NSW Crime Commission v The Beneficial Owners of Various Bank and Share Trading Accounts [2009] NSWSC 322

NSW Crime Commission v The Beneficial Owners of Various Bank and Share Trading Accounts [2009] NSWSC 322

There were reasonable grounds for the suspicions and beliefs held by the authorised officer as per the affidavit and supporting report. Given the interlocutory character of the application, the proceedings were not finally disposed of, and in the interests of justice it was appropriate to provide (expanded) reasons for the restraining orders against the third and fourth defendants' interests.

Parties
Plaintiff: New South Wales Crime Commission; Third Defendant: International Finance Trust Company Limited; Fourth Defendant: IFTC Broking Services Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Restraining Orders / Interlocutory; Reasons After Orders Pronounced
Outcome
Application upheld
Legal Topics
Restraining Orders, Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990, Functus Officio, Obligation to Give Reasons
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Restraining Orders Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Functus Officio Obligation to Give Reasons

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New South Wales Crime Commission

Plaintiff

International Finance Trust Company Limited

Third Defendant

IFTC Broking Services Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Restraining Orders / Interlocutory; Reasons After Orders Pronounced

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reasons are required for restraining orders under s 10 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the court is functus officio regarding the provision of reasons post-order

Ratio Decidendi

There were reasonable grounds for the suspicions and beliefs held by the authorised officer as per the affidavit and supporting report. Given the interlocutory character of the application, the proceedings were not finally disposed of, and in the interests of justice it was appropriate to provide (expanded) reasons for the restraining orders against the third and fourth defendants' interests.

Court Disposition

Application upheld

Orders

  • Application upheld.
  • The costs of this application are to be costs in the appeal.