
Russian woman living in Northland ordered to pay $5.1m to investigators who tracked stolen funds
But instead, he had taken the money and disappeared.
When Shibalova, who was living in Melbourne at the time, realised she had been deceived, she engaged Australian private investigations firm MPOL Group Pty (MPOL) to recover the money.
MPOL contracted a Switzerland-based investigations firm to help and, after hundreds of hours of work and almost a decade later, the money was returned to the Shibalova family.
Now, Shibalova has been ordered to pay the Switzerland firm Business Control Schweiz (BCS) about €2.6m ($5.1m) in commission for its work tracking down her former lover and finding the money he'd taken.
The case is being heard in New Zealand after BCS tracked Shibalova to Northland, where she now resides, and applied to the High Court at Whangārei to sue her for her breach of contract and a claim of its commission.
Speaking to NZME, Shibalova said she was 27 when Ivanov, whom she described as a 'professional confidence trickster', took the money in 2005.
'I fell in love and trusted him with my family money,' she said.
The money she took was from a Hong Kong bank account she and her father, who was a Russian lawyer and businessman, operated and were both signatories for.
It had come from the sale of shares in a Russian port company of which Shibalova was a majority shareholder, though her father was the beneficial owner.
Shibalova accessed the money to provide for herself, her sister and her mother, as she did not trust her father to provide for them.
While Shibalova told her father she'd taken the $10m to give to the Red Cross, she actually transferred $9.6m of it to Ivanov's account on the promise he would invest the money on her behalf and then leave his wife.
After realising she had been duped, Shibalova hired MPOL to find the money and agreed to pay investigation fees, expenses and disbursements, plus 35% commission on any returned money.
During MPOL's investigation, the firm engaged the services of BCS.
But Shibalova maintains she hired MPOL, not BCS, and no one had told her the contract had been assigned to the latter.
Advertise with NZME.
'No one ever told me about this assignment until December 2020,' she told NZME, with that date being when BCS filed its claim with the High Court.
'The claim, proceedings and outcome has caused me and my family a great deal of distress and anguish and continue to do so.'
Frozen funds and criminal proceedings
According to the High Court decision released this month, the investigators located the missing money in a Sicilian bank account in 2007 and then travelled to Sicily.
Italian police told investigators it was the largest electronic transfer ever made to a Sicilian account.
They were suspicious the money was from the proceeds of crime and the private investigators were arrested.
Eventually, however, they accepted the funds were legitimately obtained by Shibalova's family and had been stolen from her, and the investigators were released.
But the money, about €7m, remained frozen by order of an Italian court.
Meanwhile, in 2008, the private investigators discovered Ivanov was living in London with his wife.
They advised Italian authorities and criminal and civil proceedings commenced against him.
In 2012, Ivanov was imprisoned and an order was made for restitution of the stolen funds to Shibalova.
The Italian Court insisted the funds could only be returned to her and not to her father.
Her father filed an appeal, which related to half of the frozen funds.
Soon after, the other half was released to Shibalova's Sicilian lawyer, whom she had made power of attorney.
However, the High Court heard that Shibalova had entered into a side agreement with her father, unbeknown to the investigators, for him to help her as a witness in the Italian court proceedings, and, in exchange, any money recovered would be transferred directly to him.
The agreement stated that the money must be transferred, either by Shibalova or her lawyer, to an account nominated by her father.
It also forbade Shibalova from making payments to the investigators.
A letter detailing the agreement was produced to the High Court as evidence, but BCS did not accept the authenticity of the letter, nor the agreement, and suggested they may have been fabricated.
In 2015, the remainder of the money was released.
The investigators continued to request payment for their services, but Shibalova's Sicilian lawyer untruthfully told them the money was still being held in a government-controlled fund in Italy.
Shibalova claims she has paid about A$450,000 ($490,000) to MPOL in fees and disbursements, but never paid the 35% commission fee on the money returned.
Meanwhile, MPOL went into liquidation in 2013. Its director Mark Grover was charged with improperly taking money from one of his companies and was bankrupted in 2015.
BCS continued chasing the owed commission fee and tracked down Shibalova's father, who agreed to pay it but never did.
The firm went on to file the civil claim against Shibalova in the High Court at Whangārei in 2020.
Failing to uphold the agreement
At a week-long hearing in October last year, Shibalova represented herself and argued against paying the commission.
She claimed she was only required to pay it if MPOL recovered the funds from Ivanov and pointed out the Italian courts had frozen the money and released it to them.
She also argued there was no valid assignment of the contract to BCS and that the funds had been paid back to her father, not to her.
Further, Shibalova submitted that BCS' claim was outside the limitation period for bringing litigation.
However, Justice Michele Wilkinson-Smith disagreed with Shibalova's defence, finding she'd agreed with MPOL freely and the firm had upheld its end of the bargain and she was now failing to uphold hers.
'She contends that she had little choice as there was no other apparent way to secure the return of the stolen money, but that situation was not created by MPOL,' Justice Wilkinson-Smith said in the decision.
'It resulted from Ms Shibalova's dishonest actions in taking the US$10m in the first place and transferring it to Mr Ivanov.'
Justice Wilkinson-Smith said Shibalova failed to tell the investigators when the money had been released and 'deliberately misled' them when they continued to ask.
'I consider that Ms Shibalova was deliberately fraudulent in her dealings with MPOL and BCS and sought to fraudulently conceal the repayment of the money to avoid any liability to pay the commission,' Justice Wilkinson-Smith found.
She ruled that failing to pay the commission was a breach of contract and that MPOL did have the right to assign the contract to BCS and that, ultimately, BCS was owed the commission fee.
Justice Wilkinson-Smith ordered Shibalova to pay BCS €2,678,215, which converts to about $5.1m.
She also ordered Shibalova to pay 5% interest per year from April 2015.
'Ms Shibalova may not have been the beneficial owner of the money, but she chose to enter into a contract to pay a fee of 35% of the money 'collected' on her behalf and returned to her,' the decision said.
Advertise with NZME.
'It was 'collected' on her behalf and returned to her. What she chose to do with the money did not extinguish her obligations under the contract. Her competing obligations to her father did not extinguish her contractual obligations.'
BCS chief executive Pascal Oswald told NZME its team of investigators at the firm had done extensive work on Shibalova's case.
'Business Control (Schweiz) AG is committed to vigorously defending the interests of our clients, especially in complex international fraud recovery matters,' Oswald said.
'Successfully navigating such cases – particularly in sensitive regions like Southern Italy – requires persistence, discretion, and deep local understanding.
'At the same time, we stand firm when it comes to asserting our own rightful claims. Integrity and determination guide our work, whether we act on behalf of clients or in our own interest.'
Shibalova told NZME she was considering her appeal options.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

1News
an hour ago
- 1News
Call to rethink tax on KiwiSaver
KiwiSaver members could be significantly better off if New Zealand adopted a taxation model similar to Australia's, an economist says. Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub ran some numbers modelling a system similar to Australia's, where contributions and returns are taxed at 15%. In New Zealand, full tax is paid on income contributed to KiwiSaver, and returns in PIE schemes taxed at an investor's prescribed investor rate up to 28%. Eaqub said an "average" KiwiSaver investor starting now could end up $60,000 better off in nominal terms at retirement on a model similar to Australia's. If tax was not paid on contributions or returns, they could be about $1 million better off - and if only taxes on returns were removed the gain would be about $300,000. "In Australia, the context is there's some conversation about whether the tax breaks are too generous for richer people. It's not that it's perfect but the point is in other countries it's heavily incentivised for people to save in their private pension." ADVERTISEMENT But it was not in New Zealand. Kirk Hope, chief executive of the Financial Services Council, which represents KiwiSaver providers, said the Australian model was different because that country has a means-tested pension. "The tax break that occurs in New Zealand occurs when you retire, when you get national super... that is the equivalent of about $500,000. So I think it's hard to do a comparative analysis without acknowledging that there are significant differences between the schemes and what they are trying to achieve." Winter's here, supermarket spying, and TikTok's new feature. (Source: 1News) But he said if the tax on savings for New Zealanders was reduced it would give future governments more "fiscal options" in relation to superannuation. He said New Zealand previously had a system that was EET — or exempt, exempt, taxed, where contributions were tax-exempt, exempt from tax within the scheme and then fully taxed when withdrawn. The Tax Working Group in 2018 acknowledged that the change from that system had potentially created incentives for New Zealanders to direct savings into investments like houses instead. ADVERTISEMENT Hope said it would be expensive to adjust back to EET but there could be other changes that would be more affordable. The tax working group estimated that ignoring behavioural changes, it would cost $200m to $300m a year to move to a system where returns and withdrawals were not taxed, and $2.5b a year to move to an EET system. "The higher initial cost for an EET regime arises from the fact that there will be a substantial deferral period before significant amounts are withdrawn from the scheme, and thus taxed under the third 't'. Although these are very different initial costs, the costs will be the same in the long run on a net present value basis." Hope said providing different forms of tax incentives would be beneficial for savers. He said removing or reducing the employer contribution tax would be particularly useful for low-income people. Kernel Wealth founder Dean Anderson said New Zealand was one of the few countries operating a TTE — taxed contributions, taxed returns and exempt withdrawal — model. "Our future savings would be much better off under an EET approach, where we don't pay tax on the way in but on the way out. ADVERTISEMENT "With low savings rates in NZ, the government should be exploring everything in its powers to grow savings rates, which benefits NZ and Kiwis over the long term. "But it's not a surprise. The recent meek KiwiSaver policy announcement did all the hard work to announce a positive gradual increase to KiwiSaver contributions, yet they fell short by announcing a three-year policy rather than outlining a decade plus long policy of incremental KiwiSaver increases." Ana-Marie Lockyer, chief executive at Pie Funds, said KiwiSaver members were at a disadvantage compared to Australians because there was no upfront tax incentive or concession as in Australia to encourage them to contribute more. "Maybe consideration of a mid-tier flat tax rate on savings up to a certain amount would encourage savings." She said employer contributions were also taxed so investors lost the benefits of compounding, and investors paid tax on bonds and deemed dividends on global equities so they were effectively paying a capital gains tax. "So contrary to the government's stated goal of helping New Zealanders' grow their KiwiSaver balances, these factors mean New Zealanders have less incentives to make voluntary contributions and pay more tax on investment earnings, resulting in smaller balances at retirement relative to our Australian friends."

1News
3 hours ago
- 1News
Musk threatens to withdraw Dragon spacecraft, a key link for NASA
As US President Donald Trump and Elon Musk argued on social media today, the world's richest man threatened to decommission a space capsule used to take astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station. After Trump threatened to cut government contracts given to Musk's SpaceX rocket company and his Starlink internet satellite services, Musk responded via X that SpaceX "will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately'. It's unclear how serious Musk's threat was. But the capsule, developed with the help of government contracts, is an important part of keeping the space station running. NASA also relied heavily on SpaceX for other programmes including launching science missions and, later this decade, returning astronauts to the surface of the moon. The Dragon capsule SpaceX is the only US company capable right now of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. ADVERTISEMENT Boeing's Starliner capsule has flown astronauts only once; last year's test flight went so badly that the two NASA astronauts had to hitch a ride back to Earth via SpaceX in March, more than nine months after launching last June. Starliner remains grounded as NASA decides whether to go with another test flight with cargo, rather than a crew. SpaceX also uses a Dragon capsule for its own privately run missions. The next one of those is due to fly next week on a trip chartered by Axiom Space, a Houston company. Cargo versions of the Dragon capsule are also used to ferry food and other supplies to the orbiting lab. NASA's other option: Russia Russia's Soyuz capsules are the only other means of getting crews to the space station right now. The Soyuz capsules hold three people at a time. For now, each Soyuz launch carries two Russians and one NASA astronaut, and each SpaceX launch has one Russian on board under a barter system. That way, in an emergency requiring a capsule to return, there is always someone from the US and Russian on board. ADVERTISEMENT With its first crew launch for NASA in 2020 — the first orbital flight of a crew by a private company — SpaceX enabled NASA to reduce its reliance on Russia for crew transport. The Russian flights had been costing the US tens of millions of dollars per seat, for years. NASA has also used Russian spacecraft for cargo, along with US contractor Northrup Grumman. SpaceX's other government launches The company has used its rockets to launch several science missions for NASA as well as military equipment. Last year, SpaceX also won a NASA contract to help bring the space station out of orbit when it is no longer usable. SpaceX's Starship mega rocket is what NASA has picked to get astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon, at least for the first two landing missions. Starship made its ninth test flight last week from Texas, but tumbled out of control and broke apart.

1News
3 hours ago
- 1News
Foreign exchange fined amid transactions deemed 'objectively suspicious'
An Auckland-based foreign exchange and money remittance company has been convicted and fined $1.125 million for failing to report suspicious activities and to submit prescribed transaction reports. An investigation by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) found that Qian DuoDuo Limited, which traded under the name Lidong Foreign Exchange, found it failed to report 197 international transactions to China between June 2018 and September 2019. The transactions, which totalled over $19.14 million, included 26 "objectively suspicious" activities with a value of $4.72 million and 171 involved prescribed transactions with a value of $14.42 million. The value of the nearly 200 transactions represented around one fifth of the gross value transactions undertaken by Qian DuoDuo Limited for the 2018/2019 financial year. Two individuals who completed the transactions, Xiaoyu Lu and Musubayoufa Fuati, were convicted of criminal offending. ADVERTISEMENT Fuati was convicted of structuring transactions to avoid anti-money laundering laws, while Lu was convicted of providing unregistered financial services, as well as multiple counts of money laundering. Both pleaded guilty to their charges. In sentencing, the Auckland District Court found the company failed to carry out adequate customer due diligence on the source of Fuati and Lu's funds and relied on questionable verification documents despite recognising a high risk that its operations could be used to launder money. Anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism director Serge Sablyak said Internal Affairs took offences under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 "very seriously". "Suspicious transactions have the potential to be linked to money laundering or terrorist financing activities. Prescribed transaction reports are vital in alerting law enforcement to suspected offenders and make money laundering and terrorist financing difficult to hide." Sablyak said Qian DuoDuo Limited had a "history of non-compliance". "In 2017, the Department took civil action against the company following non-compliance with its obligations, and the High Court confirmed multiple breaches of the company's legal obligations. "When financial institutions, including money remitters, continue to fail to meet their obligations under the Act, the Department can and will take action." ADVERTISEMENT Qian DuoDuo Limited appealed the District Court's decision to the High Court.