Over the years I have developed a fascination  with magic.  Magic is all around us , Magic occurs when something happens and you  cannot  explain how it occurs.  But the magic goes when you discover the trick  because all magic  relies on deceit   and distraction .

Magic is used to  make something which is other wise impossible   happen and often it defies all logic.  It therefore  does not come  to any surprise that the men and women in the black  cloaks  of their medieval masters still practice this  same deceit .

Lets look at this in the context of equity law barristers  limited.

a. I was a client of Equity law limited
b. Evgeny Orlov is director of equity law and sole shareholder.The company was once a registered law firm
c. Equity law under the direction of Orlov issues false invoices
d. I make a complaint to the law society with regards to lack of time sheets and false invoicing.
e. Three years later Law society directs Orlov to reduce his invoices and refund me some $30,000
f. I issue a statutory demandwhen Orlov tells me that he refuses to pay me and that he will never pay
g. Orlov appeals to LCRO , I discover this only by way of a set aside which he  served on me
h. I advise that in view of the appeal I will not enforce the statutory demand and ask for the matter to be withdrawn from court
i. I hear nothing until day before court , Bogiatto , acting for equity advises that he will be asking for cost.
j. I go to court to argue cost
k. Bogiatto tells the judge I proceeded against the wrong entity. I am a lay litigant was not prepared for this twist and did not have a the evidence with me to argue that Orlov had been instructed to reduce the invoices.I had in any case agreed not to proceed with the statutory demand  so I lost
l. 1 A costs awarded against me.
m. Bogiatto sends an invoice for Some $5,000 I advise him that his calculations are at 1b and not 1A
n. Despite being advised he has an order sealed for the $5,000 sum
o. I tell him that a set off applies due to invoices having duplicate entries. I tell him to have a new order sealed and to let me know what the amount is
p. I hear nothing more until I was served with a bankruptcy notice some  5 months later
q. I go to the court to find the sealed order and find that there is a second sealed order for $3,000 on file, this was sealed just after my last correspondence with Bogiatto but was never served this  on me .
r. I make a complaint to the law society with regards to Bogiatto’ s actions and involvement and seek for him to be removed from the matter. He responds to the law society that he has not been instructed and that his name should not have been on the intituling. My complaint is dismissed
s. Stewart refuses to settle the matter without full payment including the bankruptcy application costs.
t. We go to court on my application to have the bankruptcy application struck out
u. The lawyers who are there are Leenoh and Gurbrinder Singh Aulakh

i. I have spoken to Gurbrinder Singh Aulakh, who tells me that he was there as “an agent “ for Stewart and associates equity law.
ii. I have advised him that he is acting in a situation of conflict of interest due to his law firm partner mr Bogiatto being a witness in the matter
iii. Mr Bogiatto claimed he had not been instructed .. but mr Akulah claims he was not there as a partner from Bogiatto firm but as an agent for Stewart equity

iv. I believe that mr Aulakh is still being supervised and does not practice on his own account. Yet he appeared as “ senior “ in the court .

v. The court advises that costs may be awarded against mr Orlov For the first bankruptcy notice and suggest that we settle between the parties
w. I am told to pay the full amount.. the Blackmail  letter is sent to reinforce that
x. I decide to pay to get this court action out o f the way and believe that I can recover my money through the lCRO decision equity law owes me 30,000 so if I pay 3,000 and not apply the set off the effect will be the same later on as if it was set off against the $30,000 and I recover $27,000.
y. But then I find that mr Orlov has his house on the market and it states that he is going over seas, soAuckland Central, 8A_4-8 Short Street _ Auckland Central _ Harcourts I stop the payment as it becomes clear to me that I will pay $3,000 and I won’t be able to recover anything from equity law due to mr Orlov having left the country and the company being left a shell.

Everything is being done so as to deny me justice  and so that Orlov can take me for as much money as he possibly can while not paying me any.

There is a real need for lawyers to be identified as to which  law firm they belong to.  law firms need to be registered under  legislation be identifiable and  suable , other wise they can   sue any one and have no accountability back , to me this has all the hall marks of a cop  giving a  person a beating  when he has handcuffed them.


level 4 (2)There is nothing that peeves me off more than  persons  who take me to court to waste my time and to cover up their own  actions.

Evgeny Orlov is such a person, and  he uses the  dirty tactics  like filing multiple actions  so that you are  over loaded and with a bit of luck something might  slip past.

The whole idea is that I should feel bullied and intimidated and  pull my neck in.   But this Russian  bully  is not going to do this to me . I will  expose him  for what he is .

He really should not be  doing anything at  all which causes me to look at  his practice.  The reality is   that he would get away with his activities  if he simply did not pick on some one who knows how to investigate. You see in New Zealand we run a system   which is based   on parking a hearse  the bottom of a cliff , we do Little or no prevention work   and the   facilities  which we do have are under resourced and over burdened.

The upshot is that  New Zealand which is  deemed to be the least corrupt  is actually very good at creating a false impression.  this   works   to help make New Zealand scam artists very rich. Most New Zealanders have a very relaxed out look  and they  simply dont concern themselves with things that dont  affect them.   so it is a perfect  back drop for New Zealand to become an international money laundering center.  There are those who are very willing to use this apathy and the very unsound company structures we have .

I Believe that we should be able to warn people  of impeding  danger  and indeed we do have freedom of speech last time I looked.  and that includes freedom of opinion . Not only is what i say beleow my honest opinion  it is  based on  research  and personal experience  it is published so that others dont have to go through what I have had to endure.

The equity group international   is in reality the  premises  of  Equity law barristers  limited . the most prominent activity there now is through  Equity trust International limited.


Orlov was struck off as a lawyer in 2013  but now appears to be  practicing through a proxy lawyer  Julia Leenoh   who was admitted to the bar in March and obtained her practicing certificate  in June.

Since then Orlov has used her services under the guise of   Stewart and associates  equity law  branch  . Julia however  is  apparently not being supervised by any one  except struck off  lawyer   Orlov.

Equity law barristers limited  is owned and directed by Orlov who in   court papers claims that he is  unemployed.

the web site for Equity law has been taken down but  documents  sourced through the archive show that  one of the persons who gave it a glowing testimonial is Steven Green.

Trust and company formation

Green just happens to be a director of  Equity trust  International   along with  Greg Stewart   who operates  an alleged branch of is law firm from Orlovs premises . the company  is   owned by  Liliya Soboleva   wife of  Orlov.

It then does not come as any surprise that the majority of the promotion of he company is done through Orlov , the directors are pretty much invisible apart from  showing on the companies register  and  Steven green putting through many of the   company registrations  for   companies  associated in the press with international money laundering.

Equity Trust International Limited
Phone: +649 303 3001
Fax: + 649 303 2018
Address: Level 4 44 Khyber Pass Rd,
Grafton, Auckland.
Mail Address: PO Box 8333, Grafton, Auckland.

Fake insurance brokers

We have now also located  the fact that a  scam insurance company ran from the same premise  level 4  44 Khyber pass ,  care of  Equity trust International. reference can be seen on the FMA web site .

C/- Equity Trust International Limited
Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road
PO Box 8333
Symonds Street
Auckland 1150
New Zealand

0064 09 303 3001
Email addresses:

Gold and Silver sales

Liliya Soboleva  Orlovs Wife is also  50% share holder in a company called Silvermoney   its web site   is registered to  equity law and again we find it   advertised in Russian  and promoted on a web site  on behalf of Equity trust

Приобретайте золотые или серебряные слитки прямо сейчас! Звоните: +649303-3001 Equity Trust International

 Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road,
Auckland, New Zealand 1023
Phone:+64 9 303-3001
FAX:+64 9 303-2018

Immigration  consultant

Orlov  as a lawyer  could be an immigration consultant, since  being struck off  he lost that  right  but immigration is being promoted  by  equity trust  in Russian of course

Land investment/ realtors 

Greg Stewart and his  wife are involved in real estate  and  so the new  banner for the Equity law  firm  under the guise of Stewart and associates also  now promotes real estate sales.

This  is also reflected in  articles as Land bank loans



Steven Green   set up the bank Breder Suasso   which is  two floors below Orlovs office , it is  the international HQ  for a bank which   shows a photo shopped picture of  a front office Spot the differencerather than revealing the reality . if you are thinking of dealing with this bank please  head the warning given by the reserve bank  with regards to unlisted banks and  off shore  finance companies.

Director for this company is Oleg KHMELEV who has  all the hall marks of being a proxy director.

breder suasso in reality

International tax agents

Equity international tax agents also operate  from the premises, which is  bit of a laugh as  Orlov  the lawyer could not  produce accurate accounts to save himself.

From personal experience  I  can say  that  I was given false invoices By Orlov and Equity law. Invoices which  did no have  invoice numbers, I was told to  rip up invoices I had already paid  and when I asked for time sheets i was double billed .

I took  the complaint to the law society   and four years later   I have had not had one cent back despite Orlov being told to reduce his invoices and refund met  some $30,000.

Instead Orlov has taken Me to court 4 times  every thing  he has been involved in  is in my book fraudulent and I recommend that any one    who deals with Evgeny Orlov or any of  his   so called  enterprises does  so with caution.

 Debt collectors

Black list debt recovery. owned and operated  by Liliya Soboleva and Alexander BUSHUEV.

Alexander BUSHUEV is a director  of several other companies   registerd to  l4v4l e 44 Khberpass . One such company  he has joint directorship with Oleg KHMELEV   who  despite claimign to live in panmure  does nto appear on the electoral roll .
Black list debt recovery was set up in April 2013  .
Registered office for   financial service providers

level 4 (3)

level 4 (1)

hedge marketing

HEDGE MARKET Inc.  is an award winning, fully regulated and licensed online forex and commodities broker.

it is  directed by Daniel Duncan GLYNN of Greenhithe and a Chin-mei HO  of Taiwan who isalso the share holder

Level4,Outsource IT Tower,44Khyber Pass Road,Grafton,Auckland 1150,New Zealand
TEL +64(9)889 1758    +64(7)808 0889    +64(9)951 8707 (Chinese Line)

this company is a  financial service provider

Dragon Forex limited is registered to the united states,   the  web site claims that the company exists   in Swanson street Auckland  but he plaque for the company is outside the  dor of the  equity chambers.

the directors are Colin Craig GARDNER 707/145 Symonds Street, Eden Terrace,   and mr Seung Hwa OH  of Korea , both directors are shareholders  along with a  Seychelles company. APM Capital Limited

this company is a  financial service provider

Excelsior Makerts  Limited.

Listed on the companies register as Excelsior Markets  Limited set up in November 2013   Steven James GREEN  is the  director  by proxy for  EXCELSIOR INTERNATIONAL LTD  31291,, Ras A Khaimah, United Arab Emirates , U.A.E.

this company is a  financial service provider

WTM Markets Limited

director  and shareholder Ejaz SARWAR of  Coventry  UK .

the company was orignally set up by Daniel Duncan GLYNN   and was probably sold on as an off the shelf company for a  foreign person   to establish a new Zealand  entity.

mr  Ejaz SARWAR comes complete with a linked in profile  and   claims to   be in Auckland

this company is a  financial service provider

Uppoint Group Limited

Again a company directed by  proxy director Steven Green  for Brian Alfred EYLER  ,514 Orchard Road, Mifflintown, Pa, 17059 , U.S.A.

It would appear that again this was  an off the self company , simple switch of the share holder and because no information is required  he could be any one.

this company is a  financial service provider

Capital Market Investments Limited

Director  Daniel Duncan GLYNN proxy director  for    shareholer and director  Abdul RASHEED  of Singapore , again a company set up by Mr Glynn ready to be flicked on

again this company is a  financial service provider


Who is Evgeny  Orlov or Eugine Narodetsky?

We cannot be certain about  Evgeny  Orlov ‘s identity  he  claims that he was  Eugine Narodetsky   and came to New Zealand as an 8 year old .If any one knows anything about him I would love to hear.



high courtThere is a real trend in New Zealand to use the court to  conceal corruption

Again I am faced   with more legal action  by those  who pervert the use of the courts   this  time by struck off Lawyer Evgeny Orlov .

This is the  Statement  of claim which he filed , the following  is my    response. The  response has be sworn this is an unsworn  copy  with live links  affidavit defamation filed

I am making it  publicly available to show  how our justice system is being used to   attack those who  show that our companies are being used  internationally  in fraud and crime.

There are many organizations like  Equity International trust and Equity law who facilitate this  .

The World Bank said last year that New Zealand is “the easiest place in the world to set up a business”. Sources say the country’s company registration process has been used over the past few years to run a series of massive money-laundering schemes reaching into eastern Europe.

I am not the only one to link  Equity law to fraud,  this is another quote  The Auckland law firm whose address is on the registration has been accused previously of being linked to international fraud scams.” this comment was made with regards  to a  fraudulent  insurance company. ” A New Zealand-based general insurer that was banned last week by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has been linked to activities including international fraud scams and money-laundering.”

The statement is in relation to  Pacific Blu  presenter Equity trust International  which shares its offices address  with  Equity law barristers limited the office of Struck off  lawyer Evgeny  Orlov. His wife Lillia Sobolevia is   the share holder and the  directors are  Greg Stewart , a lawyer from Alexandra  and Steven Green  the head of the church of scientology.

The  affidavit  response and hyperlinks  are   below  the numbering has gone funny  but the links are here or refer to the  pdf  version affidavit defamation filed


I Grace Haden of Auckland Licenced private Investigator solemnly and sincerely affirm   that;-

  1. These proceedings have been taken By Evgeny Orlov for no other purpose than to use the court to conceal the fact that he and his associated companies are directly connected with international fraud, money laundering, illicit insurance schemes and Banking, through the facilitation of these activities using proxy directors and New Zealand’s unsafe company structures.
  2. The statement of claim is false ,speculative and vexatious , the content of all posts complained of are true and   based on international news reports and information obtained from the companies office . All links are accessible through the URL address and a copy of this affidavit is available under the link


  1. One of the biggest mistake I have made in my life was to engage lawyer Eugyne Orlov aka Eugine Narodetski in 2009.
  2. Orlov totally failed in his obligations as a lawyer and   totally botched my civil proceedings and in my matrimonial proceedings allowed my settlement deed to be changed without   my knowledge or consent.
  3. He was always after more money and at the end of 2010 I put my foot down and insisted on   time sheets. I had by this time received invoices without invoice numbers and despite having paid these I was told by his office   worker to screw them up and throw them out .
  4. The new time sheets which emerged were totally fabricated and   contained duplicate entries. Two easily identifiable ones on invoice 205 and 206   are nothing short of fraudulent accounting
  5. I complained to the law society and this has set him off on a trail of litigation against me. This is the fourth   court proceedings by him since filing my complaint.
  6. The first was in 2011   for alleged harassment, I had not done anything, he just feared that I was going to publish something , this was resolved by ne agreeing not to publish anything about him until after the law society had made its decision.
  7. In November 2012 the law society decided that he had to repay me some $30,000   he told me that that he was not going to pay me back and I issued a statutory demand.
  8. He immediately appealed ( I had not realised that   the appeal time was still open 0 and I discovered the appeal attached to court proceedings to set aside the statutory demand.
  9. Despite stating that I would not enforce the statutory demand due to the appeal, the process continued and I turned up in court not expecting that the grounds for the   appeal being that they claimed I had proceeded against the wrong entity.
  10. The law society had directed Orlov to   reduce his invoices and on that basis I was correct in proceeding against equity Law barristers , but this angle was sworn on me in court and I was not equipped to argue that point. Costs were awarded against me on a 1 a basis.
  11. Bogiatto who had represented equity law sent invoices for some $5,000, I advised him that his calculations were on a 1 B basis and not a 1 A.
  12. Despite this the over inflated sum was sealed. I advised them that the set off act applied due to the   simple fact that I had been invoiced twice by Equity law for items on invoice 205 and 206


  1. I never heard from him again until the LCRO contacted us and set a date.
  1. I was immediately served with these proceedings as was a friend of mine who is not involved in any manner or means. By dragging her into it Orlov has proved that he is acting totally on a speculative basis and intent on using the proceedings in a most vexatious manner.
  2. There has been no communication   prior to being served.
  3. We were originally served with documents which had not been filed in the court.
  4. We were served again a week alter and that time my documents also contained a bankruptcy notice concealed within them.
  5. The bankruptcy was on the basis of the falsely sealed document.
  6. The lawyers involved were uncooperative and I had to go to the court to sort the matter out. I found that there was a second sealed order for some $2,000 less which had never been served on me.
  7. The matter of the fees is due to go before the LCRO in September.

Complaint to the law society

  1. I have made a further complaint to the law society, Orlov is s struck off lawyer . His law firm Equity law barristers appears to remain operational through lawyer Julia Leenoh who was admitted to the bar this year and has held a practicing certificate since June.
  2. Julia   works for Stewart and associates Equity law, which is allegedly a trading name for the branch of Stewart and associates ( Alexandra ) which operates from the premises of Equity law in Auckland. She uses the email address, post office box and phone numbers of Orlov’s former practice and   it appears that she works directly under the supervisor of Orlov.
  3. I believe that Orlov has wanted to give her some hands on experience and has started by targeting me.
  4. I believe that Leenoh is acting as a proxy for Orlov.

The statement of claim

  1. The statement of claim   is extremely broad , it makes allegations that I breached an agreement.
  2. There is no evidence at all that I breached the agreement as the material produced was taken from the web sites in July 2014. The confidential agreement expired when the law society returned it decision.
  3. When Orlov failed to pay me and took me to court I updated the posts to reflect the facts more fully. The excerpts produced are not the posts as they appeared   prior to November 2013 when the agreement was in place. The agreement only related to Orlov and his practice Equity law barristers Limited.

The parties

  1. The first Plaintiff is a company
    1. Owned By Lilia Soboleva, wife of Orlov .
    2. directed By Greg Stewart who is the instructing solicitor in this matter and the man who is providing the   lawyer   by way of a bogus “ branch” so that Orlov can continue to operate his “ law practice “
    3. The second director is Steven Green who appears to administer the company records.   He also provided a testimonial for the fourth Plaintiff Equity Law .



  1. There is much cross over between this company an equity law barristers, the use the dame email address, post office box phone numbers and Evgeny Orlov appears to be the visible face behind it and promotes the company internationally.
  2. The company trades as Trust Nz   Equity Trust International Limited

Registrant Contact Name              Equitylaw ltd

Registrant Contact Address1        Level 4, New Call Tower

Registrant Contact City   Auckland

Registrant Contact Country          NZ (NEW ZEALAND)

Registrant Contact Phone             +64 9 3032008

Registrant Contact Email      

  1. The domain name registration for TRUST-NZ.COM shows

Domain Name: TRUST-NZ.COM
Registrar URL:
Registrant Name: Evgeny Orlov
Registrant Organization: Equity Trust ltd
DNSSEC: unsigned

  1. The web site states “ As a law firm dealing with offshore clients we are often being approached by international agents and consultants whose clients are interested in incorporating a New Zealand company or establishing a foreign trust for international trading and/or asset protection. We are always happy to cooperate with our colleagues and help them to find the best solution for their clients.”
  2. Articles by Orlov on behalf of equity trust

i. Evgeniy Orlov for Equity Trust International February 2013

ii. Equity Trust International LTD is a professional corporate trustee…

iii.      February 29, 2012

iv.      April 6, 2012

v.      May 30, 2012

vi.      June 5, 2012 by Evgeny Orlov, Barrister, Equity Trust International

vii.      July 2, 2012

viii.      July 30, 2012 Evgeny Orlov, Barrister – Equity Law The 21st century has seen an escalating regulation of the banking industry

  1. The   second plaintiff is Orlov’s wife she is the shareholder of the first plaintiff and appears to   be the nominee for all assets for Orlov. She   is the shareholder of several companies which form the basis of the global trust / company empire administered through the equity group

company structure

  1. The company structure in 2012 expanded to some 1500 companies -companies.pdf
  2. The international press had concerns with several of these companies which is   how the posts   originated
  1. The third Plaintiff is Evgeny Orlov also known as Eugine Narodetsky , he was struck off the roll of lawyers last year but still appears to operate Equity law barristers through the proxy a recently admitted lawyer who is working directly under the supervisor of Orlov and appears to be under his direct control.
    1. Orlov was my solicitor in 2009 on matrimonial matters and   on a matter where I exposed corruption   he was very effective at false invoicing but not much else.
    2. He now uses the documents which he failed to overturn as ammunition against me. The reality is that   Mt defence of truth and honest opinion was denied and there was never a formal proof hearing. Is incompetence which is recognised and documented by the court cost me the case, ensured far more expenses and saw an endless   stream of false invoices from the fourth Plaintiff Equity law chambers.
    3. I made a complaint to the law society with regards to the false invoicing in 2011 since then Orlov has taken me to court four times.
    4. This latest attack is accompanied by a bankruptcy action   the affidavit of which I also rely on. He and his company produce false invoices for at least $30,000   and they take me to   court for bankruptcy first on a fraudulent document for about $5,000 and then on a document I have never seen before   for some $3,000 .
    5. On the intituling He claims to be unemployed yet is director of a law firm which he still operates via proxy and   still runs the trust company . This is testimony to his integrity and willingness to deceive the court.
  2. Equity law barristers Limited fourth plaintiff is an incorporated company owned and directed by struck off lawyer Evgeny Orlov. It is operating as usual, still has the signage out   and operates through the Guise of being a branch of Stewart and associate lawyers of Alexandra, a branch   known conveniently as Stewart and associates equity law incorporating both the crests of both firms.
    1. The law firm is central to number of other activities, tax agents, immigration and trust and off shore company agent , the advertising for the overseas trust / companies set up
    2. The company is the alter ego of the third plaintiff a separate legal entity when it needs to be but an extension of himself when it suits. Orlov is the sole director and shareholder
    3. It would appear that since Leenoh obtained her practicing certificate in June Orlov has had to keep her busy and made me the target.

The defendants

  1. The first defendant is a not for profit company which owns a blog but otherwise has not traded. It   exposes corruption which occurs in New Zealand so as to make people aware that New Zealand is not corruption free and to exercise diligence.
  2. The seconded defendant is a licenced private investigator and fraud investigator. I along with others have administration rights to the blog.
  3. The third defendant is a mother of 5 who supports transparency but is not in any was associated with the blog and has no ability to access or post other than through   those who do have access. Her involvement is purely vindictive because she is a friend and associate of mine.

Defamation action

  1. From the time that the posts have gone up Orlov has been aware of them, we drew his attention to them and he has had ample opportunity under section 25 .
  2. Each time the blog has been updated he has had this opportunity, he has never asked for anything to be changed.
  3. When the unfiled documents were served on us   we again advised   Greg Stewart that in the interest of fairness we would allow for the 5 day period to recommence   and could he please advise what needs to be amended   due to being   false.
  4.    We did not receive any response except   to get the same papers served  again this time after they had been filed in court and this time   with a bankruptcy notice   for a matter which I believed had been resolved through the offset act.
  5. There are simply no grounds for defamation as all information in the posts are true based on information in the international press.
  6. Since this action has commenced I have amended the   posts to remove any doubt as   to the toe origin and source of the information.
  7. Since revisiting this issue due to the court proceedings I have uncovered more fraud and deception with regards to the activities   of the Plaintiffs and will hand a full report of my findings to the FMA.

The articles

  1. The articles stem from International press with regards to proxy directors, there is nothing which has not been reported elsewhere and the amount of literature is overwhelming.
  2. Article 1 involves the company Unihold which as can be seen by the diagram above directly traces to Liliya Soboleva .The director of this company was a Latvian drunk named Erik Vanagels
  3. New items which relate to Unihold and the corruption surrounding it is reported in the following articles
  4. Items with regards to Vanagels are summarised in the international press as follows

Among the world of investigators and lawyers who unravel complex frauds, Vanagels is an almost mythical figure. His companies have been involved in a series of financial scandals and alleged frauds. These include:

  1. The Hermitage Capital fund money laundering scandal in which $230m (£146m) was allegedly looted between December 2007 and February 2008 in a fraud involving the fund’s Russian operations.
  2. Technomark Business, a London company, is alleged to have received $43m of stolen Hermitage funds that were wired to a Latvian bank account. Vanagels was a director of Technomark’s parent company.
  3. Mukhtar Ablyazov, who has been sued by BTA Bank, for which he worked, for misappropriating billions of dollars using various companies including British-based Loginex Projects. Vanagels was a shareholder and director of the companies that controlled Loginex.
  4. A Ponzi scheme that operated in America in 2009 — the Rockford Group — routed more than $500,000 illicit funds to a British company, Intercity Transit, according to court filings by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
  5. A Cypriot company in which Vanagels was a director was used as a UK corporate director of Intercity Transit.
  6. Vanagels has not just been caught up in complex financial scandals. In September 2008 Somalian pirates hijacked the Faina, a Ukrainian ship which was carrying 33 Soviet-era tanks, rocket-launch systems and anti-aircraft guns bound for Sudan, which was the subject of an arms embargo. It emerged that the ship had been chartered by Marine Energy Trading Company (METC), a UK firm. Vanagels was a shareholder and director of the companies that owned METC.
  7. More recently, in May 2010, the High Court ruled on allegations that a Shell trader, Evgeny Tikhonov, had hidden commissions in an offshore deal. Tikhonov was acquitted, but Shell is still pursuing him for compensation, along with a company that received some of the funds, T Capital Ltd (TCL).
  8. In a High Court judgment in July 2010, Mr Justice Jack identified a familiar figure. His judgment stated: “TCL was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and Mr Erik Vanagels was the nominee shareholder and director.”
  9. Vanagels has also been named in a financial scandal in Ukraine in which it was alleged that the government was overcharged for pharmaceuticals.

  1. It appears that exactly the same is occurring through new Zealand Vanagels had 282 New Zealand companies registered to him
    1. Most have been struck off two remain with Vanagel as director both of these companies have their registered office at the premises of the   first and fourth Plaintiffs.

i.      Bergstone

ii.      Eurozone

  1. Unihold remains registered at 4/44/Khyber pass and Liliya Soboleva remains the ultimate shareholder, the director has now been changed to Manti EFFROSYNI11 Stavrou Stylianidi Street, Flat 3, Level 2, Nicosia, 2024 , Cyprus
  2. Several other companies which were previously directed by Vanagels also remain registered to the premises of the first and fourth Plaintiffs with new overseas directors.
  3. Web references and reports



















  1. Another company which was managed by one of the companies ultimately owned by the second plaintiff was Falcona systems . The news item NZ shell company linked to alleged $150m fraud refers to Falcona Systems Ltd
    1. Falcona systems is owned by Interhold Limited registered to the address of the first and fourth plaintiffs
    2. Falcona systems through Inter hold , Genhold and trust New Zealand holdings is ultimately owned by Liliya Soboleva the second plaintiff all these companies have their registered office at the premises of the t first and fourth plaintiffs.

i.      Source











  1. Another such company is Corlex sales Limited again registered office Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1023 , New Zealand shareholder Maxhold- unihold -genhold- Nz trust Holding. And ultimately Soboleva .
    1. Corlex was set up by a Latvian called Voldemar Spatz and a later director was another Latvian called Inta Bilder. Both men are the directors of hundreds of companies around the world including some which have been linked to serious financial scandals.



  1. Director Inta Bilder features in many directorships of the companies ultimately owned by Soboleva the news report the following.
  2. A further   proxy director also holds directorships in   the Plaintiffs companies is Latvian Stan Gorin , all these directors and companies are entwined “The tender was won by Cardiff-registered Highway Investment Processing LLP, which lists Stan Gorin as a director according to the UK’s Companies House. The only other company to “compete” in the tender was Falcona Systems Limited, registered in New Zealand and listing another Latvian, Inta Bilder, as director. It will come as no surprise that this company was founded by Interhold, which lists the ubiquitous Erik Vanagels as a director. “
  3. When most of these scandals occurred the companies office acted and struck off many   entities with these persons as their directors   however some remain the   plaintiffs address level 4 44 Khuber pass is till the registered address for
    1. 2 companies By Erik Vanagles
    2. 12 companies Directed by Inta Bilder

Further companies are registered to the address   for directors who have been named as persons of concern in the international press these persons are

  1. Fernando Enrique MONTERO DE GRACIA of panama who directs
    2. GENHOLD – the company which owned Falcona systems through its subsidiary Interhold




  1. Iosif FRANGOS
    1. 5 companies Iosif appears to be a lawyer Iosif Frangos Law office – Cyprus Law
  2. Edgardo MEDINA Bistrans and TWH group
  3. Anastasia KOUMIDOU, 23 companies all registered to the first and fourth Plaintiffs address, this has all the hall marks of another   Cypriot proxy director “All but one of the remaining live Bilder, Vanagels and Spatz companies, and a few more that have crept in, in the time since 2011, are now directed by three Cypriots: 34 by Manti Effrosyni, 20 by Anastasia Koumidou, and 18 by Petr Zika.”
  4. Leah TOURELEO has four companies registered level 4 44 khyber pass , naked capitalism noted that “But if there are other ‘tells’, such as heavy use of a small set of stooge directors, the outsourcing deal and the underlying network are still detectable. Just such a deal seems to have been going on between GT Group of New Zealand and The Company Net of New Zealand.  Among the tells are GT Group stooge Agnes Jouaneau, shared by GT Group and The Company Net, and Leah Toureleo, who is employed by GT Group and successors, and also shared by GT Group and The Company Net.
  5. Manti EFFROSYNI has a total of 29 active companies at 44 Khyber pass, He is the director of UNIHOLD , INTERHOLD and MAXHOLD his address is 11 Stavrou Stylianidi Street, Nicosia, CY-2023 , Cyprus   which is probably just up the road from KOUMIDOU, Anastasia
    1. He is shown on open corporates to have been involved in 107 New Zealand and 2 United Kingdom
    2. He also gets a mention on naked capitalism New Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords, Helps Out the Russian Mafia

Oh, here we go, Panama again. Genhold Limited’s director is Fernando Enrique Montero de Gracia, Calle Primera, Panama Viejo, House 496, Panama City, Republic Of Panama. De Gracia is also a director of Pacific Metal Recycling and Trading Ltd, which is wholly owned by Maxhold Limited, whose director is Manti Effrosyni, of Cyprus. Now, if the Russian Mafia is behind this, it’s only right that there would be a Cyprus connection somewhere:”

  1. And also New Zealand: the Shell Company Incorporation Franchises (V) (and Panama and Switzerland)

Genius Management Limited, formerly directed by Erik Vanagels of Panama, then by Manti Effrosyni of Cyprus, is now directed, for no immediately obvious reason, by another Panamanian, Doria Imelda Yunda Mina.

Ah, but here’s the reason: Genius Management has switched company agent too. Its agent is no longer Equity Trust International; as of the 4th March 2014, just a few weeks ago, the agent is Panasuisse (New Zealand) Ltd.”

  1. Petr Zika has 17 companies “Petr Zika, directs BRITHOLD, which is owned by the same GENHOLD Limited mentioned by Stuff. Zika directs another 124 New Zealand companies. The network is getting bigger!”
  2. Roger Alberto SANTAMARIA DEL CID directed 28 companies at one time his address is Colinas Del Sol, Main Street, House 219, Republic Of Panama ,he currently directs just one which is about to be struck off
    1. He features in Faux Corporate Directors Stand in for Fraudsters, Despots and Spies
    2. October 2010, Santamaria was named in press reports as the Panamanian contact for an Internet investment scam, Imperia Invest IBC, which defrauded 14,000 investors worldwide of about $7 million. They included about 6,000 deaf people from the U.S. states of Utah, Maine, Wisconsin and Texas.
    3. “A Florida-based task force that specializes in detecting and uncovering massive fraud schemes brought the EMG/Finanzas Forex case last year. Del Cid, Perfect Money’s purported contact person in Panama, is listed as EMG’s “Secretary” in court filings that allege that tens of millions of dollars seized in the probe were tied to the international narcotics trade.”
    4. Furthermore, in the wacky offshore world of Philip Burwell’s IOS, there is precedent for a New Zealand company suddenly ditching its Latvian stooge director for a Panamanian stooge director. For instance, you can see Latvian Inta Bilder replaced by Panamanian Roger Alberto Santa Maria Del Cid as director of Normiso Limited.
  3. Christina Van den bergOnly one NZ company is active   the address 44 Khbyer pass first registered 13 Mar 2013
    2. After the legendary Vanagels and Gorin, a new generation of nominee directors has born.

Further fraudulent companies

  1. It is not just the directors of the companies which the plaintiffs facilitate who are seen by the world as Undesirable but   they also register and   facilitate other   scams such as this reported on the FMA web site,-alerts-and-scams/names-of-firms-and-individuals-to-be-wary-of#PacificBluL.P

Pacific Blu L.P (Limited Partnership)

C/- Equity Trust International Limited
Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road
PO Box 8333
Symonds Street
Auckland 1150
New Zealand


General Partner:
Streamline Enterprises Corporation
0832-00680 World Trade Centre

Angel Lorenzo

0064 09 303 3001

Email addresses:

Reason for publishing: False/misleading advertising.

Published on this site December 2013

Pacific Blu was registered as a Limited Partnership on 24 January 2013 by the Registrar of Companies, New Zealand, pursuant to the New Zealand Limited Partnerships Act 2008.
A person cannot be in the business of acting as an insurer in New Zealand unless they are registered on the New Zealand Financial Service Providers Register for that service. Pacific Blu is not included on this Register. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand, which is responsible for licensing insurers carrying on business in New Zealand, also does not include Pacific Blu on its list of licensed insurers.

  1. The FCA warns that customers may not be aware that they have entered into an unregulated insurance contract under which there appears to be no regulatory protection.
  6. New Zealand-based general insurer that was banned last week by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has been linked to activities including international fraud scams and money-laundering.”

“The Auckland law firm whose address is on the registration has been accused previously of being linked to international fraud scams.”

The World Bank said last year that New Zealand is “the easiest place in the world to set up a business”. Sources say the country’s company registration process has been used over the past few years to run a series of massive money-laundering schemes reaching into eastern Europe.

Last year New Zealand was removed from a European Union banking and corporate “whitelist” for having insufficient legislative safeguards against money-laundering and terrorist financing.  Russia was removed from the list at the same time

Other services provided

  1. claimed to be A division of Equity Law Barristers
    1. The web site is now closed but an archived copy is still available there it would appear that Orlov lost his capacity to give Immigration advice when he was struck off

  1. Banking , Orlov   wrote an article about Banking in New Zealand July 30, 2012 Evgeny Orlov, Barrister – Equity Law The 21st century has seen an escalating regulation of the banking industry
  2. His associate Steven Green through the first Plaintiff facilitate the setting up of BREDER SUASSO LIMITED.
  3. In the constitution it states The Company” means RAY’S LIMITED; which connects this to another trail of overseas companies
  4. The directors consent was completed by Steven James GREEN ( EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ) Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road Grafton
  5. The company operates from Level 2, 44 Khyber Pass Road, Grafton, it is listed as an Off shore bank but is not registered as a bank in New Zealand
  6. The International Head office reported to be 44 Khyber pass and shows and impressive office, this picture however is fraudulent having been taken from a interior design web site

  1. The office is unattended and the matter has been reported to the FMA.
  2. The other director Mr Oleg KHMELEV has other companies associated with the first and fourth plaintiffs and appears to be a local proxy director.
  1. I worked from the premises of Equity law in 2006 the then receptionist was also one of these proxy directors, she later contacted me and advised me that she felt very uncomfortable about this and I helped her resign. He companies were then passed on the Leah Toureleo of Vanuatu as director.

Addressing allegations in the statement of claim.

  1. Item 20 states the items remain published on the web sites.. yes they do  they are true   of public interest , news worthy and  they are not there to attack any one .
  2. item 21 statement of claim  Not one of the items referred to state that there is any intention, it merely shows an ongoing relationship with these proxy directors , it would appear that the interpretation of the posts have been taken completely out of context.
  3. Item 22.   This makes no sense at all   paragraph 19   states “The First and Second Defendants caused to be published or published on the website mentioned in paragraph [16] one article whose text and dates of publication are particularised below. “ The entire posts as the stood in July 2014 are then   printed.
  4. Item 22.1 The photographs identify who the directors are.
  5. Item 22.2 the publication merely connects the costs for setting up companies with the number of companies.   I can deduce from that the Orlov’s plea of poverty   is dubious.
  6. 22.3 this is a straight question and linked to a relevant external new item the facts are below all these companies   mentioned and the directors come under the plaintiffs umbrella ‘Falcona Systems main shareholder is Interhold Ltd, of Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass, Grafton, Auckland…

This location seems to have a profusion of alternative versions in the register; for instance:

Level 4 Outsource It Tower, Grafton, Auckland 1150, New Zealand
Level 4 Newcall Tower, 44 Khyber Pass, Grafton, Auckland , New Zealand
Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass, Grafton, Auckland

Simply searching the register for “44 Khyber Pass” gives 1036 active companies. Evidently this too is a popular address for company registrations, so perhaps that is an overcount. Narrowing the search to the known-to-be-dodgy “Level 4 Khyber Pass” still gives 594 results though. Yikes!

Back to Stuff, who were talking about Interhold Limited:…It, in turn, is owned by Genhold Ltd, of the same address, with a Panama-resident director.

Oh, here we go, Panama again. Genhold Limited’s director is Fernando Enrique Montero de Gracia, Calle Primera, Panama Viejo, House 496, Panama City, Republic Of Panama. De Gracia is also a director of Pacific Metal Recycling and Trading Ltd, which is wholly owned by Maxhold Limited, whose director is Manti Effrosyni, of Cyprus. Now, if the Russian Mafia is behind this, it’s only right that there would be a Cyprus connection somewhere:

Typically, Russian investors create “brass-plate” companies to take advantage of Cyprus’s low 10% corporate tax rate. Many of these funds are reinvested back in Russia – ¤1.4bn [sic] in 2008 – avoiding Russian tax. The Cypriot authorities angrily deny that the island is a haven for money laundering. They also point out that Russians invest more cash in Austria and the UK.

But many analysts are sceptical: “We are talking about Russian money laundered through Cyprus. The Russian mafia uses Cyprus extensively,” said Hubert Faustmann, associate professor of European studies at Nicosia University. “This is why Russia has no interest in Cyprus going down economically.”

Tax havens and organized crime go together like dung and flies. Well, we knew that.Anyway, via the Cyprus connection, another modest opportunity to trump Stuff’s piece turns up: Manti Effrosyni is in fact the director of 88 other New Zealand companies. Meanwhile another Cyprus resident, Petr Zika, directs Brithold, which is owned by the same Genhold Limited mentioned by Stuff. Zika directs another 124 New Zealand companies. The network is getting bigger!

  1. 22.4 No it does not have fraudulent innuendo it shows that people who were alert to their environment got out while the going was good.   I can call many lawyers   to back me up on this one, how many will be enough?
  2. 22.5. I do have to wonder about Mr Stewart. Again honest opinion   must people have seen through Orlov but I have to admit he is very persuasive and always makes the other person out to be the bad guy, including the courts.
  3. 22.6 I think the evidence of the bank Breduer Suasso and the Insurance Company Blu pacific speak for themselves.
  4. 22.7 The fact that Eric Vanagels still operates companies through the plaintiffs to me proves that the activities of the companies he supposedly directs is condoned by them.
  5. 22.8 as can be seen with Breder Suasso, companies are already registered ready to change their names and bring in foreign shareholders and directors. This is an observation from fact and honest opinion.
  6. Paragraph 25?? Paragraph 17 states The Second and Third Defendants jointly control and administer the content of a website titled Transparency International New Zealand. This is total speculation   and no truth to this what so ever
  7. 26. The statement is false yes we agree the statement that   Rochelle and I administer the web site is false.
  8. 26.1   The evidence speaks for itself, the companies  in their company structure run by the proxy directors are involved in international money laundering, and the plaintiffs provide the frame work to facilitate it. Truth
  9. 26.2 That statement has not been made, however the newspaper items show that the address and the companies ultimately owned by the second plaintiff are frequently involved in international crime. If she felt uncomfortable with her connection with the crime she could resign and close down the companies.
  10. 26.3 I never said that they did   I do know that when Liliya was the office administrator she issued invoices without invoice numbers on them.. To me that is tax avoidance.
  11. 26.4 facts speak for themselves. They provide directors   as proxies. That is never the intention of New Zealand company law.
  12. 26.5 The news items   show that the companies which are direct subsidiaries   of the companies owned by the second plaintiff and administered by the   first plaintiff are associated with the international events. These companies would not exist if it were not for them.
  13. 27. The first defendant is a corporate it cannot have   its own intention or be malicious, the items published in the name of the first defendant were as shown based on international news items derived from many sources.
  14. 29 The New Zealand Company’s office has been striking off companies with proxy directors.   This is directly due to the integrity of the companies and nothing to do with anything   that he defendants may have said or done.
  15. 29.2 The fact that the first Plaintiff lost money is not my problem   see the ministry of economic development about that and the new laws. I am not a scape goat
  16. 29.3 The second plaintiff became a mother last year, this frequently has an effect on income. Also the international press reporting her involvement   may well have had an impact on   matters and not just anything that may have bene published on She is still a director of many companies. Including new ones registered in the past year.
  17. 29.4   the cause of this may be the tightening of our company laws and the spot light on the activities at level 4   44 Khyber pass. Including Orlov being struck off as a lawyer
  18. 29.5 hope the IRD looks at this in contrast to previous earnings.
  19. 29.6 becoming a mother losing your job at the law firm which had its owner struck off would  have this kind of effect. I lost similar sums when I  became a mother
  20. 30 the terms were confidential,   confidentially which the third plaintiff has breached. The application was his not because I had done anything but he must have feared what I could find out. It was totally vexatious. I have not breached it, the law society has made its decision the agreement has lapsed. The extracts provided were not those which were up on the site at the time when the agreement was in place.
  21. 31 this provision was complied with Liliya Soboleva and Equity trust international were not part of the agreement.
  22. 32 the first defendant was not part of the   agreement. I was not the sole director and shareholder, the   plaintiffs have to get their facts rights.
  23. The agreement was not breached I have no control over the international press.


  1. My defence is truth, I have not stated anything which has not been reported in the overseas press.
  2. The plaintiffs have been given the opportunity to provide evidence as to why the statements made were not truthful and have failed to provide anything.
  3. It appears that this court action is being taken against me and my associate for no other reason as to incur legal expenses stress and     waste time.
  4. I hope that I have not wasted my time as the full investigation that I have had to undertake will be sent to the international press consortiums who are focused on New Zealand.
  5. It is my professional opinion that through the company structures and the directors which the plaintiffs are involved with, that they are facilitating criminal matters of international significance   which reflect badly on New Zealand


  1. The action is vexatious   as ample opportunity for correction has been given
  2. There is no   “contempt of court” as I abided with the agreement, it has now expired and   screen dump taken in July 2014 is not evidence of what was on the site prior to November 2013.
  3. This matter is an example of how people who facilitate criminal behaviour use the civil jurisdiction of the court   to beat up those who expose illicit activity.


  1. The reason I am self-represented is that the last time I engaged a lawyer he was incompetent and over charged. And while the law society struck him off, I have been left with massive financial deficit and no support in putting right the   wrong and the injustice which Orlov has brought   about.
  2. The investigations into this matter have been huge and I hope the court will compensate for that, but in any case Orlov won’t pay   and the sport of this is to show that he owes me $30,000 plus but can make me pay him.
  3. He is using the court to pervert the course of justice he should be charged with criminal offences.

Affirmed at Auckland this 19 th day of August 2014

Before me


It is timely with Nicky Hager‘s  publication of Dirty politics that  we examine the corruption behind the  dirt.

I am in the process of putting together my  submissions for the select committee  to  substantiate my  petition for an Independent commission agaisnt corruption .

I have already done an informal post Why I initiated a Petition for a commission against corruption.

On that post we covered off  several headings  our concerns with regards to the  rather nontransparent system which appears to be operating in parliament. All the  issues   can be attributed to one single  underlying  problem .  There is no code of conduct for members of parliament .

Labour MP Ross Robertson has for the past 13 years been battling   to get Parliament to  accept a code of conduct for MPs. see story

There is a cabinet manual  which touches on  Code of conduct and holds ministers   accountable to the  Prime Minister for their behaviour. This however does not extend to   members of parliament who are not ministers they are responsible to their party leaders.

New Zealand MPs do have a register of pecuniary interest  the requirements for this are set out in  appendix B  of the standing orders .

The   returns are found   at this link . Again as  with so many registers in New Zealand there is nothing which compels the truth  and no consequences for  deliberate omissions.  The integrity  of the register is  therefor  solely dependent on the integrity of those who  provide the information.

In Australia we see a different scene  and a magnificent summary which  also    looks at New Zealand  and notes that

The parliamentary practice states that :

As occasion requires, ministerial guidelines may be issued by the Cabinet or the Prime Minister to deal with particular circumstances that have arisen (such as the conduct to be observed by Ministers involved in mayoral election campaigns). However, these ministerial codes of conduct are political guidelines adopted by Governments to guide their own conduct. They have no statutory origin and are not regarded as being legally enforceable. Their significance depends upon the sense of commitment to public office held by Ministers and on their political responsibility to Parliament and public opinion.

New Zealand Parliamentary Practice notes that:

Except in the case of financial interests, the House has not adopted any detailed ethical guidelines for its members, taking the view that advice about appropriate behaviour is primarily a matter for induction training and internal party discipline.

And so it  is that the system  which operates in Our government today   revolves around the prim ministers top drawer.

Conduct which should be independently  investigated is retained until a suitable   ” spat arises”  party Politics are never far  away and we are constantly reminded that the  governance is   a war between left and right.

While  it is the conduct of  the house which should be considered we find  that  the  protects its members as  do the other parties.

Being the prime minister allows better access than any one   to the dirt  and  you simply hold on to it  to trade off    and save the neck of one of your own.

it is of note that  the code of conduct and ethics is linked to    ICAC particularly  involving Lobbying.   It appears that elections may be    time for open slather  of those wishing  favours  in the   forth coming terms  to help  provide a leg up   for the party who  is to deliver   the goods. see this link .

The   open door to the Westminster  style  of  parliament is that   it places the prim minister   in total control of the conduct  of the ministers  and the Prime minister  does not even require  formal parliamentary  authorization  to alter amend or interpret anything   he likes  as he likes.

It is therefore a matter of playing the game   and while we frown upon bullying in the playground, the same tactics are essential  for  political  survival.   Its all count getting   your bum on  the hot seat so that you can steer  your  country   for  what  could well be  private  financial  gains.     why not?    we dont have  any  law agaisnt  it!

money launderingNew Zealand  is renowned for  its ease of settling up a company.  A company is a new legal person  and separate legal entity.  Each company  generally has  the same rights and privileges in law afforded to a real   or natural person .( the type that  breathes )

There appears to be two sets of  standards though  one afforded to natural  people  the other to   legal persons (  corporates )

A real person  takes 9 months to develop  in utero  and 18 years after their  birth attains  legal  age where  he/she  can    own property , make independent decisions , sign contracts   etc. there are no short cuts  and you cannot cheat . Claiming a false age  , false parenthood,  nationality , identity  are generally considered serious offences.

Then there  is the second type of person  the corporate.. body of persons  or  company. – the legal person

The legal person   can be  created by any one in the world , all it takes is an online trip to the  NZ  companies office.   You will need a NZ address but no one will check if you actually live there.  if you dont live there they will ask yo to update the records.

It has  been made slightly trickier now  due to  the requirement   for  a log in  but   dont fret  there is noting that a few $$  wont overcome, there are plenty agencies willing to help

You dont even need to be truthful  about  the ownership   of the company and this can be disguised  behind trusts and behind other persons called nominees. Not only will you for  the princely sum of $160  get a New Zealand company  you will also have  a NZ identity.

To avoid   displaying the  overseas ownership  of  your new company you can use  an address in New Zealand  you could use a friends address and  perhaps use the  motel that you stayed in  the last time you  visited.

We have seen directors  and share holders who are one and the same  using different name  and different signatures.  the   system is    open to such abuse that  it is limitless… one checks.

As director  you  can use your middle name  and mothers surname  or  what every you   feel like being known as this week    you should be a real person  but as we will show  in our example   imaginary people  can be directors    and liquidators. .The good news is  we no longer have a national  Enforcement unit  we have an integrity unit  who  simply ask you to correct the details.   No penalties for Bullshit here.

So imagine if a foreigner wants to purchase real estate in NZ but  cant get authority,   they can  set up a company  ,  use it to set up a second company   and buy   a house.  They  can then  on sell the   company and the assets without any need for    conveyancing.  and the house  will  transfer as   part of the   assets of the company.

In short the company registration is totally  unsafe and   only the records of honest people have integrity .

The Transparency International  Integrity report  recognized that

  the ease of company registration  has been exploited for fraudulent purposes by international actors and New Zealanders.

This is compounded   by the lack of due diligence  employed by our companies office   and lack of enforcement.

New Zealand companies are  an invitation to international money laundering.

There is no  doubt  that there are laws in place to deal with  fraudulent application to the   companies office but these are no longer  enforced.

The last    published  conviction is for  DR Gerald WATERS,  who was  running a company for  scamster Jonathan Mann   Waikato doctor fights convictions  and also see Jonathon Mann seeks to silence victims  and

Several years ago I was  also involved on the periphery of a case with a fictional director and   liquidator
Fresh Prepared Limited  owed a lawyer  $64,000.  the company  was directed by Lynne PRYOR  Unit 1, 135 Grey St, Onehunga, Auckland she directed it on behalf of her boss Terry Hay , (Business partner of David Nathan )Instead of  paying the lawyers  Hay on sold the company to  Sanjay PATEL  01 Nov 2006 who on 30 Jan 2007 appointed Liquidator Babubhai Patel  of Papakura.  It transpired that both ” men”  were fictional  Babubhai  even shifted  to Mumbai and his affidavits  witnessed by a solicitor in Shanghai .Fortunately in those days there was such a thing as  National enforcement unit in the  companies office , one which actually prosecuted.  Lynne PRYOR and Terry Hay were both charged with   some 22 fraud offences . see news items Charges over alleged fake liquidator  and  Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt . Hay   took off to Honolulu his home turf  and stayed   low  until  Pryor had been dealt with in the  courts ,  she was able to  bargain away 21 charges as Hay was the prime offender. Lynne Pryor was disqualified from  being a director   but she  remains at the premises which have now become a new company doing the same as before , business as  usual , her brother Graham Pryor is supposedly her supervisor . this company is now called Salad foods  . Salad foods share holding is  hidden in a solicitors trust, but it used to be Terry Hay  whose financial interests were in this company.

The transition of Fresh prepared into salad Foods was not  simple for a bit there there was another company in the mix   SALAD FOODS (1992) LIMITED  directed and allegedly owned by  Gui Li , Hays girlfriend at the time  who used her parents  Shanghai address.

Hay managed to  have the  charges dropped after he had  done a deal with government the response is on FYI  Download View as HTML

But sadly it appears that these falsehoods are  now condoned.   I have always noted that when ther is no consequence to an action   the abuse will increase.

This  brings me back to this weeks Chinese company   care of the British Virgin Island .

Milk New Zealand Investment  was allegedly the share holder   but had no real   identifiable existence.

Yesterday the   entry was changed on the companies register. the company is now shown as

Milk New Zealand Investment Limited  Offshore Incorporations Centre, Road Town, Tortola , British Virgin Is.

All changed with the   flick of a pen  effectively having the  effect of transferring the beneficial  ownership of massive blocks of New Zealand pasture and all done apparently without a shred of evidence. I have requested  the proof. will keep you posted

truthThere are Many New Zealanders who know all too well  of the corruption in New Zealand.  There are also many who  dismiss   corruption as a conspiracy theory.

Invariably the ones  who agree with every word I say are the ones who have been exposed to corruption and found that it is  wave that  washed over you and consumes assets  on the way .

The only people who do not see corruption are the ones in denial   who  desperately want to believe the rhetoric because of the financial advantage it holds for them.

Amateur sleuths  can have a field  day  with uncovering corruption in New Zealand   but most are foiled by the presumption that  ” things will have been done properly.” The reality is that we  do not have proper systems or safe guards in place and our company  registration is easily  foiled

Trading names  are commonly used and it is not  unusual to find that   companies swap names   or trade in the name of another company.  so  it is always important o know who you are actually dealing with.

You can buy a house in the name of a company  and  then on sell the company , there by changing the   directors and share holders of the company and   the assets transfer  to new  owners without need  for  conveyancing as the ownership of the  property has not changed,  just change in   ownership of the company.

Like any magic trick  you   dont believe it can be done until you see  how it is done, then  you will notice  that it is  happening more  than  you ever thought.  its like buying a purple car, once you have one you see them every where. The reality is that nothing has changed only  that   you now  have an awareness.

Looking at the companies involved in  the Milk New Zealand   group of companies  , it is noted that the company Milk New Zealand Investment Limited  does not appear on the New Zealand register   but  it appears on the  company genealogy .

Rumour has it  that  the company is registers in the  British virgin Island, but even if it does  there is no evidence to show that this is he company  which is the share holder  of the multi million dollar  chain of companies.

We have already seen that  the Chinese company Hunan Roland animal husbandry Co., Ltd. is  selling off shares in our land.  

Our company  registration is   so unsafe that   it is a possibility that this company which has never been considered as  a potential purchaser is the actual owner of our land .

we can only wait and see.   time  will tell .

collins milkMy very wise mother always told me that once you part with something, sell it off or give it away  , you lose control over it. It looks to me  that we have lost control over  our  farm land  as it appears that it  about to change hands within China.

The overseas investment office  did  due  diligence on the purchasers of  the Crafar farm- Milk New Zealand Holding  Hong Kong , the report directed that this company should set up as a New Zealand company.Part 18 Overseas companiesof the  Companies Act provides for this.

A new company named Milk New Zealand Holding  appeared on our registry n its share holder   was not Milk New Zealand Holding  HK  , and neither  was this registration  that of an over seas company.

Instead the share holder was listed as Milk New Zealand Investment Limited Suite 1, 139 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand see post A closer look at the 2 Milk New Zealand Holding Limited companies

On discovering a  Chinese document  on Reuters  more   has become apparent

BRIEF-Dakang Pasture Farming to raise up to 2.5 bln yuan in private placement for New Zealand acquisition

(Reuters) – Hunan Dakang Pasture Farming Co Ltd

* Says plans to raise up to 2.51 billion yuan ($404.25 million) via private placement of shares, proceeds will be used to acquire two pastures in New Zealand

Source text in Chinese:;see transaltion  Hunan Roland animal husbandry Co., Ltd. 

 The second  document  indicates the possibility  that the share holder may be  the company registered in  the British Virgin Islands.

Due to the nature and secrecy of  this registration  we cannot be sure if Milk NZ holdings  HK is the 100% share holder  of this company   or even if this company is the  shareholder of the New Zealand   company Milk NZ holdings, thepossibility is that another company with an identical name exists some where else  hidden in a tax haven  which will come forward int he future and claim to be the shareholder.

Another possibility is  the the chain of ownership  could be through more than one  company   with several intermediaries between the company which the due diligence was done on and the  ultimate purchaser a process during which the share holding of the BV   investment company was diluted and now  is not 100%  Shanghai Pengxing, through subsidiaries.

When company structures become complicated there is  always a reason  and the reason only becomes clear with hind sight.

The Reuters document  also  alludes to the  sale of our farms though shares  the report is not one of  Shanghai Penxin  is is  of Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd. Hunan Health Board

This company on a flow chart as  55%  controlled by Shahai Pengxin and the ownership of the  farms is attributed to th is company  in the report   see translated  documentation Husbandry Co., Limited Hunan Kang non Public offering plan ( per  Google translate )

the statement which I believe needs explanation   is  this

After the net proceeds will be used to: (1) the acquisition of New Zealand’s North Island Ranch and transformation projects; (2) the acquisition of New Zealand Los Cen ranch and improvement projects. In the implementation of the acquisition, the company will acquire new use Pengxin Group to raise funds Stake in the Hong Kong company (including its underlying company), and the Hong Kong company indirectly owned by North Island Ranch  Entitled to, and the Hong Kong subsidiary has signed agreements to acquire the Los Cen ranch. Pengxin Group through the acquisition of new Hong Kong companies, Roland will indirectly take ownership of livestock pasture North Island, and can be implemented on the ranch of Los Cen

source Chinese document  translation  Husbandry Co., Limited Hunan Kang non Public offering plan

Time to look at the players 

Terry Lee

1 December 2009  Lee  became director of Westlake capital Registered office Gilligan Shephard.

2 December 2009  Lee together with  Xing Hong and Stone Shi became directors of KIWI DAIRY CORPORATION LIMITED Registerd office Gilligan Shephard.  Westlake capital  is the shareholder   This company  became Oravida NZ  LTD on 13 may 2011

3 December 2009 Lee together with  Xing Hong and Stone Shi became directors of Registerd office Gilligan Shephard.  This company  became ORAVIDA PROPERTY LIMITED on 27 June 2011

Oravida property limited  owns 8  titles . It has to be noted that  ORAVIDA PROPERTY LIMITED formed  22/7/2011 changed its name to KIWI DAIRY INDUSTRY LIMITED 27/7/11

18 Nov 2010 Terry Lee sets up a new company and   Westlake capital becomes 100% share holder MILK NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION LIMITED.  Zhaobai JIANG  becomes a director   On 02 Sep 2011  and acquires 50% of this shareholding  2 July 2014 . this company is not involved in any of the land purchases.

28 September 2010  Terry Lee resigns  from Oravida portfolios

30 September  2010 Terry Lee & Zhaobai JIANG set up  Nature pure Limited  60 % Milk New Zealand Holding Limited Kong Kong   40% Westlake shareholding .  this company  is not involved in any o f the land purchases .

My red flags

Terry Lee   is the sole person to  update the company registers  and  file now directors shareholders etc.

It is  to me extremely odd that the  Director is  doing this task

It is also odd that    the Hong Kong company   which has shareholding in New Zealand  simply did not  become the  shareholder of the New Zealand company or register here.

To me the registration of Milk New Zealand  holdings is  deceptive  as the  statement of the share holder is so deficient that there is no proof of existence.

I also notice that Mr Jiangs signatures are not consistent  and I have to wonder if some one else is signing for him at times.

The revelations  of  the   assumed ownership of  the land  By  Rolands  is worrying and  I  have to wonder if the Chinese  like myself have worked out  how  our companies registration process   has more holes in it  than  a seive.

We need an urgent  inquiry .




tweedle deeYesterday I did  some delving into the back ground structure of the  farms purchased in New Zealand by the Chinese   today I am focusing on the companies  New Zealand Milk Holding  one is registered in Hong Kong and the other is a New Zealand  entity  which is not registered as an overseas  company.

You could  say  they are identical twins   but it does not appear that they have the same parents and they may not even be  directly related .. its  all  open to   presumption .

There can be no doubt at all that the applicant   for the purchase of  the Crafar farms  was Milk New Zealand Holding Limited a Hong Kong   company ,

It was this company which was approved by Linz under  the overseas  Investment act on 31.January 2012 .

“The Applicant is Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (“the Applicant”), a Hong Kong incorporated company which is an overseas person under the Act.”

The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring the Investment.

This means  that  the legal entity the company registered in Hong Kong  would also be registered in New Zealand. But it is NOT registered in New Zealand  .

For  clarity this would be the  equivalent to a person   having  dual nationality, ie the person is  registered in  Hong Kong  and New Zealand.  So in this case there would only be  one person  named Milk New Zealand Holdings  Limited with registration in both New Zealand and Hong Kong .

Part  18   of the  companies  act sets out in detail how overseas companies are to register.  Overseas companies

334Overseas companies to register under this Act    (1) An overseas company that, on or after the commencement of this Act, commences to carry on business in New Zealand must apply for registration under this Part in accordance with section 336 within 10 working days of commencing to carry on business.

An example of such a registration on the register is  a company selected at random  SOHO PROPERTY LIMITED  a Gibraltar based company registered here in New Zealand Soho Property Limited (Gibraltar).   On the companies application forms  you  can see   its constitution and  certifications as to its existence.

This is what  is supposed to have happened   but what actually occurred was that  another company  identical named was set up   as  a New Zealand Entity, there by creating a new and separate legal entity which has no visible connection or ties to  the  Linz applicant.  

On 26 Jun 2012   MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED (3883536) was registered with an alleged share holder  of Milk New Zealand Investment Limited   Suite 1, 139 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland, 1010 , New Zealand.

The share holder Milk New Zealand Investment Limited, has not been Located on any  share registry  and does not appear to be a legal  person. It is therefore in the absence of proof  considered to be a fictional   organsiation.

Any way that aside   it is clear  that the consent to purchase  the farms  was given to the Hong Kong company  and not any  other legal entity.

The Hong Kong  company  which was given the right to purchase and which  many believe purchased the Crafar farms and other farms  has not registered in New Zealand  as directed and is  NOT THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE FARMS

The  ownership  floownershipw of the company at the Chinese end is  as shown below  or on page 5 of the   Linz report

Paragraphs 6-12 of the report set out in detail the lineage of the applicant Milk New Zealand Holding Hong  Kong

At Point  43   of the OIO Assessment:  it states
“The Overseas Investment Office is satisfied that the individuals with control of the relevant overseas persons have  business experience and acumen relevant to the overseas investment. The Applicant’s parent company group has  extensive investment experience and Landcorp will provide the required specialist New Zealand dairying expertise

But  the  overseas  company DID NOT purchase the  farms 

As  a  person who  conducts back grounds screens  I have to wonder why  you would  do due diligence on one entity and then have another   seemingly unrelated  entity complete the transaction.

It appears to me   that  a lot of  work went into  checking out one person so  that another person who has not had any due diligence done on them could purchase large chunks  of New Zealand.

The OIO   never  considered or evaluated the alleged share holder of the ultimate purchaser Pengxin New Zealand Farm group   and its pedigree

I know for a fact that  in New Zealand  no one checks ,when we  see two names the same we  make the assumption that they are one and the same.  However an experienced investigator will tell you that there are many names  which are  in common  .

You need only  look at the  quotes from Judith Collins to  see that  she  relies upon the reports of Transparency International New Zealand who repeatedly  claim that New Zealand  has low level corruption and is perceived to be the least corrupt in the world. The Minister misquotes this repeatedly as   being the least corrupt and  has made statements along the line of ” with our low level of  corruption we dont  need to check as our processes are such that we are free of corruption “, the fact that we  dont have corruption could be  due to the fact that the word is not defined   see my  OIA request

There is no legally binding definition of corruption in New Zealand.

The same issue came up  for me in  2006 when I questioned the existence of a law enforcement authority  called AWINZ. this was covered up   by using other people  using the same trading name.   If the Chinese are aware  of the ability to switch  one name for an other  then at the very  worst this could be a massive money laundering  scam  and  at the best it could be  gross negligence   and ignorance.

With a transaction this  big you would think that some one in government  would be assigned to ensure that things are done correctly .

company structureI am doing  some delving into the  purchase of  the Lochinvar station.  I have learnt  a long time ago that in New Zealand No one checks.   This is what happened  when a  fictional  organization was give law  enforcement  powers . So  I never assume and I check everything mainly because   our government departments assume that honesty and integrity prevail  and accept every thing on face value.

This leaves the country wide open to abuse.  I am not saying that this is the case in this instance but what I am saying is that things  simply dont stack up  .

Let us start with a simple chronology ( I love chronologies )

5 October 2009:

Crafar Farms placed into receivership, owing $216 million to creditors.source

2 December 2009

ORAVIDA NZ LIMITED (2356805) Registered Terry Lee , Xing Hong   and Stone Shi directors  and Shareholders: Jing Huang, Julia Jiyan Xu, and Deyi Shi.

11 June 2010:  & 30 July 2010

National Party receives $50,000.00 donation from Susan ChouThe National Party has received $200,000 from a wealthy Chinese New Zealand couple linked to the businessman behind the foreign bid for the Crafar dairy-farm empire.

28 Sep 2010

Terry Lee  resigns his directorship of  ORAVIDA NZ LIMITED (2356805)

30 Sep 2010

Nature Pure Limited A new company is registered in New Zealand  .Terry Lee and Zhaobai JIANG are the directors  with the Hong Kong based Milk New Zealand Holdings Ltd as 60% shareholder  is registered for them by Liew and associates.

This company is called Nature Pure Limited . From that Point on the   annual returns are completed by the director  Terry  Lee . The registered office  is Liew and associates  until 19 march 2013

The remaining 40% shareholding is held by WESTLAKE CAPITAL LIMITED (2368441)registered to Gilligan shepherd  , who are also the   accountants/ registered office for Oravida.

Westlake capital through WESTLAKE  is  owned  by GILLIGAN SHEPPARD NOMINEES LIMITED which administers a multitude of trusts see here

Nature Pure  till this day  does not own any properties in New Zealand  nor is it a shareholder of any other company.

22 December 2010:

Government  blocks  bid by Natural Dairy to buy the 16 Crafar farms on ‘good character’ grounds. source

14 January 2011

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has laid charges against five parties involved in the running of the Crafar farms, it said today.
The Animal Welfare Act charges were laid in the Taupo District Court and relate to a farm which was investigated by MAF in October 2009 as part of a wider review of all Crafar-owned properties.

hk  milk nz27 January 2011:

KordaMentha accepts offer from Shanghai Pengxin International Group Ltd to buy Crafar Farms.source

13 April 2011:

Shanghai Pengxin lodges application with the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) to buy the Crafar farms.source

31 May 2011:

National Party receives $100,000 donation from Susan Chou. (Source)

22 July 2011: 

ORAVIDA LTD registered. Shareholders: Jing Huang, Julia Jiyan Xu, and Deyi Shi. (Source)

27 July 2011:  O

RAVIDA PROPERTY LTD changes name to  KIWI DAIRY INDUSTRY LTD.  Shareholder: Deyi Shi (Source)

26 September 2011:

Crafar farms receiver KordaMentha  rejects a conditional NZ$171.5 million offer for 16 central North Island dairy farms from a group led by controversial former merchant banker Michael Fay.source

22 November 2011:

National Party receives $50,0000 donation from Citi Financial Group. Shareholders: Yan Yang and Qiang Wei. (Source) (Source)

22 November 2011: National Party receives $1,600 from Oravida NZ. (Source) (Source)

26 November 2011:

  NZ General Election

30 November 2011:

National Party receives further $55,000 donation  from Oravida NZ. (Source) (Source)


Consent granted for  Milk New Zealand Holdings limited ( The Hong Kong company) to purchase Crafar  farms
Associate Minister of Finance Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman and Minister for Land Information Hon Maurice Williamson have granted consent to Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (Milk New Zealand), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Shanghai Pengxin Group Co. Limited (Pengxin)


The High Court today released its decision in relation to the judicial review of Ministers’ decision to grant consent to Milk New Zealand Holding Limited (a wholly owned subsidiary of Shanghai Pengxin Group Co. Limited) to purchase the 16 Crafar farms.

This court decision again refers to  an overseas company.

The successful bidder was Milk NZ, a Hong Kong registered company.6 It is a subsidiary of a Chinese company, Shanghai Pengxin Group Co Ltd (Shanghai Pengxin), which is in turn a subsidiary of another Chinese company, Nantong Yingxin Investment Co Ltd (Nantong). Most of the shares in Nantong (99 per cent) are owned by Zhaobai Jiang and the remainder by his brother. Mr Jiang is a successful entrepreneur.
[6] For the purposes of the Act:
(a) Milk NZ is an overseas person.

20 April 2012:

Government ministers , Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson and Associate Finance Minister Jonathan Coleman  approve the Overseas’ Investment Office’s (OIO) new recommendation to allow the sale of the 16 Crafar farms to Shanghai Pengxin.source

26 Jun 2012 

A New Zealand company is registered as  MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED (3883536) it is listed as a NZ Limited Company  and  the transaction is through LIEW & ASSOCIATES.

Immediately after wards but on the same day    companies were also registered by Liew and associates  being

  1. PURE 100 FARM LIMITED (3899541)
  3. MILK NEW ZEALAND DAIRY LIMITED (3900437)  registered as NATURE PURE FARM LIMITED but changed its name in  July 2013

 27 Jun 2012

PENGXIN NEW ZEALAND FARM GROUP LIMITED is registered  and while it is touted to be a subsidiary of he overseas purchaser  it has in reality no direct connection  other than that it is owned by s similarly named company   to the purchaser  but this  MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED (3883536) is a New Zealand entity and not a foreign company

17 Oct 2013

NEW ZEALAND STANDARD FARM LIMITEDbecomes 74% shareholder in  SFL Holdings   it  in turn has  99.65% shareholding in  SYNLAIT FARMS LIMITED which  owns 35 land titles

7 April 2014

Three more companies  are  registered  again having the New Zealand   registered MILK NEW ZEALAND HOLDING LIMITED as  the share holder , you have to wonder  which farms are being eyed up  .

Further reading

Please visit

Nationals multiple connections with Oravida – is it all about scampi ?

For those who are visual   this is the flow chart of how it comes together company structure the question we have to ask  is  are those who put the offer in   the same as the ones who actually bought it  , why is there not a direct link to  the Hong Kong  company .

We would welcome transparency  or an explanation , this   shows just how  dangerous our company  registry is   and how easily  assets  can be   appropriated to   companies other than those intended.

The question remains  who is , what is MILK NEW ZEALAND INVESTMENT  LTD.. or is it  or is it not a legal entity ?

With the  governments close ties to Oravida  it is essential  that we have a full impartial investigation into this one

company structure

Spot the differenceBanks in New Zealand have to  be registered and appear on the register ,On that register you will not find Breder Suasso .

Despite this  there are many over seas web sites which are promoting this company   as on off shore bank.

On the contacts page you will see  a picture of what purports to be their office . ironically this picture   is pretty much the  same as one found on the internet advertising office design . It therefore will not come as much of a surprise to find that  Breder Suasso shares its international head office at level 2  44 Khyberpass  with a graphic artist.

the real office  is a bit of a contrast breder suasso in realityno flowers  no  apples   and no receptionist

Delve deeper  into the company  and all sorts of interesting things  appear… more tomorrow