Commissioner of Police v Chuyko
[2025] NZHC 968
•23 April 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV-2025-485-233
[2025] NZHC 968
UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 IN THE MATTER
of an application under ss 22 and 25
BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Applicant
AND
MARYNA CHUYKO
Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
E M Ferrier and H Savage for Applicant
Date of Minute:
23 April 2025
JUDGMENT OF BOLDT J
[1] On 17 April 2025, McHerron J made a without notice restraining order over a residential property in Whanganui. The property is registered in the name of the respondent, Maryna Chuyko.1 Ms Chuyko is under investigation for benefit fraud; the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) suspects that she fraudulently claimed income-related rent subsidies between January 2012 and March 2025.
[2] I need not rehearse the full background to the application: that can be found in McHerron J’s recent decision. In summary, Ms Chuyko was living in Kainga Ora accommodation between 2007 and 30 March 2025. MSD alleges that between 2012 and 2025 Ms Chuyko owned two freehold properties which she failed to declare. Had she done so, she would have not have been eligible for the rent subsidy she received
1 Commissioner of Police v Chuyko [2025] NZHC 962.
COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALAND POLICE v CHUYKO [2025] NZHC 968 [23 April 2025]
over that period. It alleges Ms Chuyko received $324,980.25 to which she was not entitled.
[3] Justice McHerron concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe Ms Chuyko had been involved in significant criminal activity, as that term is defined in s 6 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.2 I agree. On its face, the Commissioner’s affidavits disclose that Ms Chuyko received rent subsidies over the relevant period, that she was the registered proprietor of two freehold properties, and that she failed to declare that fact to MSD as required.
[4] The subsidies Ms Chuyko received were substantial, and on the evidence presented there are reasonable grounds to believe they were fraudulently obtained. Justice McHerron also concluded the affidavit in support disclosed reasonable grounds to believe Ms Chuyko was involved in deliberately misleading or attempting to mislead MSD, and that she had obtained funds by deception.3
[5] The application before McHerron J concerned a property in Niblett Street, Whanganui. That property is owned by Ms Chuyko and is unencumbered. It is also on the market. Justice McHerron concluded that there was risk of the property being disposed of if notice of the application were given; at very least there was a risk the property might be used as security against a loan, thereby dissipating the available equity.4 He restrained the property accordingly.
[6] The current application concerns two bank accounts in Ms Chuyko’s name.5 The balance of one, as at 15 April 2025, was $11,017.80, while the balance of the other was $1,946.82.
[7] I agree with McHerron J that the Commissioner has established reasonable grounds to believe Ms Chuyko derived an unlawful benefit from significant criminal activity. It also appears the Niblett Street property, on its own, is unlikely to provide
2 At [18].
3 At [19].
4 At [28].
5 One of the accounts is in the name of M A Salenko, which is a name Ms Chuyko also uses.
sufficient funds to enable the Commissioner to recoup the full value of the unlawful benefit Ms Chuyko derived.
[8] The grounds for making the order without notice are clearly established; they are considerably stronger in the case of the bank accounts than they were for the residential property restrained by McHerron J. Plainly, funds in a bank account can be transferred beyond the Court’s reach in an instant, and there is a risk of that occurring if notice of the application were given. It is notable that Ms Chuyko has recently transferred significant sums out of New Zealand. She is presently overseas, and in the last ten months has transferred around NZD60,000 offshore, much of it into accounts associated with her son, who lives in the United States. I am comfortably satisfied that if notice were given, there is a risk the funds would be disposed of before the application could be determined.6
Order
[9] I make orders in the terms set out in paragraph 1 of the Commissioner’s without notice application for restraining orders dated 22 April 2025. The restraining order covers the funds held in the bank accounts listed in paragraph 2.
[10] The order will expire in seven days unless the Commissioner files an on notice application within that period. Ms Chuyko will then have the opportunity to oppose the continuation of the orders if she wishes.
Boldt J
Solicitors:
Luke Cunningham Clere for Applicant
6 Crimninal proceeds (Recovery) Act, s 22(1).