NSW Crime Commission v Ivanov & Ors [2006] NSWSC 1361
The respondents failed to discharge the burden under s25 because their accounts of how the $97,500 came to be in their safe were materially inconsistent and unreliable, and the evidence did not prove that none of the money was illegally acquired.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 December 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Exclusion Under S25 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 / Decision After Hearing
- Outcome
- Application for exclusion dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['assets Forfeiture Order' 'exclusion Application' 'illegally Acquired Property' 'burden of Proof' 'cash Seized During Police Search']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Exclusion Under S25 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 / Decision After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the respondents established on the balance of probabilities that the $97,500 found in their bedroom safe was not illegally acquired property.' "Whether the respondents' evidence that the money came from the sale of a house in Macedonia and legitimate savings should be accepted."]
Ratio Decidendi
The respondents failed to discharge the burden under s25 because their accounts of how the $97,500 came to be in their safe were materially inconsistent and unreliable, and the evidence did not prove that none of the money was illegally acquired.
Court Disposition
Application for exclusion dismissed
Orders
- ['The application is dismissed.' 'If necessary, the Court will hear the parties on costs.']
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