New South Wales Crime Commission v Jason LEE [2012] NSWSC 437

New South Wales Crime Commission v Jason LEE [2012] NSWSC 437

The motion for provision of legal expenses from restrained property was dismissed because the court was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the property from which payment was sought—the bank cheque and company account—was at least in part illegally acquired property, thus precluding relief under s 16A(1)(b) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990. It was also held that legal expenses incurred on appeal are part of defending a criminal charge, but this did not affect the outcome.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Application/motion / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Restraining Order
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['criminal Assets' 'reasonable Legal Expenses' 'restrained Property' 'illegally Acquired Property' 'appeals Process' 'property Provenance']
['criminal Law' 'proceeds of Crime' 'property Law'] ['criminal Assets' 'reasonable Legal Expenses' 'restrained Property' 'illegally Acquired Property' 'appeals Process' 'property Provenance']

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/motion / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Restraining Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether defending a criminal charge includes expenses of an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal' 'Whether property from which legal expenses are sought was illegally acquired' 'Whether Seong Lee has standing to seek provision for legal expenses']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion for provision of legal expenses from restrained property was dismissed because the court was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the property from which payment was sought—the bank cheque and company account—was at least in part illegally acquired property, thus precluding relief under s 16A(1)(b) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990. It was also held that legal expenses incurred on appeal are part of defending a criminal charge, but this did not affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • ['The motion for a variation of the restraining order to permit payment of legal expenses is dismissed.']