NSW Crime Commission v Fatos Rama [2017] NSWSC 1396

NSW Crime Commission v Fatos Rama [2017] NSWSC 1396

The Plaintiff established sufficient service, reasonable grounds for the authorised officer's suspicion based on the Defendant's prior serious indictable offence, and a contemporaneous connection between the Defendant, the premises and the seized cash. Because the Defendant did not appear and did not prove that the cash was not illegally acquired property or the proceeds of illegal activity, the cash was assessed as unexplained wealth and the statutory restraining, payment and control orders were warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Criminal Assets Restraining Order and Unexplained Wealth Order / Ex Parte Application for Default Judgment and Final Orders
Outcome
Orders made for a restraining order, default judgment, payment of $178,900 to the Treasurer as unexplained wealth, control of the property by the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian, and costs against the Defendant.
Legal Topics
['ex Parte Application' 'criminal Assets Restraining Order' 'unexplained Wealth Order' 'default Judgment' 'service by Advertisement']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Assets Recovery' 'civil Procedure'] ['ex Parte Application' 'criminal Assets Restraining Order' 'unexplained Wealth Order' 'default Judgment' 'service by Advertisement']

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 Criminal Assets Restraining Order and Unexplained Wealth Order / Ex Parte Application for Default Judgment and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether service of the summons was sufficient for the purposes of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW).' 'Whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the Defendant had engaged in serious crime related activity or acquired serious crime derived property.' 'Whether the seized cash was unexplained wealth of the Defendant.' 'Whether default judgment and ancillary control orders should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff established sufficient service, reasonable grounds for the authorised officer's suspicion based on the Defendant's prior serious indictable offence, and a contemporaneous connection between the Defendant, the premises and the seized cash. Because the Defendant did not appear and did not prove that the cash was not illegally acquired property or the proceeds of illegal activity, the cash was assessed as unexplained wealth and the statutory restraining, payment and control orders were warranted.

Court Disposition

Orders made for a restraining order, default judgment, payment of $178,900 to the Treasurer as unexplained wealth, control of the property by the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian, and costs against the Defendant.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to section 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 no person is to dispose of, or attempt to dispose of, or otherwise deal with or attempt to otherwise deal with the interest in property of the Defendant in the interest in property specified in the Schedule hereto.' 'Pursuant to rule 13.1 of the...