New South Wales Crime Commission v Shaw [2018] NSWSC 1297

New South Wales Crime Commission v Shaw [2018] NSWSC 1297

The suspicion held by the authorised officer that the offences have been committed is reasonably held; the criteria under s 10A(5) Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) are satisfied, thus restraining orders should be made; making orders ex parte is justified due to risk of dissipation and the serious nature of alleged offences.

Parties
Plaintiff: New South Wales Crime Commission; Defendant: Dylan John Shaw
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Restraining Order / Interlocutory (orders Pending Forfeiture and Unexplained Wealth Proceedings)
Outcome
Restraining and ancillary orders granted ex parte against defendant's property pending further proceedings.
Legal Topics
Restraining Orders, Serious Crime Related Activity, Unexplained Wealth Order, Forfeiture Order
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Civil Procedure Restraining Orders Serious Crime Related Activity Unexplained Wealth Order Forfeiture Order

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New South Wales Crime Commission

Plaintiff

Dylan John Shaw

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Restraining Order / Interlocutory (orders Pending Forfeiture and Unexplained Wealth Proceedings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable grounds for suspicion justifying the making of a restraining order under s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether orders should be made ex parte, without prior notice to the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The suspicion held by the authorised officer that the offences have been committed is reasonably held; the criteria under s 10A(5) Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) are satisfied, thus restraining orders should be made; making orders ex parte is justified due to risk of dissipation and the serious nature of alleged offences.

Court Disposition

Restraining and ancillary orders granted ex parte against defendant's property pending further proceedings.

Orders

  • No person other than any registered mortgagee is to deal with any interest in property of Dylan John Shaw, including those specified in Schedule One (items: 2006 Audi B6 sedan and approximately $179,000 cash).
  • Dylan John Shaw to be examined on oath before a Registrar concerning his affairs.