DPP (Cth) v Wei-Liang Tu [2005] NSWSC 772

DPP (Cth) v Wei-Liang Tu [2005] NSWSC 772

The application failed because the applicant did not satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that the Casino account proceeds, including the $30,000 deposit made on 10 May 2003 shortly before his arrest and while he had possession of a massive quantity of drugs, were not proceeds of unlawful activity. His evidence about the source of funds was inconsistent and unsatisfactory, the transaction pattern supported an inference of structuring, and the circumstances of the drug offences supported the possibility or probability that unlawful drug proceeds were used in gambling.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Under S94(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (cth) to Exclude Property From Forfeiture / Supreme Court Determination of Application After District Court Convictions and Sentencing
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the Director's costs.
Legal Topics
['forfeiture' 'restraining Order' 'exclusion of Property From Forfeiture' 'proceeds of Unlawful Activity' 'structuring Financial Transactions' 'drug Importation and Possession']
['criminal Law' 'proceeds of Crime' 'criminal Practice and Procedure'] ['forfeiture' 'restraining Order' 'exclusion of Property From Forfeiture' 'proceeds of Unlawful Activity' 'structuring Financial Transactions' 'drug Importation and Possession']

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

Application Under S94(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (cth) to Exclude Property From Forfeiture / Supreme Court Determination of Application After District Court Convictions and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sum of $101,500 in the applicant's Star City Casino account should be excluded from forfeiture under s94(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)." 'Whether the Court was satisfied that the property was neither proceeds of unlawful activity nor an instrument of unlawful activity.' "Whether the applicant's interest in the property was lawfully acquired." "Whether the applicant's evidence established that the gambling funds, including the $30,000 deposited on 10 May 2003, came from lawful Canadian funds or gambling winnings rather than unlawful activity."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the applicant did not satisfy the Court on the balance of probabilities that the Casino account proceeds, including the $30,000 deposit made on 10 May 2003 shortly before his arrest and while he had possession of a massive quantity of drugs, were not proceeds of unlawful activity. His evidence about the source of funds was inconsistent and unsatisfactory, the transaction pattern supported an inference of structuring, and the circumstances of the drug offences supported the possibility or probability that unlawful drug proceeds were used in gambling.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the Director's costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicant should pay the Director's costs."]