POLICE v JONES [2021] NZHC 2831
The Court approved the consent settlement under s95 because it was consistent with the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the interests of justice, determined the unlawful benefit at $60,000, and made a profit forfeiture order for that amount, with payment to the Official Assignee and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 2831
- Parties
- Applicant: Commissioner of Police; First Respondent: Elizabeth Anne Jones; Second Respondent: Daniel Gary French; Third Respondent: Amy‑Leigh Ward; First Interested Party: Gary Angus French; Second Interested Party: Bank of New Zealand; Third Interested Party: Sharon Louise Ward; Fourth Interested Party: Anthony David Ward
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 21 October 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 Proceedings: Profit Forfeiture / Consent Settlement Approval Under S95; Application for Profit Forfeiture Order
- Outcome
- Settlement approved; profit forfeiture order made for $60,000; payment to Official Assignee; rescission of restraining order on receipt of funds; costs lie where they fall.
- Legal Topics
- Profit Forfeiture, Unlawful Benefit Determination, Restraint Orders, Settlement Approval Under S95
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Commissioner of Police
Applicant
Elizabeth Anne Jones
First Respondent
Daniel Gary French
Second Respondent
Amy‑Leigh Ward
Third Respondent
Gary Angus French
First Interested Party
Bank of New Zealand
Second Interested Party
Sharon Louise Ward
Third Interested Party
Anthony David Ward
Fourth Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 Proceedings: Profit Forfeiture / Consent Settlement Approval Under S95; Application for Profit Forfeiture Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed consent settlement is consistent with the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and in the overall interests of justice
- 2 Whether to determine the value of the unlawful benefit and make a profit forfeiture order
- 3 Whether to rescind the existing restraining order upon receipt of payment
Ratio Decidendi
The Court approved the consent settlement under s95 because it was consistent with the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the interests of justice, determined the unlawful benefit at $60,000, and made a profit forfeiture order for that amount, with payment to the Official Assignee and rescission of the restraining order upon receipt of funds.
Court Disposition
Settlement approved; profit forfeiture order made for $60,000; payment to Official Assignee; rescission of restraining order on receipt of funds; costs lie where they fall.
Orders
- Court approves the settlement in accordance with s95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009
- Determination made with the consent of the parties
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
POLICE v JONES [2021] NZHC 2831 [21 October 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECIV-2020-409-000471[2021] NZHC 2831BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND ELIZABETH ANNE JONESFirst RespondentAND DANIEL GARY FRENCHSecond RespondentAND AMY-LEIGH WARDThird RespondentAND GARY ANGUS FRENCHFirst Interested PartyAND BANK OF NEW ZEALANDSecond Interested PartyAND SHARON LOUISE WARDThird Interested PartyAND ANTHONY DAVID WARDFourth Interested PartyHearing: On the papersCounsel: K South for the ApplicantH Matthews and E Nye for the First RespondentJudgment: 21 October 2021JUDGMENT OF NATION J[1] The applicant and first respondent, by consent, seek the Court's approval to themaking of profit forfeiture orders in relation to the first respondent under the CriminalProceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.[2] The context in which the Commissioner had brought proceedings against thefirst respondent was set out in my judgment of 7 October 2020, when I maderestraining orders in relation to certain property, including a property at 775 TelegraphRoad, Canterbury, registered in the names of the first respondent and WF Trustees2004 Ltd.1 Having read the memorandum of counsel in which they seek orders byconsent and having considered the information already referred to, I am satisfied theproposed settlement agreement is consistent with the purposes of the CriminalProceeds (Recovery) Act and is in the overall interests of justice.[3] I accordingly make orders as follows:1. in accordance with the Memorandum of Counsel dated 18 October 2021seeking approval of a settlement, this Court approves the settlement inaccordance with s 95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009;2. the determination was made with the consent of the parties;3. as a result of the determination, the Court makes the following order:(a) the value of the unlawful benefit is $60,000.00;(b) the maximum recoverable amount is $60,000.00;(c) the Court makes a profit forfeiture order in the sum of $60,000.00;(d) the first respondent will, upon the making of this order, pay the sumof $60,000.00 into the trust account of the Official Assignee;1 Commissioner of Police v Jones [2020] NZHC 2628.(e) upon receiving confirmation of the receipt of the sum of $60,000.00in clear funds by the Official Assignee, the Commissioner of Policeshall forthwith file a memorandum notifying the Court that the termsof the profit forfeiture order have been met and confirming that therestraining order in relation to the following property should berescinded by the Court:i. the residential property at 775 Telegraph Road, Canterburydescribed in certificate of title CD34C/837, registered in thenames of Elizabeth Anne Jones and WF Trustees 2004 Limited.4. Costs lie where they fall.Solicitors:Raymond Donnelly & Co., ChristchurchWhite Fox & Jones., Christchurch.