NSW Crime Commission v Ivanov & Ors [2006] NSWSC 1361

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Exclusion Under S25 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 / Decision After Hearing

  1. 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.']