New South Wales Crime Commission v Schaaf [2019] NSWSC 750
The evidence provided by the Commission, including the affidavit and supporting facts sheet, satisfies the requirements of s 10A, and there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion held by the authorised officer. It was neither necessary nor appropriate to require notice to the defendant due to risk of asset...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Plaintiff: New South Wales Crime Commission; Defendant: Richard Schaaf
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 June 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Restraining Order Application / Ex Parte Hearing
- Outcome
- Orders sought made
- Legal Topics
- Restraining Orders, Ex Parte Procedure, Ancillary Orders, Criminal Assets Recovery
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
New South Wales Crime Commission
Plaintiff
Richard Schaaf
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Restraining Order Application / Ex Parte Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a restraining order should be made ex parte under s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW)
- 2 Whether the requirements of s 10A(5) are satisfied
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence provided by the Commission, including the affidavit and supporting facts sheet, satisfies the requirements of s 10A, and there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion held by the authorised officer. It was neither necessary nor appropriate to require notice to the defendant due to risk of asset dissipation.
Court Disposition
Orders sought made
Orders
- A restraining order pursuant to s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW)
- Ancillary orders associated with the restraining order
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment