’s Kiwibank business account before it was immediately transferred to pay building contractors working on his family’s luxury St Heliers home or sent to other bank accounts under his control.
$50,000 was also allegedly used to pay his daughter’s Dioceasan school fees.
Sharma will defend the charges at a judge-alone trial next year.
He was arrested in May 2023, with court documents revealing where police believed Michalick’s stolen money was spent.
In August last year, Michalick wrote to the school, explaining how he had been defrauded and advising staff that Sharma had allegedly used the stolen money to pay tuition fees.
The letter advised that Sharma was now before the courts on money laundering charges in connection with two separate victims and that Kiwibank had removed Sharma as a client and prevented him from opening another NZ bank account.
“I am a family man with two young daughters whose lives have been turned upside down by this person’s actions,” Michalick wrote.
“He has [allegedly] stolen our entire life savings and to this day my family and I have only received about half of the money back.”
Michalick told the school he had tried every avenue possible to recover the outstanding funds.
“I would now like to kindly ask that you take moral action and return the stolen money you received ... to its rightful owner.
“I appreciate your understanding and ... I’m sure you agree this man is not an ideal client for Diocesan School.”
In a response the following day, principal Heather McRae said she was sorry about Michalick’s situation “which must be a nightmare”.
“It is good to know that you have followed up with the banks involved and no doubt they will have the capacity through the courts and legal measures to ensure that the other half of your money is returned.
“We wish you all the best in pursing [sic] this and we hope from what you have described, that Mr Sharma receives an appropriate consequence from the legal justice process.
“Sadly, we are not involved in this process and unable to assist you with information or support. While this is frustrating for you, I am sure you will understand that we are a school and also have accountabilities and commitments.”
Michalick wrote back to express his disappointment.
“I had hoped that Diocesan being a school of some repute might take the time to help a victim to recover his life back ... but clearly I’ve been mistaken.
“I personally can’t see how withholding stolen funds is any different to not returning stolen possessions, ie a stolen vehicle. However, for some reason you see it differently.”
He warned that the story would eventually become public, including the school’s refusal to help.
Michalick told the Herald he believed the school’s stance was cynical and hypocritical, particularly given the values it encouraged students to strive for, including engagement in “moral and ethical social issues”.
“The school has a moral imperative to at least treat my case seriously rather than simply dismissing it.”
Retired Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge said the school was not aware of any “taint” upon the funds at the time it accepted the money.
There was therefore no legal imperative for the money to be repaid.
It then became a moral question whether the school ought to return the money knowing its source, especially given the values the school promoted to its community.
“I’m not an expert on morality.
“I just don’t see any moral guilt fastening upon the school because one of the parents has in hindsight [allegedly] been a dubious source for the funds.”
Hodge said courts had the power to order reparation to victims of crime under the Sentencing Act, though offenders often had little money left after paying for their defence.
The other option was for victims to pursue costly civil proceedings though the High Court.
Diocesan board of governors chairwoman Jenny Spillane said: “We empathise with those affected, however, the school is unable to comment on the allegations due to the ongoing legal proceedings in which the school is not involved”.
Lane Nichols is Deputy Head of News and a senior journalist for the New Zealand Herald with more than 20 years’ experience in the industry.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.