Commissioner of Police v Chuyko
[2025] NZHC 2670
•15 September 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV-2025-485-000233
[2025] NZHC 2670
UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 IN THE MATTER OF
an application under sections 21, 24 and 25
BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Applicant
AND
MARYNA CHUYKO
Respondent
Hearing: (On the papers) Counsel:
F F Nizam for Applicant
Judgment:
15 September 2025
JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J
(Application for on-notice restraining orders)
[1] The Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) seeks restraining orders under ss 21, 24 and 25 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) in respect of the following property:
(a)All interests in the residential property at 59A Niblett Street, Whanganui, registered in the name of Ms Chuyko (the Niblett Street property), or any proceeds arising from any sale of this property.
(b)All funds held in a Westpac New Zealand Limited bank account, held in the name of Ms Chuyko.
THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v CHUYKO [2025] NZHC 2670 [15 September 2025]
(c)All funds held in a Kiwibank Limited bank account, held in the name of M A Salenko (which Ms Chuyko also uses as a name).
(Together, the Property).
[2] A without notice restraining order in relation to the Niblett Street property was granted by McHerron J on 17 April 2025,1 and without notice restraining orders in respect of the bank accounts were granted by Boldt J on 23 April 2025.2
[3] Ms Chuyko does not consent to the application but also does not oppose it and abides the decision of the Court.
Background
[4] The Commissioner submits that the evidence set out in the affidavits filed in support of the application establishes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Ms Chuyko has unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity, namely her involvement in benefit fraud, and/or that the funds included in the Property are tainted in that Ms Chuyko acquired or derived them from the proceeds of her significant criminal activity.
[5] In 2025, the Ministry of Social Development (the Ministry) commenced an investigation into benefit fraud involving Ms Chuyko. The Ministry says its investigation identified that Ms Chuyko had been fraudulently claiming Income Related Rent (IRR) payments for a period of 13 years between 12 January 2012 and 31 March 2025.
[6] Between September 2007 and March 2025, Ms Chuyko was living in social housing. She was receiving IRR payments throughout this whole period.
[7] The calculation of the IRR payments is based upon an individual’s weekly household income. The IRR payments are used to subsidise an individual’s social housing rental payments.
1 Commissioner of Police v Chuyko [2025] NZHC 962.
2 Commissioner of Police v Chuyko [2025] NZHC 968.
[8] It is the role of the recipient to advise the Ministry of any changes to their income or financial circumstances.
[9] On 12 January 2012, Ms Chuyko purchased the Niblett Street property with her ex-partner, Mikhail Khatchian, with no mortgages or loans secured over the property. The title of the Niblett Street property was transferred jointly into their names. On 26 September 2023, she obtained sole ownership of the Niblett Street property. This property was previously listed for sale with a deadline of 3.00 pm on 16 April 2025.
[10] On 27 March 2015, Ms Chuyko and Mr Khatchian jointly purchased a second property at 373 Wicksteed Street, Whanganui (the Wicksteed Street property). On 26 September 2023, this property was subsequently transferred into Mr Khatchian’s sole ownership. Ms Chuyko received $56,775 for her share of this property. This property is not included in the application.
[11] The Commissioner says that Ms Chuyko failed to inform the Ministry of the change in her housing circumstances and continued to benefit from IRR payments for a period of 13 years. She derived a benefit equating to the full value of the IRR payments for this period, which totals $324,980.25.
[12] Over this period, Ms Chuyko completed and submitted four forms in which she did not declare that she had any assets when the Commissioner alleges she held joint or sole ownership of the Niblett Street property and, at times, the Wicksteed Street property.
[13] After identifying the alleged fraud, the Ministry commenced an investigation. On 25 February 2025, the Ministry formally interviewed Ms Chuyko. She advised that she was not aware that she was on the titles of either the Niblett Street property or the other property, and did not think she had to declare such information to the Ministry.
[14] On 31 March 2025, the Ministry sent Ms Chuyko a letter outlining that its investigation was completed and that it had determined she had been overpaid
$324,980.25. The Ministry further advised that it was in the process of determining whether her actions amounted to an offence and if so, whether this would result in a prosecution.
[15] On 10 April 2025, Ms Chuyko flew to the United States. The tickets were purchased five days prior to the flight, and no return tickets were purchased at the time of booking.
[16] Ms Chuyko has subsequently been charged by the Ministry. She faces one charge of obtaining by deception,3 and 14 charges of dishonestly using a document.4 Ms Chuyko failed to appear on the first appearance date, and a warrant for her arrest was issued.
[17] The Commissioner understands that Ms Chuyko has not returned to New Zealand and believes she is currently residing in the United States with her son.
The Law
[18] The application is brought under ss 24 and 25 of the Act. The Commissioner seeks restraining orders over the Property on the basis that the Property is tainted and/or Ms Chuyko has unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity.
[19] Under s 24 of the Act, the Court may issue a restraining order if it has “reasonable grounds to believe” that property is tainted property. “Tainted property” is defined as any property that has “wholly or in part” been acquired as a result of significant criminal activity, or directly or indirectly derived from significant criminal activity. It is the source, rather than the ownership of the specific property, that is the determining feature.5 An order under s 24 is therefore predicated on the unlawful source of all or part of the property. No particular connection between the property and a respondent is required.6 “Significant criminal activity” means offending in
3 Crimes Act 1961, ss 240(1)(a) and 241(a); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
4 Section 228(1)(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
5 Commissioner of Police v Briggs [2012] NZHC 2324 at [35].
6 At [19].
New Zealand that is punishable by a maximum sentence of more than five years or results in the acquisition of benefits of $30,000 or more.7
[20] Alternatively, under s 25 of the Act, the Court may issue a restraining order over property if it has “reasonable grounds to believe” that the respondent has unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity. The meaning of “unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity” is “knowingly, directly or indirectly deriv[ing] a benefit from significant criminal activity (whether or not that person undertook or was involved in the significant criminal activity).”8 Section 25 requires both an existence of a relationship between the relevant property and the respondent, and that the respondent has “unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity”.9
[21] Restraining orders are issued on the basis of “reasonable grounds to believe rather than proof” that the respondent has unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity or that the property is tainted property.10 It is intended as a “holding measure” to allow the Commissioner further time to gather evidence for an ongoing investigation, and which places the property under the control of the Official Assignee.11
[22]The High Court summarised the principles in Commissioner of Police v Smith
as follows:12
The threshold for making an order under s 25 has been described as “relatively low”. That is because the court is not required to make a finding that the respondent has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity. As the Court of Appeal explained in Vincent v Commissioner of Police restraining orders are often sought in situations of urgency. Restraining orders are temporary orders to give the police time to gather further evidence leading to possible forfeiture of property. Restraining orders are made where the court has reasonable grounds for the requisite statutory belief. The onus on the Commissioner is not one of proof but to adduce a sufficient evidential basis to enable the court to be satisfied it has reasonable grounds for the requisite belief. Thus, an application for a restraining order may proceed justifiably on an evidentiary basis that in other contexts would be regarded as non-compliant with requirements of the Evidence Act 2006 as to admissibility.
7 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 6(1).
8 Section 7.
9 Commissioner of Police v Briggs, above n 5, at [20].
10 Vincent v Commissioner of Police [2013] NZCA 412 at [47].
11 Yan v Commissioner of Police [2015] NZCA 576, [2016] 2 NZLR 593 at [7].
12 Commissioner of Police v Smith [2018] NZHC 10 at [10] (footnotes omitted).
Decision
[23] In making the without notice restraining order in respect of the Niblett Street property, McHerron J held there were reasonable grounds to believe that Ms Chuyko has been involved in significant criminal activity from which she has unlawfully benefitted, and that she has an interest in the Property.13
[24] Boldt J agreed with McHerron J that the Commissioner had established reasonable grounds to believe Ms Chuyko derived an unlawful benefit from significant criminal activity in making the without notice restraining order in respect of the bank accounts. Boldt J also noted that the Niblett Street property alone is unlikely to provide sufficient funds to enable the Commissioner to recoup the full value of the unlawful benefit Ms Chuyko derived.14
[25] I am satisfied that Ms Chuyko’s failure to declare her ownership of the Niblett Street property and (at times) the Wicksteed Street property, while living in social housing and receiving IRR payments, provides reasonable grounds to believe that Ms Chuyko has been involved in, and unlawfully benefitted from, obtaining by deception and dishonestly using a document. Obtaining by deception constitutes significant criminal activity under the Act, as it attracts a maximum penalty of over five years’ imprisonment under the Crimes Act 1961 (given the amount unlawfully obtained). Dishonestly using a document also constitutes significant criminal activity under the Act.
[26] I am also satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the funds contained in the bank accounts are tainted because Ms Chuyko received IRR payments from the Ministry into her Kiwibank bank account. As there are reasonable grounds to believe she was not eligible for these payments, the funds are tainted property. Funds moved between Ms Chuyko’s Kiwibank and Westpac bank accounts taint both bank accounts.
13 Commissioner of Police v Chuyko, above n 1, at [18].
14 Commissioner of Police v Chuyko, above n 2, at [7].
[27] Further, I am satisfied that Ms Chuyko has an interest in the Property. The Niblett Street property is solely registered in her name. Although she claims to have been unaware that she was named on the title of either property, an analysis of her bank accounts indicates she paid more than $8,000 in rates to the Whanganui District Council between 2021 and 2024 (she was registered as the joint and then sole owner of the Niblett Street property during this period and joint owner of the Wicksteed Street property until September 2023). There is also evidence that Ms Chuyko signed a trespass notice dated 12 March 2021 as the occupier of both properties.
[28] In relation to her interest in the funds held in the Westpac bank account, I note the account is solely held in her name. In relation to the funds held in the Kiwibank bank account, the account is solely held in the name of M A Salenko. There is evidence that Ms Chuyko also uses the name Maryna Salenko, her son’s name is Borys Salenko, and the result of a police National Intelligence Application search querying her previous Ukrainian passport lists her surname as “Salenko”.
Conclusion
[29] I therefore conclude that the grounds for making a restraining order under s 25 are satisfied in respect of all the Property, and that the grounds for making a restraining order under s 24 are also satisfied in respect of the bank accounts. I make the order in the terms set out in the Commissioner’s on-notice application.
La Hood J
Solicitors:
Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for Applicant
0
5
0