Evgeny Orlov was struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors last year for making allegations which were false or were made without sufficient foundation.
That may have been against judges , but this year he is doing this against any one who gets in the way.
last week I heard that the law society complaint which was ruled in my favour was being heard by the LCRO on appeal from Orlov.
Orlovs approach is to throw as much mud at something as possible and hope that some of it sticks.
>In the statement of claim he refers to three articles I will explain how they came about International fraud connection with Equity Law
this item came up as a result of items in naked capitalism the story was entitledNew Zealand, Fresh From Its Service to Mexican Drug Lords, Helps Out the Russian Mafia
the article relates to companies registered at 44 Khyber pass , I couldn’t help myself not to have a closer look the site reported that
“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!“
A man in Majorca who corresponds with me with regards to fraud sent me the article regarding Erik Vanagels and indeed he comes up in our own press
Boozy Latvian ‘billionaire’ is smokescreen for fraud and Fraud trail leads to OAP’s tiny flat
then as luck would have it I received an email from a freind she had received an email from Equity rust International. and The post News Flash EQUITY TRUST solicits new clients went up .
Was it my fault that Lilia Soboleva was the share holder together with Greg Stewart ?
after each posting I sent an email to Orlov and asked him if there was anything which was inaccurate and required changing. On each occasion he did not suggest changes.
On the Anti corruption web site there was a third postNew Zealand a soft touch with Fraudsters and money launderers .
no matter how many times I read the stories I cant see how they are defamatory.
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 .
item 21 statement of claim “In their natural and ordinary meaning, the said words were meant and were understood to mean that the Plaintiffs were jointly and severally intentionally involved in illegal or unlawful business and/or money laundering and /or fraud and /or tax evasion and /or were connected with The Russian Mafia and/or organized crime.” what words eh entire posts surely not !! cant a person say here is a news item this is the company it refers to and here are the ultimate owners ? that can be deduced from public record
Item 22 Statement of claim “Further and or alternatively the said words bore and were understood to bear the meaning pleaded in paragraph 19 above by way of innuendo“. .. what the heck paragraph 19 states ” 19. 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. ”
In my experiences when people are overly touchy it means that you have hit a nerve , I would think that if I was to provide a trust service and then realize that the overseas directors have bad press, I would sway away from them .Instead Equity international sends out a new Flyer stating that they will set up New Zealand companies for foreigners , they dont appear to do due diligence as to who their directors are .
Back to the statement of claim
paragraph 25 ” The publication of the statements set out in paragraph 17 is continuing as they remain published on the website.” What statements ????? 17.The Second and Third Defendants jointly control and administer the
content of a website titled Transparency International New Zealand.
paragraph 26 the statements are false – so the statements in paragraph 17 are false ok I agree the statement referred to is 17.The Second and Third Defendants jointly control and administer the content of a website titled Transparency International New Zealand. and it is false totally false
From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013 10:59 a.m.
To: ‘Evgeny Orlov’
Subject: RE: updates on Equity law trusts
Eugine
What is published is merely a collation of what has been found on company records and international press
Basically Eugine you would not have been mentioned if you were not connected with the story which was sent to me as attached but when lillia has so many companies and they are involved in international news items I can’t help but mention that you are her husband and that equity law is the registered address.
In short Eugine section 25 of the defamation act sets out the requirements
If anything is inaccurate could you please let me know.
Did you take defamation action against the news paper who published the item I referred to , I can if you like not refer to the news paper item but refer to the judgment instead.
I look forward to hearing from you before Friday next week, being the statutory time frame . I will be more than happy to retract anything which is inconsistent with the facts which I have referred to when you supply evidence that what I have linked to quoted or have said is untrue.
It is apparent from the fees you charge that you have more than enough money to settle with me , I have not breached the court agreement as I have not refereed to anything which went down between us.
By the way if that settlement offer you phoned me about is last year still open would love to hear from you ..
Regards
Grace Haden
Particulars
26.1 The First and Second Plaintiffs are not involved in and do not have any connection with the business of money laundering. –
There is not an allegation of this but from news items in the international press it appears that companies which have the registered office at level 44 Khyber pass are connected with well known and suspect directors Erik Vanagels and Inta bilder
BILDER, Inta MAXHOLD LIMITED (1943997) – and over 200 more
Erik VANAGELS former director of UNIHOLD LIMITED (1607788) Registered and over 200 more
Interestingly enough both these companies now have Cyprian Manti EFFROSYNI as their directros trace right back to Lilis Soboleva.
Maxholds shareholder is Unihold, its shareholder is Genhold its shareholder is TRUST (NZ) HOLDINGS LIMITED whose shareholder and director is Liliya SOBOLEVA
Vanagels also has current directorship e.g BERGSTONE LIMITED shareholder Unihold
all companies have their registered office at level 44 Khyber pass ‘
26.2 The First and Second Plaintiffs are not nor have ever been fraudsters.
where is the accusation that they are, I can hoever honestly say that Evegney ripped me off and I have shown that in the accounts which are on the George Bogiatto page equity law invoices and time sheets 2010
26.3 The First and Second Plaintiffs do not and have never evaded taxes.
well here again I have never said that they do but now that we are on the subject Lilia ran the office at equity law and you just need to have a look at these invoices equity law invoices and time sheets 2010
as a fraud investigator I know that invoices need to have invoice numbers , the invoices I got from Orlov did not have those. there is only one reason that invoice numbers are left off and that reason does not have an honest intent as far as tax goes. when it comes to accounts I know there was something seriously dodgy with Equity law and since the accusation was there that I had contacted the IRD I have ensured that the complaint was sent in to them this week
26.4 The First and Second Plaintiffs have never attempted to avoid New Zealand corporate legislation.
again I beg to differ, these proceedings have been intimated through Stewart and associates equity law
the letter head is 
a combination of equity law which is an incorporated law firm whose director and shareholder is Evgenie Orlov and the Stewart and associates law firm – there is no such company as Stewart and associates equity law
also just look at the number of companies which stemmed from Lilias involvement a while back when I graphed them all .. it certainly was not normal orlov companies
26.5 The First and Second Plaintiffs have never had any connection with the Russian mafia or organised crime
This is abroad sweeping statement , what is the definition of connection , the companies that they administer are certainly implicated through the international press. – their findings not mine
paragraph 27 I have brought all my publications to the attention of Orlov he has chosen to ignore the ability to request changes the act gives a 5 day window for this. he is using these proceedings as an abuse of process he simply wants everything gone because it is bad press.. sorry I am but expanding on the articles that come from overseas. You have the choice to be more selective with your clients.
27.2 The publication was made for the predominant purpose of hurting the First and /or the Second Plaintiffs due to the association they had with the Third Plaintiff against whom the Second Defendant had a unresolved Law Society complaint.
Oh you are so funny Eugene , I remember a story when I was on the beat in Rotorua. these kids could not go to Saturday night fever because they were 14 and it was an R16 they said you wont let us in cause were maori .
Eugine. the articles came up because of things in the international press. I made a complaint about you in Feb 2011 the articles are dated 2013 .. dont play the victim.
I do notice however that you initiated this right strafe the LCRO showed that they were going to deal with it.
27.3The First Defendant offered to remove the material from the website if she was paid the sum of $750,000
Like when what page of your bundle is this on ? you have tried this one before Eugine you were recorded making a phone call to me and later said I was blackmailing you – shame I had witnesses
27.4 AND/ OR the above said statements were calculated to cause pecuniary loss to the Plaintiffs’ business and business reputation.
I have often told you Eugine .. mo one has to damage you or your business. you are doing fine all by yourself you are even internationally renowned.
29.1 More than 400 companies stopped being clients of the FirstPlaintiff.
yes they were struck off due to having suspect directors and also the new charging system a the companies office would have hit you in the pocket
29.2 The First Plaintiff lost revenue and profits (as to which the Plaintiffs seek an inquiry).
not my problem see the ministry of economic development about that and the new laws. I am not a scape goat
29.3 The Second Plaintiff lost the ability to act as a director or shareholder of corporations on behalf of clients as to which the Second Plaintiff seeks an inquiry into damages.
OMG did becoming a mother and her time being taken up with the baby have anything to do with that or didnt people like the idea of dealing with the wife of a struck off lawyer
Seems odd to me that she is the sole shareholder of EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED and it wont let her be the director. she resigned 25 Nov 2013 you resigned 23 June 2011
so where is your foundation for this ?
I see particularly with the last one she set up the company so that a Russian could take over
Apt 17, 10b Vostretsova Street, Vladivostok, 690018 , Russia
Decisions involving Orlov
ORLOV v NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO 1 CA127/2014 [2014] NZCA 242 [13 June 2014]
ORLOV V THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO 1 CA127/2014 [2014] NZCA 195 [22 May 2014]
EVGENY ORLOV V THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO 1 CA127/2014 [2014] NZCA 182 [14 May 2014]
EVGENY ORLOV v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO.1 [2014] NZHC 575 [26 March 2014]
ORLOV v NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE No.1 [2014] NZHC 487 [13 March 2014]
EVGENY ORLOV v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2013] NZSC 94 [8 October 2013]
ORLOV V THE NATIONAL STANDARDS CTTEE (NO 1) CA737/2012 [2013] NZCA 338 [31 July 2013]
THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (NO 1) & Ors V ORLOV [2013] NZHC 1507 [21 June 2013]
ORLOV V NZ LAW SOCIETY HC AK CIV-2013-404-001025 9 May 2013
ORLOV V THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (NO 1) & ORS COA CA737/2012 11 April 2013
THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE V ORLOV HC AK CIV-2012-404-3787 23 November 2012
THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (NO 1) V ORLOV HC AK CIV-2012-404-3787 6 November 2012
Leave a Reply