New South Wales Crime Commission v Mogy [2016] NSWSC 1667

New South Wales Crime Commission v Mogy [2016] NSWSC 1667

The affidavit material, including information provided by police and confirmed by Detective Senior Constable Azzi, justified a reasonable suspicion that all three Defendants had knowingly dealt with the proceeds of crime and that the third Defendant had supplied a large commercial quantity of methamphetamine. Because s 10A(5) required the Court to make a restraining order once satisfied of reasonable grounds for the authorised officer's suspicion, and because the evidence indicated a risk that property could be quickly alienated, the Court made the restraining and related orders ex parte without prior notice to the Defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Orders Under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (nsw), Including Restraining Orders Pending an Application for an Unexplained Wealth Order / Ex Parte Application
Outcome
Restraining orders and related orders made ex parte; balance of the summons stood over before the Common Law Registrar on 27 February 2017.
Legal Topics
['restraining Order' 'unexplained Wealth Order' 'serious Crime Related Activity' 'money Laundering' 'prohibited Drugs' 'ex Parte Orders']
['criminal Law' 'proceeds of Crime'] ['restraining Order' 'unexplained Wealth Order' 'serious Crime Related Activity' 'money Laundering' 'prohibited Drugs' 'ex Parte Orders']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Orders Under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (nsw), Including Restraining Orders Pending an Application for an Unexplained Wealth Order / Ex Parte Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there were reasonable grounds for the authorised officer's suspicion that the Defendants had engaged in serious crime related activity or activities." 'Whether restraining orders should be made ex parte under s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW).' 'Whether notice should be given to the Defendants before the orders were made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit material, including information provided by police and confirmed by Detective Senior Constable Azzi, justified a reasonable suspicion that all three Defendants had knowingly dealt with the proceeds of crime and that the third Defendant had supplied a large commercial quantity of methamphetamine. Because s 10A(5) required the Court to make a restraining order once satisfied of reasonable grounds for the authorised officer's suspicion, and because the evidence indicated a risk that property could be quickly alienated, the Court made the restraining and related orders ex parte without prior notice to the Defendants.

Court Disposition

Restraining orders and related orders made ex parte; balance of the summons stood over before the Common Law Registrar on 27 February 2017.

Orders

  • ['Upon the Plaintiff giving the usual undertaking as to damages, and considering that there were reasonable grounds for the suspicions stated in the affidavit of Katie Elaine Bourne sworn 22 November 2016, the Court made orders.' 'Pursuant to section 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990, no person, other...