Iris Huebler is representing herself in the High Court in Wellington, in a civil fraud case brought by the woman from whom she stole hundreds of thousands of dollars. Photo / Ethan Griffiths
Iris Huebler is representing herself in the High Court in Wellington, in a civil fraud case brought by the woman from whom she stole hundreds of thousands of dollars. Photo / Ethan Griffiths
The woman at the centre of a civil fraud claim says proof she returned a loan lies partly in what the plaintiff spent on her “lovingly restored home”, evident for all to see on Google Earth.
Iris Huebler opened the final day of a week-long High Court trial in Wellington yesterday with a sometimes tearful closing statement, marked by her admission that she had struggled with her evidence after the death of her mother last week.
Huebler is representing herself as the first defendant in the civil case brought by Alexandra Purucker, who was robbed of her life savings by Huebler, her former bookkeeper.
Purucker is now trying to get her money back through the civil case which aims to prove Huebler defrauded her, and by association Huebler’s ex-husband Rainer Wolfgang Huebler, who benefitted from the alleged actions.
Purucker was seeking more than $800,000 in damages and compensation for what the court heard this week was an “egregious breach of trust”.
Alexandra Purucker outside the Nelson District Court last year, after Iris Huebler was convicted and sentenced to prison for the theft of Purucker's life savings. Photo / Tracy Neal
She also wanted to recover misappropriated funds she alleged were directly received by Rainer Huebler, from whom Iris Huebler claimed to have separated in late 2018.
Of the $873,000 that Purucker claimed had been misappropriated without her authority, she alleged $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.
Purucker’s counsel told the court a novel feature of the claim was the exemplary damages sought for the “catastrophic effects” on Purucker from the “serious piece of behaviour” by the accused over the past five years.
Purucker had not only endured “complete denial of any wrongdoing” by Huebler, but had been subjected to blame, suggestions she had spent the money herself on narcotics, and even suggestions that letters asking for her money back amounted to “blackmail”, lawyer Gerard Dewar said.
The case centred on a dispute over the remaining $173,364 made up of a $68,651 reduction which occurred as part of a plea arrangement in the criminal matter, and a second sum of $102,416 concerning Purucker’s claim that she was tricked into providing a sham loan to Iris Heubler.
The Hueblers’ defence was based on claims the funds in issue, namely a loan Purucker said she had been tricked into giving, had been repaid. But there was no evidence this had happened, the court heard.
Iris Huebler explained the arrangement she had with Purucker, described as being “empowered to use funds as she wished”, meant she “paid it in ways that were not into her bank account”.
She said while she had no way to prove it, Huebler had instead paid tradespeople directly who were working on Purucker’s “lovingly restored” house renovation.
Justice Andru Isac reminded Huebler that Purucker had never denied she provided the loan, but that she had been misled about what it was for.
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 they would be secure.
Rainer Huebler strenuously denied he benefitted from the alleged actions of Iris Huebler through either their business partnership or joint ownership of assets.
The nature of the Hueblers’ partnership – both private and business and the extent to which Rainer Huebler might be liable – was teased out at length today by Justice Isac.
Purucker alleged the couple’s separation agreement was an “elaborate sham”.
Alexandra Purucker says she's been left doubting her ability to trust even herself after the "incomprehensible deceit" by someone she trusted. Photo / Tracy Neal
She claimed it was done ahead of her anticipated claims on their property, 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 that, after she and her husband separated, their finances were divided up in accordance with a German marriage agreement dated January 17, 1994.
She claimed she had not yet divorced because she’d been told by a lawyer she couldn’t until the final settlement, which was being “blocked” by the current court process.
Justice Isac asked Rainer Huebler’s lawyer Graeme Downing why there was no evidence to support any reason for the couple’s separation.
“It’s relevant to me to understand why they separated.
“If the Hueblers don’t believe there’s been any fraud and they’ve been victimised, then why did they separate, other than to try and protect their assets,” Justice Isac suggested.
Downing said it would be only speculation to say why they separated, but it “had to be in the mix” that Rainer Huebler felt betrayed by what had happened.
Justice Isac also drilled down into the nature of the couple’s business arrangements and whether fraud committed by one person might shed liability on the other.
He also asked if there was evidence to show the couple didn’t share the profits from their respective ventures, which would indicate a partnership.
Downing said the extent of Rainer’s involvement with respect to the business that had used Purucker’s funds was being “asked to cash a certain number of cheques”.
For Purucker, Pietras said that, four-and-a-half years ago, Purucker learned that her close friend had likely defrauded her, and then her worst suspicions became a reality.
“Not only were her accounts depleted but she was left with a $14,000 debt.
“This was pre-meditated over a six-year period, involving multiple fraud, multiple times, and a close friendship was taken advantage of,” Pietras said.
