New South Wales Crime Commission v Liu [2015] NSWSC 1305

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Liu [2015] NSWSC 1305 Hearing dates: 22 July 2015 Date of orders: 22 July 2015 Decision date: 22 July 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McCallum J Decision: Restraining orders made and ancillary relief granted. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – procedure – Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Legislation Cited: Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Applicant) Xia Liu (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: New South Wales Crime Commission (Applicant) Ex parte File Number(s): 2015/217253

Judgment – Ex Tempore 1. HER HONOUR: This is an application for restraining orders and related relief in respect of all of the interests in property of Xia Liu. The application is brought pursuant to s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW). That section provides that the Commission may apply to this Court for a restraining order ex parte. Subsection (4) provides that, despite an application being made ex parte, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the Commission to give notice of the application to certain persons. On the strength of the material relied upon in support of the present application, I do not think it is either necessary or appropriate to impose such a requirement. 2. Subsection (5) of s 10A provides that the Court must make a restraining order if certain conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the application is supported by an affidavit of an authorised officer stating certain things. In the present case, the application is supported by the affidavit of Jonathon Lee Spark sworn yesterday. The affidavit states Mr Spark's suspicion of the matters identified in the section and states the grounds on which that suspicion is based. The material received by Mr Spark included a statement of facts prepared by police in respect of charges of money laundering against the defendant. Mr Spark made inquiries of the author of the fact sheet and asked the relevant detective to state whether, to the best of that person's knowledge and belief, the contents of the fact sheet were true and that it was prepared on the basis of information obtained by police as a result of the investigation described. In each case an affirmative answer was received. 3. I have read the fact sheet myself. I consider, having regard to those matters, that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion deposed to by Mr Spark. 4. Each of the requirements of the section is satisfied. In accordance with s 10A of the Act, it follows that I must make the restraining order sought. 5. The other relief on which the Commission moves today is ancillary relief of the kind commonly ordered in such cases, including orders for examination of two persons on oath, leave to obtain dates for those examinations and an order that the defendant furnish certain material to the Commission within a specified period. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make those orders.

********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 07 September 2015