THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ALLAN JAMES PINK [2023] NZHC 3736

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ALLAN JAMES PINK [2023] NZHC 3736 [18 December 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAKIRIKIRIROA ROHECIV-2020-419-124[2023] NZHC 3736BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND ALLAN JAMES PINKFirst RespondentAND DONALD CLIFTON JACOBSSecond RespondentAND MAUNGAKEIKEI TRUSTEE COMPANYLIMITEDInterested PartyAND TAYLOR MATTHEW ARROLInterested PartyHearing: On the papers at AucklandJudgment: 18 December 2023JUDGMENT OF POWELL J[Settlement of claims against First Respondent]This judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2023 at 4.30 pm pursuant tor 11.5 of the High Court Rules..Registrar/Deputy Registrar[1] On 8 July 2020 restraining orders were made under the Criminal Proceeds(Recovery) Act 2009 ("the Act") against various assets belonging to the first andsecond respondents. These restraining orders were subsequently extended toencompass further assets and are currently due to expire on 30 June 2024. Anapplication for a profit forfeiture order was made against the first respondent andamended on 15 March 2022.[2] The amended application contends that the first respondent, Allan Pink, hasbenefitted from significant criminal activity in the sum of $1,681,344.70. While MrPink now accepts that he benefitted from significant criminal activity, he does notaccept that figure and the parties accept that beyond the assets currently restrained MrPink does not have the financial capacity to satisfy any order in excess of the value ofthe assets presently restrained.[3] With regard to Mr Pink, cash in the total sum of $322,713.34 is currently beingrestrained ("the restrained cash") along with a 1994 Mitsubishi FEOGIE campervan,1registration SR452 ("the campervan").2[4] Given that background the parties have now by way of a joint memorandumdated 15 November 2023 sought approval of a settlement pursuant to s 95 of the Act.[5] What is proposed is that Mr Pink will forfeit the sum of $300,000 out of therestrained cash. The balance of $22,713.34 (plus interest, if any) together with thecampervan, is to be returned to Mr Pink within seven days of the Court approvingsettlement.[6] Having read the contents of the joint memorandum, as well as the amendedapplication for civil forfeiture orders against the Mr Pink and relevant parts ofaffidavits filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, I am satisfied that theproposed settlement is appropriate in terms of s 95(3) of the Act in that it is bothconsistent with the purposes of the Act and the interests of justice.1 This model does not exist, despite it being referred to in all relevant submissions and documents.The model is a FEO91E.2 The initial order records the number plate as being SR425.[7] In particular I note the acceptance by the Commissioner that the amount to beforfeited represents a significant portion of the assets Mr Pink owns or has an interestin and note also Mr Pink is legally aided and as a result a defended hearing is notjustified in the circumstances.Decision[8] I therefore make the following orders by consent:(a) The value of the benefit is $300,000;(b) The maximum recoverable amount is $300,000;(c) $300,000 of the restrained cash is to be paid to the Commissioner infull and final settlement of all claims by the Commissioner under theAct against Mr Pink;(d) The balance of the restrained cash being the sum of $22,713.34 (plusinterest, if any) and the campervan (unencumbered of any costsassociated with storage or arising out of its restraint) shall be returnedto Mr Pink within seven days of this judgment; and(e) There is no order as to costs._______________________________Powell J