��һ�ǿ�����

A woman’s bank account went from a balance of 5c to almost $150,000 overnight – but it was not her money. 

Instead, it was the money of a couple who were in the process of building their dream home and had fallen prey to hackers. 

Sophie Mareta Moerangi Winchester-Krishan was the middleman in the scam, where her bank account was used to deposit the funds and she then transferred them to offshore accounts. 

The 66-year-old, who was charged with three counts of money laundering as a result, was paid $5000 for her role in the scam. 

She was recently sentenced in Hamilton District Court, where the couple spoke of their building dream being shattered and how they had been left with “a lifetime of loss and heartache”. 

It wasn’t made clear in court exactly how Winchester-Krishan and the scammers first connected. 

Her defence lawyer argued Winchester-Krishan had been so keen to get back into work that she ignored what might have been red flags. 

Those red flags included multiple queries by Kiwibank about the suspicious transactions and her account being briefly frozen. Despite this, she assured the bank the transactions were legitimate. 

Now, the case has earned caution from Netsafe, which warned it was difficult to recover money in these events and urged people to be sceptical when being told a company’s invoice details had changed. 

A business hacked and a couple scammed 

The court heard that in August 2021, the email account of a Waikato-based building firm was hacked. 

The hackers were able to access the company’s client database and then created an email with a similar domain name. 

They then sent the couple an email stating the company was having difficulty with its regular bank and asked them to direct their next payment into a Kiwibank account. 

The victims later discovered the account belonged to Winchester-Krishan and before the transfer, it had a balance of 5c. 

Sophie Winchester-Krishan transferred the couple's money to a number of offshore accounts in August 2021. Photo / Belinda Feek 

The money was transferred over two days. One payment was $100,000, the ASB Bank’s daily transfer limit, followed by a second transfer of $54,263.01. 

By the morning of August 16, 2021, the full amount had made its way into Winchester-Krishan’s account. 

She then sent some of the funds to an account in Australia after receiving payment instructions from an “almost certainly fictitious overseas doctor”, the court heard. 

Kiwibank then contacted her to alert her to a “suspicious transaction” and froze her bank account. 

Winchester-Krishan later told Kiwibank the transaction was genuine and the money was released. 

She then transferred almost $30,000 to an account in the US. Kiwibank contacted her about the suspicious account, and, again, Winchester-Krishan confirmed it was genuine. 

Later that same day, she transferred $66,280.77 to a different US bank account. 

Over two days, Winchester-Krishan transferred just under $150,000 of the couple’s money into offshore bank accounts. She kept $5000 as payment. 

‘How could I let this happen to us?’ 

In a statement to the court, the woman said she and her husband bought a piece of land to build their dream home in September 2020. 

Filled with excitement, they visited the section with their newborn baby in July 2021 after the concrete had been poured. 

The sentencing took place in the Hamilton District Court. 

A month later she received the fake email from the “building company” asking for the $154,263.01 instalment. 

She duly paid it into what she was told was the company’s Kiwibank account. 

Shortly afterwards, she was informed the company’s computer system had been hacked and their money was gone. 

“In a matter of seconds, our whole world changed,” she told the court. 

She said their plan to build their dream home had been shattered. 

Their excitement turned to stress and worry, which was compounded by the fact she had worked in IT for 17 years. 

She was left asking herself, “How could I let this happen to us?” 

The woman said she was so stressed that she was no longer able to produce milk to breastfeed her daughter. 

“The opportunity to bond [with her] was taken away from me,” she said. 

The woman then developed a chronic illness that she would never fully recover from. 

She and her husband ended up having to walk away from the building project. 

“It’s hard to believe all this happened for the offender to gain $5000, and it has left us with a lifetime of loss and heartache.” 

Crown solicitor James Lewis characterised Winchester-Krishan’s offending as “a sequence of reckless acts carried out by the defendant for financial gain”. 

“The devastating impacts on the victim and their family include life-altering consequences,” Lewis said. 

“The defendant should have heard and seen the alarm bells. 

“She was being asked to transfer large sums of money to offshore accounts by people she hardly knew. 

“She was being questioned by the bank about their concerns ... but nevertheless, it still happened.” 

He urged the judge not to issue any discount for Winchester-Krishan’s previous good character, given her previous dishonesty convictions, and pushed for a jail term, or at least home detention. 

Defendant ignored red flags 

Defence counsel Martin Dillon said his client’s remorse was genuine. 

While she had defended the charge at trial, he said she had only wanted to challenge whether she was reckless in transferring the money overseas. 

“She accepts that she was essentially blinded by the opportunity of an online job being given to her,” Dillon said. 

“She did close her mind or eyes to what might have been red flags ... she was not motivated by financial gain ... but instead of getting back into the workforce and working again, albeit remotely from home.” 

He suggested Winchester-Krishan moved the money within 24 hours, but Judge Arthur Tompkins disagreed. 

“That’s not quite right,” the judge said. 

“The money arrived, and then there were about three days’ worth of interactions with the bank. 

“This is not money laundering where money arrives and it’s flicked on immediately. 

“Ms Winchester-Krishan had to visit the bank in person and then field inquiries from the bank as to the suspicious transaction, which she confirmed was a genuine payment.” 

The judge said the transaction was clearly suspicious as it was for a “fictitious orphanage in Turkey” with a different “tale” about where the money was going. 

Dillon also submitted that Winchester-Krishan had co-operated with police in their investigation and was assessed as a low risk of reoffending. 

He suggested an end sentence of community detention and supervision was appropriate. 

Judge Tompkins said while Winchester-Krishan’s offending was not premeditated, she made “minimal” inquiries about where the money had come from when it landed in her account. 

“Particularly when the bank alerted her to suspicious transactions, she took some trouble to satisfy the bank that the transactions she sought to make were not suspicious.” 

After considering all of the submissions, Judge Tompkins found that home detention was the most appropriate sentence and imposed a term of 10 months. 

Winchester-Krishan has spent some of the $5000 she was paid but police were about to claw back $1400 of it. 

However, the full amount the couple lost was not being sought through the court. ��һ�ǿ����� understood the victims were trying to recover it through other avenues. 

Lost money ‘difficult to recover’ 

Netsafe chief online safety officer Sean Lyons said business email compromise (BEC) scams were “a quiet kind of attack”. 

“And that’s part of what makes it effective. 

“The email might come from a familiar name. The invoice might match work that’s genuinely been done. It lands in the inbox at just the right time. 

Netsafe New Zealand chief online safety officer Sean Lyons says email security is key for businesses. Photo / Supplied 

“All of that lowers the chances anyone will pause and question it.” 

However, BEC scams can hit from both sides, he said. 

A business might unknowingly send a doctored invoice from a compromised account, or a customer might receive what looks like a routine bill from a supplier they trust. 

“Either way, the money ends up in the hands of criminals, and it’s often very difficult to recover.” 

Lyons said for businesses, email security was key, while for customers it paid to be “sceptical”. 

“If payment details suddenly change, or something feels slightly off, don’t reply to the email. 

“Instead, contact the business directly using a phone number or address you already know.” 

Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at ��һ�ǿ����� for 10 years and has been a journalist for 21.