COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v YIM [2019] NZHC 1681

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v YIM [2019] NZHC 1681 [18 July 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV 2016-404-0518[2019] NZHC 1681BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND KA KIT YIMFirst respondentCHIEN-HUI WUSecond respondentHearing: 4-6 June 2019Appearances: K Eastwood and L J Fraser for the applicantNo appearance for the first respondent (B L Sellars QC excused)S J Bonnar QC for the second respondentJudgment: 18 July 2019JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE JThis judgment was delivered by me on 18 July 2019 at 11amPursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors/Counsel:Meredith Connell, AucklandMcVeagh Fleming, AucklandS Bonnar QC, Barrister, Auckland[1] Part 2, subpart 3, of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 enables me tomake civil forfeiture orders – being orders to forfeit property derived from significantcriminal activity, or representing the value of a person's unlawfully derived income –for purposes including "eliminat[ing] the chance for persons to profit" from significantcriminal activity.1 That "aspirational language" is "clear and emphatic" as to thelegislation's purpose.2[2] The Commissioner here seeks civil forfeiture orders in respect of an extensivelist of assets – including a $1.1 million residential property in Auckland's Panmure,12 performance vehicles acquired for nearly $1.5 million and presently valued at$1.332 million, $2.437 million in cash and funds, designer jewellery and handbagsvalued at over $270,000, four dozen bottles of vintage wine, various camera andelectronic equipment, bicycles, and car parts – and some $130,000 as profit, allassociated with the first and second respondents (respectively, "Mr Yim" and"Ms Wu"). The property at issue is the subject of restraining orders made by this Courtin 2016, and set out at the Schedule to this judgment.[3] Mr Yim and Ms Wu oppose the application in respect of specified assets as notacquired by significant criminal activity, of which Ms Wu says she is "the sole andlawful owner" (and disclaims any property in which she jointly is interested withMr Yim). Mr Yim additionally says the profit value is calculated incorrectly. Ms Wusays she lacked effective control over other specified assets, and had not unlawfullybenefited from significant criminal activity such as may affect a profit calculation. Sheseeks on grounds of "undue hardship" to have some property excluded from the orders.[4] Mr Yim and Ms Wu are naturalised New Zealand citizens, after their respectivearrivals in New Zealand from Hong Kong and Taiwan in the 1990s. They met in 2003,and married each other in 2005. They separated for a period from February 2010, butresumed cohabitation in September 2011 until Mr Yim's arrest on 2 March 2016(although possibly thereafter on electronically monitored bail). He was convicted of1 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 3(2)(a).2 Marwood v Commissioner of Police [2016] NZSC 139, [2017] 1 NZLR 260 at [12].possession for supply of one kilogram of methamphetamine, and sentenced to elevenyears and six months' imprisonment.3[5] Mr Yim intended to rely on Ms Wu's submissions at hearing of theCommissioner's application such that his counsel, Belinda Sellars QC, sought to beexcused from attendance. My minute of 30 May 2019 granted her leave. In the event,the hearing ran beyond its allotted time. Written closing submissions were filed by theCommissioner on 21 June 2019, and by Ms Wu on 2 July 2019.Civil forfeiture orders[6] If I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities specific property is "taintedproperty" – that is, wholly or partly acquired as a result of, or directly or indirectlyderived from, significant criminal activity – I must make an assets forfeiture order inrespect of that specific property. By the order, the property vests in the Crownabsolutely and is in the custody and control of the Official Assignee.4[7] If I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities Mr Yim and/or Ms Wu haveunlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity within seven years prior to theCommissioner's application for restraining orders in relation to property in which theyhave an interest, I must make a profit forfeiture order specifying the (net, afterdeduction of the value of relevant assets subject to asset forfeiture orders, then forrealisation) value of the benefit. Such is recoverable from the respective respondent asa debt.5[8] In either case, a respondent may – as Ms Wu does – seek particular assets orproperty be excluded from any forfeiture order, on grounds their inclusion isreasonably likely to cause the respondent "undue hardship".63 R v Yim [2017] NZHC 702.4 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 50.5 Section 55.6 Sections 51 and 56.'Significant criminal activity'[9] The 'significant criminal activity' here relied on by the Commissioner isMr Yim's and Ms Wu's alleged involvement in importation and sale ofmethamphetamine;7 money laundering;8 and tax offences.9 It is sufficient either, forassets forfeiture orders, there is a direct or indirect connection between that activityand the assets sought to be forfeited,10 or for profit forfeiture orders, the respondentshave knowingly (extending to wilful blindness)11 directly or indirectly derived abenefit from the activity.[10] The Commissioner draws together a number of evidentiary 'strands' to contendfor such activity at least during the seven years prior to the March 2016 restrainingorders, and dating back as far as February 2003. The evidence largely is set out indetailed affidavits from investigating police officers and a forensic accountant, subjectto some cross-examination.[11] I may be satisfied of the ultimate issues by the collective weight of suchcircumstantial evidence.12 I am entitled to draw adverse inferences from the presenceof assets' value outstripping any legitimate income, and the absence of credibleevidence of sources of funds, particularly in proximity to established or likelysignificant criminal activity.13 Adverse inferences also are able to be drawn from theabsence of evidence from available witnesses.14[12] In February 2016, New Zealand Customs intercepted nearly 40 kilograms ofmethamphetamine concealed in granite tea trays imported from China. Recipients ofthe consignment, delivered in conditions controlled and observed by Customs and theNew Zealand Police, gave Mr Yim a large bag on 1 March 2016. On his arrest on 2March 2016, police located a kilogram of methamphetamine, with a wholesale value7 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6.8 Crimes Act 1961, s 243.9 Tax Administration Act 1994, ss 143 and 143B.10 Doorman v Commissioner of New Zealand Police [2013] NZCA 476; [2014] 2 NZLR 173 at [23].11 Vincent v Commissioner of Police [2013] NZCA 412 at [52]–[53].12 Commissioner of Police v de Wys [2016] NZCA 634 at [9]–[10].13 Commissioner of Police v Dryland [2013] NZCA 247 at [34]–[39]; and Hayward v Commissionerof Police v [2014] NZCA 624 at [41]–[42].14 Ithaca (Custodians) Ltd v Perry Corporation [2004] 1 NZLR 731 (CA) at [153]–[154]; and see,for example, Yan v Commissioner of Police [2015] NZCA 576, [2016] 2 NZLR 593 at [101].of $250,000, in a car in his possession. In February 2017, Mr Yim was convicted ofpossession of methamphetamine for supply, being the one kilogram in his possession.[13] Searches of Mr Yim's residence at Ms Wu's house, and his cars and storageunits, conducted in the wake of his arrest, located over $1.88 million in cash, andelectronic scales, snap lock bags, six cellphones, and a large number of SIM cards,including for Hong Kong and China telecommunications networks. The consignmentalso had been provided to Chinese logistics and shipping companies while Mr Yimand Ms Wu were in Hong Kong from 6 January 2016, returning to New Zealand on 1February 2016. The Commissioner says, together with the commercial quantity of themethamphetamine in his possession, that all indicates Mr Yim's significant, deeper,and longer-term involvement in serious methamphetamine importation and sale.[14] Ms Wu (and, by his reliance on her submissions, Mr Yim) concedes Mr Yimwas engaged in the significant criminal activity established by his conviction, andthere is a basis to conclude the circumstances of the consignment's importation wasconnected with him. There is no concession he earlier was engaged in such activity, orshe knew of it at any time. And she asserts the earliest allegation of 2003 only is madeto capture the deposit on her house as allegedly derived from the activity.[15] But the Commissioner points to Mr Yim's travel to Bangkok in Thailand fivetimes between March and July 2003, once with Ms Wu, and to Hong Kong on twelveoccasions since 2000. Ms Wu travelled to Hong Kong thirteen times since 2000, fivetimes on the same flight as Mr Yim. The Commissioner also notes their substantialreceipt of Chinese currency, exceeding $1 million in value, and Mr Yim's remissionof money to China and Hong Kong. All that is asserted to demonstrate their physicaland financial links to China (and Hong Kong), from where the interceptedmethamphetamine consignment originated.[16] Strikingly – given the assets amassed by them, collectively valued in excess of$3.3 million – Mr Yim since 2000, and Ms Wu since her arrival in New Zealand in1994, had no declared sources of income (other than minor bank interest). During theseven years prior to the restraining orders, the Commissioner calculates Mr Yim andMs Wu together received over $1.425 million into their bank accounts, from source-unidentified deposits, unexplained cash deposits, and international money remittances.They also had access to funds without their bank accounts, calculated to exceed $3.6million during the seven-year period, including nearly $1.9 million in cash located inpolice searches of their property, and over $900,000 in cash used to purchase vehicles.[17] Ms Wu says she has not engaged in drug offending (which is not itself material,given at least the circumstances of Mr Yim's conviction). She also says there is no orinsufficient evidence she has engaged in money laundering, and is particularly criticalof the Commissioner's lack of specificity as to the contended offending and itsderivation from Mr Yim's drug offending, and Ms Wu's knowledge of that source.Ms Wu's counsel, Stephen Bonnar QC, complains the Commissioner's genericassertion "funds sourced from criminal offending were dealt with in a manner intendedto conceal the nature and origin of the funds" does not cross the threshold.[18] Certainly the presence of unexplained funds alone is insufficient.15 But bothMr Yim and Ms Wu had very substantial amounts of money in their control – withoutplausible explanations as to its source,16 against a backdrop of drug offending – anddealt with it in unorthodox ways likely explicable as being for its concealment in termsof s 243 of the Crimes Act 1961. That is enough to support an allegation of money-laundering, sufficient to enable their conduct to be prosecuted as such, whether or notin fact pursued.17 The question is if there is activity that, "if proceeded against as acriminal offence", would amount to the qualifying offending.18 The quality ofMs Wu's knowledge falls to be determined at a trial. It cannot be said she could nothave a requisite quality of knowledge.[19] The same response may be made to Ms Wu's resistance to the Commissioner'sallegations of tax evasion. The availability to Mr Yim and Ms Wu of $4.66 million infunds over the seven-year period prior to the restraining orders, Ms Wu being engagedin foreign exchange investment and trading with some success, and the absence of anymaterial tax returns is again sufficient to support the allegations, Ms Wu's requisite15 Commissioner of Police v Zhu [2015] NZHC 2175 at [66]; and Commissioner of Police v He[2015] NZHC 777 at [35] and [43].16 I address some of the contended sources at [22]-[24].17 Vincent v Commissioner of Police, above n 11, at [17].18 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 6(1).knowledge falling to be determined at a trial. Mr Bonnar argues only tax evasion is apotentially qualifying offence, "punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 5years or more".19 But the 2009 Act's s 6(1)(b) includes offending "from whichproperty, proceeds, or benefits of a value of $30,000 or more have, directly orindirectly, been acquired or derived". Under that head, some $95,000 tax unpaid, theCommissioner can pray in aid the strict liability offences.20[20] Ms Wu considered the minimal profit she made during her short engagementas a Nu Skin agent did not justify any tax liability. But she made annual profits in theregion of $200,000 from currency trading during each of the 2011, 2012, and 2016 taxyears (and exceeding $125,000 in the 2015 tax year). Whether how she "derived [her]income" to support herself and Mr Yim, as she initially deposed in support of a releaseof living expenses from the restrained assets, or as a "hobby" of which she did notkeep track, as she contended for the hearing, it simply is inconceivable such would nothave materiality in any tax assessment. I do not accept her implication she is part of acommunity, akin to gambling, in which "no tax was necessary".[21] More generally, Ms Wu was not a credible witness. Ms Wu has lived in NewZealand since she was fifteen years old. She spent three years at secondary school inNew Zealand, and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the Auckland University ofTechnology. Her affidavits were presented directly in English language; her oralevidence in Chinese language, through translators.21 It is plain at least her secondaffidavit was a work of advocacy prepared by another, the most graphic example beingthe affidavit's use of automotive technology terms derived from English-languagepublicity material provided by Ms Wu to her lawyers, not able orally to be explainedby Ms Wu. The best Ms Wu could say of the affidavit was she understood "most ofit". That falls a long way short of the requirement in s 83(3) of the Evidence Act 2006the affidavit be Ms Wu's "personal statement", and risked its exclusion.19 Section 6(1)(a).20 Tax Administration Act 1994, s 143.21 The overrun of the hearing required substitution of translators. The Commissioner was concernedthe replacement had prior involvement in providing translation services to Mr Yim, but trialexigencies prevailed.[22] Ms Wu says her parents, living in Taiwan, are "[her] main source of money".She contends for loans or transfers from family and friends, many through financecompanies the Commissioner says are implicated in money laundering. Otherwise she"earned money through various legitimate business interests", including acquiring"luxury brand items" and cosmetics from Hong Kong for people in New Zealand (andvice versa) at a mark-up, and online foreign currency trading.[23] No records were kept. No evidence is tendered from her family, friends orclients. Ms Wu sought to produce indeterminately authored or executed letters incorroboration of some of her endeavours, 22 and other documents falling well short ofestablishing the point for which they were proffered (such as an undated sale andpurchase agreement for materially less than the sum of money it was tendered toevidence as source). Her blindness to Mr Yim's large deposits into their joint bankaccounts, and to items connected to his offending in plain sight in their home, literallyis incredible. Although Mr Bonnar cautions me against taking a "New Zealandeurocentric" view of her contended lack of knowledge of Mr Yim's financialarrangements, I prefer to consider Ms Wu's conduct with regard for her compliancewith New Zealand law, in which 'wilful blindness' can establish liability.[24] A singular aspect of Ms Wu's evidence was the $1 million she said she obtainedfrom a person referred to as Lilian. Ms Wu says Lilian's transfers were paid to her bycash cheques, provided by unknown people outside places in Auckland's centralbusiness district as directed by Lilian. Ms Wu seeks to support the transfers' legitimacyby post-dated Chinese language acknowledgements in her own handwriting,23contended to have been overlooked by police in searching her home, who Ms Wu saysthought they were "love letters". I do not believe police could have mistaken thedocuments' import, given the team's Chinese language fluency. I do not believe the'acknowledgements' are authentic, but were manufactured after the contended factthey were intended to evidence. There also is reason to question Lilian's identity,although originally represented by Ms Wu as living in China, then in Hong Kong afterthe spelling of her Chinese name was queried by police. Police also were unable toobtain any documentary information to support Ms Wu's claim, despite being in direct22 I address the Commissioner's objection to admissibility of these and other documents at [57]-[61].23 Including execution by 'Lilian' with an unprovenanced seal.contact with the person identified as Lilian, who refused to evidence either her identityor the source of the funds obtained by Ms Wu. And 'Lilian' has not opposed or soughtrelief from the Commissioner's forfeiture, if of her money or the product of itsapplication.[25] Viewed overall, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities the evidence isof significant criminal activity since the early 2000s, more likely than not constitutedby drug offending, and associated money laundering and tax evasion. AlthoughMs Wu was an active foreign currency trader, with annual profits in the vicinity of$200,000 in 2011 and 2012 and again in 2016, she also deposited over $1.54 millioninto her trading account in the eight years between February 2008 and January 2016.No credible legitimate source exists for those funds.'Tainted property'[26] The "specific property" claimed by the Commissioner to be "tainted property",to be subject to my assets forfeiture order, is extensive. Mr Yim and Ms Wu opposethe order only in relation to the Panmure property, registered in her name; the Ferrari458 Speciale registered to Mr Yim; the Porsche Cayman GTS registered to her; some$2,000 and a subset of foreign currency valued at approximately $18,000 found at thePanmure property; some $520,000 in funds held at the ANZ Bank and Kiwibank, andin her and Mr Yim's CMC Markets New Zealand Limited trading accounts; and some42 identified watches, jewellery, handbags, and wallets as having "particularsentimental value".—Panmure property[27] The Panmure property was acquired by Ms Wu in November 2005 for$630,000, comprising a $329,950 deposit (paid in two cheques of $88,975 and$240,975) from San Wan Sze, a man associated with a finance company implicated inlarge-scale money laundering,24 and the balance largely from the proceeds of sale of aproperty previously owned by Ms Wu. The former property was acquired in part in24 Commissioner of Police v Know-All Group Ltd HC Auckland CIV 2010-404-0403, 7 November2011.reliance on funds transferred from Mr Yim's and Ms Wu's joint accounts in January2004.[28] Ms Wu says the deposit was provided by her parents in Taiwan, who procuredher deceased uncle's wife in China to remit the money to Ms Wu, in repayment of herparents' earlier loans to her uncle (of whom Ms Wu produced a 1997 death certificate)in support of his Chinese business. Ms Wu also contended for some repaymentsdirectly to her parents. On police enquiry through liaison in Taiwan, a partiallysupportive, but also contradictory and uncorroborated, account was obtained fromMs Wu's mother. No evidence is forthcoming from Ms Wu's parents; they have notsought to claim any interest in the property subject to forfeiture.[29] Mr Bonnar says it is not realistic to expect there to be "documentary recordsrelating to intra-family transactions some 14 years after events have occurred". Evenso, Ms Wu's account lacks credibility:(a) there is no explanation for engagement of a New Zealand financecompany (still less, of San Wan Sze personally) to remit funds fromChina, or for payment of such a large deposit (in the face of the$100,000 required by the sale and purchase agreement) and in twoamounts;(b) the two cheques each appear to be net of some $25 fee, falling short ofa combined $330,000, suggestive of rounded New Zealand dollar sumspaid for transfer;(c) her parents already had substantial funds in New Zealand, to which firstresort could have been expected, including for the whole of the requireddeposit; and(d) it is at significant odds with her mother's account, including the loans'repayment was triggered by closure of the uncle's business on hissickness in 2004 (belying his earlier death certificate).[30] I do not believe Ms Wu's account. Given the absence of any legitimate sourceof income, I find on the balance of probabilities the deposit was derived from thesignificant criminal activities in which the couple are more likely than not to have beeninvolved. In any event, the revolving credit facility on the property later – drawn onin amounts exceeding $900,000, largely met by transfers from the couple's jointaccounts and some $90,000 in cash, despite no legitimate sources of income – also onthe balance of probabilities was derived from those significant criminal activities.25Accordingly, the Panmure property is 'tainted property', which (subject to mydetermination of Ms Wu's claims of 'undue hardship') must be forfeited.—vehicles[31] The Ferrari 458 Speciale was acquired with funds from China. Ms Wu says itwas acquired by her as an investment with 'Lilian'. Even leaving aside doubt aboutLilian's identity, or the possibility she would seek to 'invest' in a vehicle about whichshe knew little in another country:(a) amounts said to been provided by her from China for such investmentwere obtained in sums materially larger than required for purchase, andused beyond that excess by Ms Wu in her foreign currency trading;(b) Mr Yim had access to substantial sums of Chinese currency, includingremittances he made to unknown recipients and for unknown purposes;(c) the Ferrari was acquired by Mr Yim, driven by him (including at highperformance training at a racetrack) for distances significantly greaterthan the minimal transit contended by Ms Wu necessary to maintain the'investment', and serviced and modified for high performance drivingat his expense (including by payment of $7,000 in cash, and withaftermarket parts he acquired in advance of the Ferrari's purchase); and(d) Ms Wu's contention his acquisition was necessary to obtain a betterprice is belied by the substantial discount she earlier obtained from thesame dealership for a Porsche Cayman GTS.25 Duncan v Commissioner of Police [2013] NZCA 477, (2013) 26 CRNZ 796 at [18]–[27].[32] Ms Wu also says she acquired the Porsche from funds loaned to her by 'Lilian'for that purpose, at a time Ms Wu had suffered "a string of losses" in her foreigncurrency trading but had ordered the car and "needed" to pay for it. Ms Wu's rationaleis elusive, and undermined by her incurring the losses and receiving the funds inadvance of any commitment to acquire the car. And – although she contends to havepaid $10,000 in cash to Lilian as interest on the loan, the sum said to be derived fromunspecified trading on the Hong Kong stock exchange – there is no evidence of theloan's servicing otherwise, despite Ms Wu's very profitable foreign currency tradingalso in subsequent years.[33] None of Ms Wu's contentions about funding of the two cars is credible. I donot believe her. Along with the other ten vehicles, I am satisfied on the balance ofprobabilities they all were wholly or partly acquired as a result of, or directly orindirectly derived from, the significant criminal activity in which Mr Yim and Ms Wulikely were involved. As 'tainted property', subject to Ms Wu's claims to 'unduehardship', they must be forfeited.—$1.88 million in cash[34] Of the $1.88 million of cash seized from the couple's property, opposition onlyis mounted to forfeiture of a specific sum of $1,995.80 in New Zealand currency, anda subset of the foreign currency valued at some $18,600. Ms Wu says the former is theproceeds from her sales as agent for Nu Skin products in 2014; and the latter is thebalance of local currency left over from trips to Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan, notingin particular a gift of $20,000 spending money from her parents for a trip to all threecountries in January 2016. (She does not claim Chinese currency included in thatbalance, as being Mr Yim's property.)[35] I consider these explanations to be poor attempts to lend credibility to Ms Wu'scounterfactual of legitimate sources of income, and to distance herself fromconnections with China. They suffer from an extreme lack of specificity or connection.It inherently is improbable a comparatively small amount of cash would be heldsegregated, without any explanation for such, some eighteen months after beingearned: Ms Wu's original evidence was it was held in a cosmetics bag together withsome of the Nu Skin product, but she abandoned that at the hearing for contention itwas held in a purse, and then also "at least 1000 of it was something left behind frommy travel when I come back". The claimed foreign currency also is said to be from"trips", but only specifying one, and then to claim "this larger amount [of spendingmoney] because I was on a longer than usual trip". It is more likely, as with all thecash seized from Mr Yim and Ms Wu, it is derived from – in particular – Mr Yim'sdrug offending.[36] Again, I do not believe Ms Wu. I find, on the balance of probabilities, all thecash seized from Mr Yim and Ms Wu is 'tainted property', and (subject to Ms Wu's'undue hardship' claim) is to be forfeited.—funds[37] Mr Yim and Ms Wu together contributed some $1.5 million to their CMCMarkets New Zealand Limited trading accounts, drawn from their bank accounts. Thetrading accounts also draw on nearly $50,000 from unknown sources. Given theabsence of any legitimate source of those funds, the funds likely are derived from drugoffending; their use in currency trading supports allegations of money-laundering; andthe failure to report results supports allegations of tax offending. Opposition to theirforfeiture is reliant on contest to significant criminal activity beyond Mr Yim's 2016drug offending. But I have addressed that at [18] to [19]. The contents of the tradingaccounts are to be forfeited as 'tainted property' (subject to 'undue hardship').[38] Ms Wu opposes forfeiture of some $350,000 held in a lawyer's Kiwibankaccount. She says $300,000 originally was provided by 'Lilian' in late 2015 forproperty investment in New Zealand, who agreed it could be used instead to obtainlegal representation after Mr Yim's arrest. The other $50,000 was transferred fromMr Yim's and Ms Wu's foreign currency trading accounts. Ms Wu made the transferto deal with various things requiring legal assistance in the wake of Mr Yim's arrest.But Ms Wu transferred $100,000 of the former 'investment' to the trading accounts,where she stood to lose it, rather than holding it for or applying it to any propertyinvestment. The $50,000 connection with those trading accounts is enough to taint thewhole of the Kiwibank fund. And the implausibility and lack of substantial evidenceof any involvement from a 'Lilian' in these or the wider circumstances is to increasethe likelihood of the fund's illegitimate derivation.[39] Again, I find, on the balance of probabilities, all Mr Yim's and Ms Wu'srestrained funds are 'tainted property', and (subject to the 'undue hardship' claims) areto be forfeited.—personal items[40] Ms Wu claims 42 of the 115 items of (largely) designer accoutrements seizedby the Commissioner. She asserts a personal connection to each, and as their "sole andlawful owner". The latter claim is made in respect of all opposed restrained assets,Ms Wu expressly disclaiming assets in which she has a joint interest with Mr Yim.[41] The opposed restrained assets include "relationship property" in terms of theProperty (Relationships) Act 1976, property acquired by either Mr Yim or Ms Wuafter their relationship began (unless acquired out of separate property, or otherwiseexcluded – materially here, as gifts from third persons).26 The default scheme of the1976 Act is each spouse or partner is entitled to share equally in a division ofrelationship property after the relationship ends.27 It is a contingent 'interest'recognised under the scheme of the 2009 Act.28 'Property' for the purposes of the 2009Act includes "an interest in real or personal property", which 'interest' means "a legalor equitable estate or interest in the property; or a right, power, or privilege inconnection with the property".29[42] The whole of Mr Yim's and Ms Wu's relationship is contemporaneous with,and financially indistinct from, the significant criminal activity I am satisfied on thebalance of probabilities underpins this proceeding. That is to render all theirrelationship property acquired or directly or indirectly derived from that activity, andthus 'tainted', for forfeiture.26 Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 8(1)(e).27 Section 11(1)(c).28 Doorman v Commissioner of New Zealand Police, above n 10, at [36]; and Duncan vCommissioner of Police, above n 25, at [20].29 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 5 (definitions of 'property' and 'interest').[43] Ms Wu's second affidavit's "explanation" of her contended independentconnections to particular of these items is not universally specific as to the timing oftheir acquisitions, or in any event to be excluded from her relationship with Mr Yip.For the reasons I have explained at [20] to [24], I am not prepared to accept Ms Wu'sbare contentions of gifts from third persons or acquired from separate property. Theone exception is a "white Chanel/diamonte women's watch", which she explains was"purchased for me in 2002 as gift from Father". Given my general disbelief ofMs Wu's evidence, I also do not accept that contention at face value. Presently, thewatch is in the possession of the Official Assignee, who describes it as a "[m]oderndiamond set Chanel J12 chronograph wristwatch, Ref #H1008, Serial #Z.K.44003",valued at $5,000. If that description is consistent with its acquisition in 2002, I maynot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities the watch is 'tainted property'.[44] Otherwise, on the balance of probabilities, I find all Mr Yim's and Ms Wu'spersonal items restrained by the Commissioner are 'tainted property', to be forfeited(subject to 'undue hardship'). I include in that the vintage wine, various camera andelectronic equipment, bicycles, and car parts, and other miscellaneous restrainedproperty.'Unlawful benefit'[45] I therefore turn to the Commissioner's claim to a profit forfeiture order jointlyand severally against Mr Yim and Ms Wu. The threshold for such a remedy is they"unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity",30 defined if each"knowingly, directly or indirectly, derived a benefit from significant criminal activity(whether or not that person undertook or was involved in the significant criminalactivity)".31 The requisite knowledge is not of derivation of a benefit, but of benefitfrom significant criminal activity, extending to wilful blindness as to the benefit'ssource.32[46] Ms Wu rejects knowledge of any such benefit, largely in reliance on her disputeof the extent of any significant criminal activity. My findings as to the extent of that30 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 55(1)(a).31 Section 7.32 Vincent v Commissioner of Police, above n 11, at [48] and [52]–[53].significant criminal activity undermine her rejection. Plainly she knew she benefitedfrom concealing the sources of money and by not declaring income. But, more thanthat, she knew from the outset of their relationship Mr Yim "seemed to have a lot ofmoney to spend", despite only "work[ing] casually on a part time basis". Ms Wu'ssuspicions clearly were aroused, because she obtained the explanation he had sold hisshare of a bar in China at some point before meeting her. If she did not know the sourceof his funds over the subsequent thirteen years, she clearly deliberately refrained frommaking enquiry to avoid learning if her suspicion was justified. That qualifies asrequisite knowledge. It is not overcome by any contended cultural lack of curiosity.[47] For the purposes of s 55 of the 2009 Act, I am satisfied on the balance ofprobabilities both Mr Yim and Ms Wu have benefited from significant criminalactivity during the seven years prior to the Commissioner's application for restrainingorders. I also am satisfied on the balance of probabilities both Mr Yim and Ms Wuhave interests in property.[48] In reliance on Mr Yim's instructions to him as his then counsel, Mr Bonnarsays Mr Yim disclaims interest in the contested property. And he says Mr Yim'smisconduct is such as would disentitle him to any claim to the contested property asrelationship property.33 He also seeks to exclude from their relationship property theengagement and wedding rings given to Ms Wu by Mr Yim, as not "used for thebenefit of both spouses".34 But, without Mr Yim's evidence as to his intention ingifting the rings to Ms Wu,35 I assume the rings precisely were used for the benefit ofboth spouses, as formally designating their intended and established marriage. And itis not the crystallised interest, but the contingent interest, in relationship property thatqualifies as an interest in property.36 In any event, it is undeniable Mr Yim has interestsin property. I therefore must make a profit forfeiture order against each Mr Yim andMs Wu of a maximum recoverable amount.33 Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 18A and 25.34 Section 10(3).35 Herbison v Waugh [2018] NZHC 3101 at [21], citing Milne v Armijo HC Christchurch CP7/88,25 August 1989 at 2.36 Hayward v Commissioner of Police [2014] NZCA 625 at [25].[49] The amended presumed value of Mr Yim's and Ms Wu's benefit fromsignificant criminal activity is $5,315,521.32, comprising the Commissioner'sstatement of the purchase price of the 2016 methamphetamine importation, the valueof the seized methamphetamine, the sum of unexplained or unverified sources of fundsreceived by Mr Yim and/or Ms Wu, and the estimated tax payable on their currencytrading profits. Whether or not attribution of those values to the couple's benefit issound, I am content the valuation is not arbitrary. The onus is on Mr Yim and Ms Wuto rebut its presumption.37 They have not done so. Given the baldness of the assertionin his notice of opposition, and without any submissions for him, I do not know whaterror in calculation Mr Yim contends. The maximum recoverable amount is afterdeduction from that value of the value of property subject to the assets forfeiture order,estimated in the evidence as $5,187,649.10 (but subject to accrued interest). Thus,subject to accruing interest and if allowing for the watch, the profit forfeiture orderwill be approximately $133,000.[50] The order also must specify the property for disposal, being that in whichMr Yim and/or Ms Wu have or are to be treated as having interests. Again with thepossible exception of the watch, that is their interest in all the restrained assets,acquired during their relationship, as relationship property (whether or not thatultimately may be the result of any division). I include in that the restrained BMWM3, nominally registered to an associate of Mr Yim's, but disclaimed by him andattributed to Mr Yim (and containing over $500,000 cash, comparably with some ofMr Yim's other cars).[51] Finally – particularly given that interest, and despite the singular expression of"a person" unlawfully benefiting from significant criminal activity – I consider theprofit forfeiture order's joint and several application is appropriate.'Undue hardship'[52] The 'undue hardship' threshold for relief under ss 51 and 56 is significant: it ishardship "grossly disproportionate" to an interest acquired or derived, or a benefit37 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 53(2).knowingly derived, from significant criminal activity.38 Alternatively, it may behardship amounting to extreme and undue want or privation.39[53] Ms Wu's affidavits have nothing to say about such hardship. Only in oralevidence does Ms Wu say – without the assets, and with the residual liability – she"may have to go back to Taiwan", as she has "absolutely [no]" means of support inNew Zealand. But the circumstances suggest that is in condign proportion to her long-term, all-encompassing disregard for New Zealand law. Ms Wu continues to have herNew Zealand citizenship, her New Zealand education, her foreign currency tradingskills, and her Taiwanese family. Being held accountable for more than likely relyingon significant criminal activity instead to support herself is far from extreme privation,and more consistent with eliminating her chance to profit from such activity.[54] I do not consider undue hardship is reasonably likely to be caused to Ms Wufrom inclusion of the restrained property in the assets forfeiture order, or by itssubsequent realisation.Result[55] The Commissioner's application is granted.[56] Ms Wu's application is dismissed.Admissibility of evidence[57] On 30 May 2019, shortly before trial commenced, the Commissioner filed amemorandum to notify an admissibility issue. Although the memorandum expresslyreferred to HCR 9.11, and acknowledged the challenge was not notified first to MsWu in a timely way, that rule relates to "the admissibility of a brief, in whole or inpart". The rule is intended to provide a means of addressing any prospective non-compliance indicated in "the written statement setting out evidence proposed to begiven".4038 By analogy from Lyall v Solicitor-General [1997] 2 NZLR 641 (CA) at 647.39 Commissioner of Police v Nelson HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-989, 30 July 2010 at [75], cited inCommissioner of Police v Winsor [2014] NZHC 161 at [57].40 High Court Rules 2016, r 9.7(1).[58] Evidence in this proceeding was given by affidavit. As such, the affidavit is tobe confined "to matters that would be admissible if given in evidence at trial by thedeponent".41 The Commissioner's objection was as to exhibits to Ms Wu's affidavit(and associated references therein) as hearsay and inadmissible in terms of sections 17and 18 of the Evidence Act 2006. The exhibits are the corroboration andacknowledgements referred to at [23] and [24].[59] Certainly the exhibits to which the Commissioner objected contain hearsaystatements. They are statements made by other than witnesses, and offered in evidenceto prove the truth of their contents.42 There was no evidence of the circumstancesrelating to the statements such as may provide reasonable assurance they are reliable.43Neither was there any evidence the statements' makers were unavailable aswitnesses.44 Nor had I any foundation for considering undue expense or delay wouldbe caused if they were (and could be) required to be a witness.45 For those reasons, Iadmitted the contested evidence on a provisional basis, the provision being evidencewas later to be offered which established its admissibility.46[60] Mr Bonnar pointed out the acknowledgements referred to at [24] also werecontained in the Commissioner's evidence, as obtained from the investigation:"generally speaking, evidence is either admissible for all purposes or it is notadmissible at all".47 While such admissibility may save the contents of theacknowledgements from exclusion, it does not advance proof of the truth of theircontents, the focus of a hearsay statement. The statement's reliability is contingent onits "circumstances", of which the statement itself can only speak to its contents, andperhaps its nature. And, as to those circumstances, no other evidence was offered,meaning the condition for their provisional admission has expired unmet.41 Rule 9.76(1)(d)(i).42 Evidence Act 2006, s 4 (definition of 'hearsay statement').43 Section 18(1)(a) (and s 16: definition of 'circumstances').44 Section 18(1)(b) (and s 16: definition of 'unavailable as a witness'; 'uncompellable' does not mean'unavailable': Solicitor-General v X [2009] NZCA 476 at [35]).45 Section 18(1)(b)(ii)46 Section 14.47 Hart v R [2010] NZSC 91, [2011] 1 NZLR 1 at [54].[61] While my decision in this judgment may mean the issue now is academic inany event, I uphold the Commissioner's objections. The hearsay statements areinadmissible (even if the documents in which they are contained otherwise areadmissible).Next steps[62] Counsel are to seek to agree formal orders in accordance with this judgment –essentially in the form sought by the Commissioner, except possibly for treatment ofthe watch and accrued interest – for my approval for sealing, memoranda (desirablyjoint) to be filed within ten working days of the date of this judgment.Costs[63] Costs are reserved for determination on short memoranda of no more than fivepages – annexing a single-page table setting out any contended allowable steps, timeallocation, and daily recovery rate – to be filed and served by:(a) the Commissioner within ten working days of the date of this judgment;(b) Ms Wu within five working days of service of the Commissioner'smemorandum; and(c) the Commissioner strictly in reply within five working days of serviceof Ms Wu's memorandum.—Jagose JSchedule (restrained property)Real estateAll interests in the property located at [Redacted], described in certificate of title[Redacted] as Lots 6 to 8 of Deposited Plan [Redacted], registered proprietorChien-Hui Wu (Ms Wu), excluding the interests of ANZ bank as mortgagee[Redacted].VehiclesModel Registration Year Registered toNissan Skyline GTR [Redacted] 1989 [Redacted]Toyota MR2 [Redacted] 1989 [Redacted]Lancia Delta [Redacted] 1994 [Redacted]MV Augustamotorcycle[Redacted] 2004 [Redacted]Honda Civic RR [Redacted] 2007 [Redacted]Lamborghini Gallardo [Redacted] 2010 [Redacted]BMW 1M Coupe [Redacted] 2011 [Redacted]Toyota GT2 OP Coupe [Redacted] 2013 [Redacted]Ferrari 458 Speciale [Redacted] 2015 [Redacted]Mercedez Benz [Redacted] 2015 [Redacted]BMW M3 [Redacted] 1989 [Redacted]Porsche Cayman GTS [Redacted] 2014 [Redacted]CashAmount Location Date$2,478 Mr Yim [Redacted]$24,895 Mercedez Benz [Redacted]$210,445 [Redacted] [Redacted]$1,995.80 [Redacted] [Redacted]$141,940 BMW 1M [Redacted]$932,160 [Redacted] [Redacted]$18,642.14 (foreigncurrency)[Redacted] [Redacted]$550,650 BMW M3 [Redacted]Bank funds and CMC Markets fundsAmount Organisation Account holder Account number(s)$32,662.13 ASB Mr Yim andMs Wu[Redacted][Redacted]$340.19 ANZ Ms Wu [Redacted][Redacted]$353,332.88 Kiwibank [Redacted] [Redacted]$167,550.61 CMC Markets NewZealand LimitedMs Wu [Redacted]$6.23 CMC Markets NewZealand LimitedMr Yim [Redacted]Art/Jewellery/Handbags seized from [Redacted]Barcode Item description[Redacted] 1x Glycine Men's brown strap watch in case[Redacted] 1x 1WC Men's black/silver watch[Redacted] 1x 'Vestal' Men's black/silver watch with whiteface[Redacted] 1x Tissot timeline watch orange and black[Redacted] 1x A.Lange & Sohne black watch[Redacted] 1x S2 loz 999 Silver 'Year of the Horse' Silver coin in gold container[Redacted] 2x Silver Gucci Bamboo bracelet[Redacted] 1x Tiffany Daisy bracelet, 1x Silver Tiffany pendant necklace, 1xBlack jet facet ring, 2x Swatch rings Tiffany, 2x Silver ring, 1 thinkband, 1x heart band, 1x T diamonte pendant, 1x Tiffany & Co charmnecklace, 1x black jet facet ring, 1x Empire armani ring, 1xsilver/black stripe men's ring, 1x Tiffany & Co charm bracelet, 1xTiffany & Co silver flower diamante ring.[Redacted] 1x Silver double band ring in black case, 1x Double band women'scarats ring[Redacted] 1x Emporio Armani silver ring[Redacted] 1x Gold bangle[Redacted] 1x Gold chain bracelet, 1x Silver chain, 1x Heart diamond goldnecklace, 1x Green stone pendant, 1x Square top diamonte ring, 1xflower ring, 1x Diamond silver ring, 1x skull ring, 1x empty blackjewellery case[Redacted] 1x Hermes Men's ring in orange box[Redacted] 1x Louis Vuitton Brown Jewellery BoxArt/Jewellery/Handbags seized from [Redacted]Barcode Item description[Redacted] 1x Hublot coloured women's watch[Redacted] 1x Hublot animal print women's watch[Redacted] 1x G Shock Navy men's watch[Redacted] 1x Silver / bronze stone & diamond women's watch[Redacted] 1x white Chanel / Diamante women's watch[Redacted] 1x Brown Audemars Piguet Swiss women's watch[Redacted] 1x Men's Omega Silver / Grey & Orange watch[Redacted] 1x Titanium Swiss "Bell Ross" Men's watch[Redacted] 1x Black Audemars Piguet Men's watch[Redacted] 1x Silver Mont blanc women's necklace[Redacted] 1x Louis Vuitton logo pendant necklace in box[Redacted] 1x Asian Pearl necklace[Redacted] 1x Bvlgari black & gold band ring[Redacted] 1x Bvlgari small silver bracelet[Redacted] 1x Bvlgari silver found ring[Redacted] 1x silver Louis Vuitton necklace, 1x silver Louis Vuitton pendant[Redacted] 1x Chaumet ring with pink stone[Redacted] 1x large diamond & silver ring[Redacted] 1x Manking silver / diamond ring[Redacted] 1x Hermes "H" black & gold bracelet[Redacted] 1x Walker & Hall "W" pendant necklace[Redacted] 1x Elma Watch case with 1x Hublot men's watch, 1x Oris blackmen's watch, 1x Oris green & black men's watch, 1x Panerai glowmen's watch, 1x leather Louis Vuitton watch[Redacted] 1x Hublot Red / White & Blue men's watch[Redacted] 1x Black Louis Vuitton Clutch[Redacted] 1x Black/Grey Sequin LV Duffel Clutch[Redacted] 1x Red LV Handbag[Redacted] 1x Denim LV Monogram T WU handbag[Redacted] 1x Black Denim LV with Bag Charm[Redacted] 1x Denim LV small bag with Charm Buttons[Redacted] 1x Grey Leather LV handbagArt/Jewellery/Handbags seized from [Redacted]Barcode Item description[Redacted] 1x Large black leather LV handbag[Redacted] 1x Mustard LV Clutch[Redacted] 1x Silver LV Clutch[Redacted] 1x Brown Suede LV Handbag[Redacted] 1x Navy & Hot Pink Handbag[Redacted] 1x Brown & Tan LV Saddlebag[Redacted] 1x Cherry Red Tote bag with Brown handle[Redacted] 1x Hermes Birkin Navy Blue/Grey handbag with Gold Hardware[Redacted] 1x Hermes Orange Wallet[Redacted] 1x Blue Hermes Wallet[Redacted] 1x Brown Hermes Wallet[Redacted] 1x LV Tote Monogram Bag[Redacted] 1x LV Bucket Cream Handbag[Redacted] 1x LV Handbag black & yellow[Redacted] 1x LV Black/Gold Hardware handbag[Redacted] 1x LV Grey Fur bag[Redacted] 1x LV Speedy Silver/Chrome[Redacted] 1x LV Handbag - Brown Handle & Material body[Redacted] 1x LV Handbag - Monogram tan L. WU Custom[Redacted] 1x LV Satchel Cream/Blue[Redacted] 1x LV Satchel Brown Men's[Redacted] 1x LV Cream Handbag[Redacted] 1x LV Large Blue Bag[Redacted] 1x Colourful LV Monogram Handbag[Redacted] 1x Brown Men's Satchell[Redacted] 1x Large Camouflage Women's Handbag[Redacted] 1x Navy/Hot Pink Large Handbag[Redacted] 1x Wetsuit Material Neoprene LV[Redacted] 1x Bright Orange Neoprene LV Tote[Redacted] 1x Navy /Black LV Tweed Handbag[Redacted] 1x Hermes Blue/Tan Shoulder bag[Redacted] 1x LV Red large HandbagArt/Jewellery/Handbags seized from [Redacted]Barcode Item description[Redacted] 1x Chanel Quilt Black Handbag[Redacted] 1x LV Leather Black/Yellow/Cream Handbag[Redacted] 1x LV Brown Check Handbag[Redacted] 1x LV Large Black for Tote with Black leather[Redacted] 1x Leather black LV[Redacted] 1x Chanel Quilt Red Clutch[Redacted] 1x Chanel Navy small quilt bag[Redacted] 1x Bright Fur Chanel 100% Clutch[Redacted] 1x Navy/Silver Quilt Chanel Shoulder Bag[Redacted] 1x LV Grey Satchel (some scratches and damage)[Redacted] 1x Long Cartoon Character carry bag LV with bag tag also themeddust bag with MonogramWine located at [Redacted]Barcode Quantity Description ApproximateValueRack ID[Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 ChateauMaugaux Grand Vinpremier grande cru classe[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 ChateauMaugaux Grand Vin[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 ChateauMaugaux Grand Vin[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1994 ChateauMaugaux Grand Vin[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1996 ChateauMaugaux Grand Vin[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 ChateauMaugaux Grand Vin[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 ChateauMaugaux Grand Vin[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1994 ChateauMaugaux Grand Vin[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 Grand Vin dechateau Latour premiergrand cru classe pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted]Wine located at [Redacted]Barcode Quantity Description ApproximateValueRack ID[Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 Grand Vin dechateau Latour premiergrand cru classe pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 Grand Vin dechateau Latour premiergrand cru classe pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1988 Grand Vin dechateau Latour premiergrand cru classe pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1988 Grand Vin dechateau Latour premiergrand cru classe pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1997 Grand Vin dechateau Latour premiergrand cru classe pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 Grand Vin dechateau Latour premiergrand cru classe pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 Grand Vin dechateau Latour premiergrand cru classe pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 2002 Toute LaRecolte A ete mise enbouteilles au chateaumouton RothschildPauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 2004 ChateauMargaux Premier grandcru classe[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 2001 ChateauMargaux Premier grandcru classe[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 2004 ChateauMargaux Premier grandcru classe[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 2004 ChateauMargaux Premier grandcru classe[Redacted] [Redacted]Wine located at [Redacted]Barcode Quantity Description ApproximateValueRack ID[Redacted] 1 Bottle 1999 ChateauMargaux Premier grandcru classe[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 2004 ChateauMargaux Premier grandcru classe[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 2002 ChateauMargaux Premier grandcru classe[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 ChateauMargaux Premier grandcru classe[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1999 ChateauMargaux Premier grandcru classe[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 ChateauMargaux Premier grandcru classe[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 2004 Chateau haut-brion premier grand cruclasse[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1986 Chateau haut-brion cru classe de gravespremier grand cru classe[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 Chateau lamission haul brionpessae-leognan cru classede graves[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1998 Chateau lamission haut brionpessae-leognan cru classede graves[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 2002 Chateau lamission haut brionmission en bou teille auchateau[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1997 Grand vin dechateau la tour premiergrand cru classe[Redacted] [Redacted]Wine located at [Redacted]Barcode Quantity Description ApproximateValueRack ID[Redacted] 1 Bottle 1994 ChateauMouton Rothschild[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1994 Grand vin dechateau latour pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1994 Grand vin dechateau latour pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1996 Grand vin dechateau latour pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1997 Grand vin dechateau latour pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1994 Grand vin dechateau latour pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1994 Grand vin dechateau latour pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1994 Grand vin dechateau latour pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1995 Grand vin dechateau latour pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1997 Grand vin dechateau latour pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1982 Grand vin dechateau latour pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1999 MargauChateau Palmer Medoc[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1994 ChateauLafite Rothschild Pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1982 ChateauLatour a Pomerol[Redacted] [Redacted][Redacted] 1 Bottle 1976 ChateauLafite Rothschild Pauillac[Redacted] [Redacted]TOTAL 48 $41,589.00Household Effects/Sporting/Electronics/Car parts located at [Redacted][Redacted] Barcode Item description[Redacted] [Redacted] 1x Canon EOS 50D Camera Body Ser No:0330220645 (Barcoding No: 280 7B022[AA])1x Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 13-200mm SerNo:46000077551x Canon Box incl, Software Discs (2) InstructionBook, Connector Leads & Battery Charger[Redacted] [Redacted] 1x HPRC Black Coloured Hard Plastic Travel Casecontaining1x Canon EOS 5DSR Camera Body serial No:0450210000211x Canon EF Lens 24-70mm Serial No: 20890271x Canon Zoom Lens EF 11-24mm Serial No:26000817491x Canon EF Lens 16-35mm Serial No: 14877091x Canon Zoom Lens EF 70-200mm Serial No:138271[Redacted] [Redacted] Apple ipad Serial Number: to be advised[Redacted] [Redacted] 1x Specialised S Works Tarmac Bicycle[Redacted] 1x Top Peak Transformer Bicycle Pump[Redacted] 1x S Works Red Men's Bicycle[Redacted] 1x Dragon Evo Tyre MTR21[Redacted] 1x Pirelli StarMTR22[Redacted] 1x Mugen RR Cars R/B Car Seat[Redacted] 1x Recaro Car Seat[Redacted] 4x Light Alloy Wheels Model M09[Redacted] 1x Black Carbon Fibre Bonnet Part[Redacted] 10x Mag Tyres - 4x Porsche, 2 x Mazda, 4xUnknown[Redacted] 1x Carbon Fibre Grey Spoiler[Redacted] 1x Carbon Fibre Grey Car Part[Redacted] 2x Carbon Fibre wing mirror parts for motor-vehicle[Redacted] 1x Metal Gear Shift Part/accessory[Redacted] 2x Vehicle Mirrors