The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Cranston (No 15) [2021] NSWSC 1332

The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Cranston (No 15) [2021] NSWSC 1332

The Court was satisfied that the applicants met the criteria in s 93(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth). The s 94 applications were made within six months after the conviction day and, in the context of the statutory scheme, were made without undue delay. They were also being diligently pursued, as they were filed shortly before the urgent hearing. Even if reliance on earlier ss 30 or 31 applications were necessary, those applications were made within six months of the restraining orders and the later inactivity was adequately explained by the pending criminal proceedings and the uncertainty whether forfeiture would ever occur. Section 92 was capable of applying to the applicants'...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Crime Confiscation of Property Forfeiture Provisions / Urgent Motions for Extension Orders Under S 93 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (cth) Pending Applications to Exclude Restrained Property From Forfeiture
Outcome
Applications for extension orders granted; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['confiscation of Property' 'automatic Forfeiture' 'restraining Orders' 'extension of Time' 'undue Delay' 'diligently Followed Up' 'third Party Property Interests']
['criminal Law' 'proceeds of Crime' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['confiscation of Property' 'automatic Forfeiture' 'restraining Orders' 'extension of Time' 'undue Delay' 'diligently Followed Up' 'third Party Property Interests']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crime Confiscation of Property Forfeiture Provisions / Urgent Motions for Extension Orders Under S 93 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (cth) Pending Applications to Exclude Restrained Property From Forfeiture

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the 57th and 58th defendants satisfied the preconditions in s 93(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) for extension orders before automatic forfeiture occurred.' 'Whether the applications under ss 30, 31 or 94 were made without undue delay and had since been diligently followed up for the purposes of s 93(1)(c).' 'Whether s 92 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) operates to forfeit restrained property of third parties who were not themselves charged or convicted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the applicants met the criteria in s 93(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth). The s 94 applications were made within six months after the conviction day and, in the context of the statutory scheme, were made without undue delay. They were also being diligently pursued, as they were filed shortly before the urgent hearing. Even if reliance on earlier ss 30 or 31 applications were necessary, those applications were made within six months of the restraining orders and the later inactivity was adequately explained by the pending criminal proceedings and the uncertainty whether forfeiture would ever occur. Section 92 was capable of applying to the applicants'...

Court Disposition

Applications for extension orders granted; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 93 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), extend the period before which the property covered by order 153 made on 16 May 2017 (as amended on 29 November 2017) specified in Schedule 100, being the sum of $8,576 million (Restrained Property) is forfeited to no later than immediately before the start...