A victim who suffered years of abuse at the hands of her stepfather told the District Court she did not want reparation when he was finally convicted.
However her abuser was ordered to pay her $10,000, which he is drip feeding her at $10 a week.
Unless the victim makes different arrangements with the court for that money, she will be tied to him through the weekly payment for 19 years - a situation that has outraged her.
In December Mihail Bourduk was sentenced to home detention for sexually abusing his stepdaughter Galina Velas.
Judge Stan Thorburn also ordered Bourduk to pay Velas $10,000 in reparation for his offending.
Velas waived her automatic right to name suppression to share her story, in a bid to help other victims find their voice.
She told the court she did not want a cent from her abuser, but Thorburn said the court was "obliged to take into account the steps it can take to do as much as possible to assist the victim to a path of recovery".
He made the order for the "substantial" amount to reflect the years of "ongoing offence of abuse" on Velas during which she "undoubtedly had expenses".
Since sentencing, Bourduk has set up payments to Velas - at $10 per week.
At that rate, he will be paying Velas for 1000 weeks - just over 19 years.
"I don't want any of that money, I never did," Velas told the Herald.
"And now I have this horrible connection with this man - it just isn't fair.
"It's just another kick in the guts."
Velas went to the Auckland District Court to see if she could get the payments stopped, but staff said no.
Effectively, the order had been made and the money must be paid, though the rate may change once his home detention ends and the repayments are reassessed.
They suggested Velas take the matter back to court to cancel the order, or provide details of another recipient.
"The main reason for taking this matter to court was so me and my partner could move on, get on with our lives," she said.
"Now, unless I take action, I have to get $10 a week for the next 20 years and it's a constant reminder of what he did to me.
Velas has set up a special account for the money and intends to give it to charity.
But she is annoyed that it is up to the victim to do all the work.
"It's so disrespectful," she said.
"And it means this man keeps a degree of power and control over me - it's just not right.
"It's like Bourduk is laughing in my face."
Thorburn did not specify when and how Bourduk had to pay the money.
In some cases judges order offenders to make lump sum payments and although the court heard Bourduk had financial means to pay reparation, no specific repayment parameters were set.
In sentencing the judge noted that Bourduk "is a man who works, works hard and pays his way" and could continue his employment from home.
Victim adviser Ruth Money said the court was effectively allowing Bourduk to revictimise his victim.
"No survivor I have ever worked with wants a monthly or weekly reminder of the abuse or crime that was inflicted upon them via a reparation payment," she said.
"Why should a victim of crime have to arrange such things as additional bank accounts so they can't see the payments and be triggered by trauma each week?"
Money said sentencing was "supposed to denounce, deter and punish" offenders.
"And yet this nonsense only abuses the victim further and demonstrates to criminals that the system looks after them - not the victim," she said.
It's just another kick in the guts.
SHARE THIS QUOTE:
Ministry of Justice national service delivery group manager Bryre Patchell said he could not comment on judicial decisions so refused to answer questions specifically about Velas' case.
"When reparation is ordered, the court works with the offender to arrange payment," Patchell said.
"Sometimes a judge may make specific instructions for how reparation is to be paid; in other cases, the court works with offenders to assess their savings, income and assets and settle on an amount.
"Some offenders can afford to pay all at once and do so, sometimes the ministry seizes assets, which are sold to pay for reparation.
"Other offenders need to pay off their reparation over time."
He said it was unlawful to make an order that would make an offender's deductions more than 40 per cent of their income.
He said repayments to victims could be set so they come through less frequently, alternatively, the reparation could be paid to a charity of the victim's choice.
"When this occurs the victim will not see the reparation and we will pay it directly to the charity and we would only need to contact the victim again if the charity ceased or decided it did not want to continue to receive the funding."
Patchell invited Velas to contact the ministry to discuss the matter.
Velas said she had already tried and after an upsetting encounter with a "rude" and unhelpful staffer she was reluctant to engage further.
Justice Minister Amy Adams said she was "saddened" to hear about the abuse Velas had suffered.
But she could not comment on individual cases.
"The system already provides for options to appeal a judge's decision or to direct the reparation to a charity, however I am open to hearing victims' suggestions on how the system might work better for them," she said.
Velas is considering taking Bourduk back to court.
"I don't want his dirty money," she said.
Bourduk's lawyer did not respond to the Herald.