But following a challenge by media organisations, the Court of Appeal agreed to lift the cloak of secrecy.
The National Crime Agency alleges that Hajiyev used fraudulent funds to purchase her home which is just a short walk from the famous Harrods department store.
It was alleged that she paid a deposit of £4 million for the house in 2009 and had cleared her £7.4 million mortgage in just five years.
Documents lodged at the High Court stated: "The NCA's enquiries have not identified evidence which otherwise suggests (contrary to Home Office records) that R1 [Mrs Hajiyev] has been a succcessful businesswoman or entreoreneur in her own right or that she has received significant income from other sources."
The document went on: "There are no grounds to suspect that any income originating from Mr Hajiyev was not lawfully obtained."
Details of her lavish spending habits, which were laid bare in the court process, revealed that she had spent £16.3 million at Harrods between 2006 and 2016.
NCA investigators claimed she had used 35 different credit cards issued by her husband's bank to fund shopping sprees and on one occasion had spent £150,000 on jewellery.
Official records also revealed Hajiyev owned two dedicated bays within the private Harrods car park.
The court also heard that Hajiyeva owned a £35 million private jet and a wine cellar stocked with some of the world's most expensive vintages.
She had made an unsuccessful application to discharge the UWO, but her lawyers are appealing that judgment.
Justice Supperstone has ordered that Hajiyeva must comply with the UWO and explain how she came upon the funds used to fund the property purchases.
But her lawyers have argued that her husband was a legitimate businessman, whose wealth was the result of a number of shrewd business deals.
They also argued that she could not be described as a "politically exposed person", as required by the UWO, and that her husband's role had been misrepresented.
In a statement they said: "The decision of the High Court upholding the grant of an Unexplained Wealth Order against Zamira Hajiyeva does not and should not be taken to imply any wrongdoing, whether on her part or that of her husband.
"The NCA's case is that the UWO is part of an investigative process, not a criminal procedure, and it does not involve the finding of any criminal offence."
Donald Toon, the director for economic crime at the NCA, said: "The NCA fully supports an open and transparent justice system that helps demonstrate our determination to ensure that the UK is not seen as a soft target for the investment of illicit finance.
"Where we cannot determine a legitimate source for the funds used to purchase assets and prime property it is absolutely right that we ask probing questions to uncover their origin.
"Unexplained wealth orders have the potential to significantly reduce the appeal of the UK as a destination for illicit income.
"They enable the UK to more effectively target the problem of money laundering through prime real estate in London and across the UK, and we will now seek to move further cases to the high court."
