Fate of millions from Venezuelan corruption scandal to be decided in Hamilton

Monday, 22 June 2026

The cash, USD$11.8m, was transferred from a bank account in the Bahamas to a BNZ account in New Zealand.

The fate of almost $17m transferred to NZ from a Bahamas bank account by the wife of a jailed Venezuelan money launderer is set to be decided in Hamilton - six years after police tried to seize the cash.

At the High Court in Hamilton Justice James MacGillivray ruled that the Commissioner of Police must provide more information for proceedings brought under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 against Andreina Gámez Rodriguez.

The case centres on US$11.85 million transferred by Gámez Rodriguez in March 2019 from a bank account in the Bahamas to a Bank of New Zealand account held by MAP and Associates Trustee Company Ltd.

The fate of the funds is set to be decided at the High Court in Hamilton.

Police obtained restraining orders over the funds in June 2019 and have been in place while investigations continued.

Gámez Rodriguez is married to Louis Carlos DeLeon Perez, who was convicted and sentenced in the United States for conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Perez is the former financial director of La Electricidad de Caracas, a subsidiary of Venezuela’s state oil firm PDVSA. In 2017, he was arrested in Spain and extradited to the United States for his role in a sprawling bribery scheme within PDVSA.

As part of those proceedings, he was ordered to forfeit more than US$18 million held in Swiss bank accounts.

In 2019 USD11.8m was transferred from a bank account in the Bahamas to a BNZ account in New Zealand.

Police allege the funds transferred to New Zealand were derived from Perez’s dishonest and fraudulent conduct and that the transfer was intended to conceal or disguise the source of the money.

After more than six years of investigation, the Commissioner filed a forfeiture application in February 2026 seeking either a type 1 assets forfeiture order or a profit forfeiture order.

The application alleges the funds are tainted property linked to significant criminal activity, identified as money laundering. It also alleges Gámez Rodriguez unlawfully benefited from criminal activity during the period between June 2012 and June 2019.

However, Justice MacGillivray found the application lacked sufficient detail on critical issues.

Lawyers for Gámez Rodriguez argued that although extensive affidavit evidence had been filed, it did not clearly set out the legal and factual basis of the claims.

They said respondents should not be expected to work through thousands of pages of material to identify the grounds relied upon by Police.

Justice MacGillivray agreed that the application failed to provide adequate particulars, noting that evidence and legal grounds serve different functions. The judgment said the grounds define the issues to be determined, while evidence is used to establish those grounds.

The court identified uncertainty around the alleged predicate offending underpinning the money laundering allegations.

While Police said the case was based on offending for which Perez was convicted in the United States, submissions during the hearing suggested other alleged overseas money laundering activity involving the same funds could also be relied upon.

The judge also found the application did not adequately explain the basis on which Gámez Rodriguez allegedly had the required knowledge, belief or recklessness necessary for a money laundering claim.

Further clarification was required regarding allegations that she knowingly benefited from significant criminal activity.

Questions were also raised about evidence relating to indictments in Spain and Andorra. The court said Police must clarify whether those indictments are relevant to the issues to be decided and, if so, explain their significance.

Justice MacGillivray stopped short of requiring Police to file a formal statement of claim but ordered the Commissioner to provide detailed particulars by July 14.

Those particulars must explain the alleged underlying offending, identify who is alleged to have committed the money laundering, outline the basis for allegations of knowledge, and clarify claims relating to compliance with a disclosure of source order.

The judge ruled that Gámez Rodriguez was the successful party on the application and is entitled to seek costs if the parties cannot reach agreement.