THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v TAMIHANA [2022] NZHC 955

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v TAMIHANA [2022] NZHC 955 [6 May 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNAPIER REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAAHURIRI ROHECIV-2017-441-101[2022] NZHC 955BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND SHANE TAMIHANAFirst RespondentNERRISHA MARIE MARGARET GRANTSecond RespondentPETER ALLEN PATRICK GAMLENThird RespondentKARA RANGIMARIE SHANNONCULLEN-SILLICKFourth RespondentContinuedHearing: 5 October 2020Additional submissions and memoranda filedCounsel: M Mitchell for the ApplicantNo appearance for the First, Second, Third and FourthRespondentsP N Ross for the First Interested PartyNo appearance for the Second, Third and Fourth Interested PartiesJudgment: 6 May 2022JUDGMENT OF GENDALL JSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, NapierGifford Devine Lawyers, HastingsCathedral Lane Law, Napier ContinuedAND MICHAEL HOWARD ALLISONFirst Interested PartyCREDIT UNION BAYWIDESecond Interested PartyJASON SIDNEY WILLIAM SAMUELSThird Interested PartyQUALITY AUTOS NZ LIMITEDFourth Interested PartyBackground[1] On 26 October 2018 the applicant (the Commissioner of Police) filed anApplication for an Asset Forfeiture Order pursuant to ss 43, 44, 49 and 52 of theCriminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) seeking orders that a range ofproperty was to vest in the Crown and was to be in the custody and control of theOfficial Assignee.[2] The Application went on to describe the property over which the AssetForfeiture Order was sought as follows:(a) all interests in the property at 3 Whitby Place, Flaxmere, Hastingsregistered in the name of Michael Howard Allison described inCertificate of Title HBD2/711, legal description Lot 64 DP 12304, otherthan the interests of Credit Union Baywide under the RegisteredMortgage 10672912.3 (Whitby Place) but under the effective control ofShane Tamihana (the first respondent);(b) a 2006 Toyota Hilux 3.0TD 4WD including ignition keys, registrationDKF725, and registered in the name of John Doe (the Hilux) but underthe effective control of Shane Tamihana (the first respondent);(c) the contents of a CU Baywide Bank Account 03 1753 0636956 00, inthe name of Shane Tamihana (the first respondent) with an approximatebalance of $33,856 (the CU Baywide Account ending 56 00);(d) cash totalling $41,536.40 seized from 901B Dufferin Street, Akina,Hastings on 13 September 2017; and(e) $15,000 cash retrieved from Stephen Hill Motors, Hastings, paid byShane Tamihana (the first respondent).[3] The Application for an Asset Forfeiture Order went on to outline the groundson which the proposed forfeited property was said to be tainted property in thefollowing way:(a) because it is property wholly or in part acquired or derived from thesale of methamphetamine by the respondent (Shane Tamihana); and(b) on further grounds set out in the affidavits of Alex Holden MacDonalddated 13 October 2017 and 25 June 2018 and Brent Andrew Murraydated 18 October 2017, and further affidavits yet to be filed.[4] That 26 October 2018 Application as I understand it accompanied a previousapplication for forfeiture dated 6 December 2017 relating to these parties of which theonly property remaining to be dealt with by this Court was stated as: "5 Louis Vuittonbags with protective coverings seized from 901B Dufferin Street, Akina, Hastings on13 September 2017."[5] In his 26 October 2018 Application, the applicant went on in the alternative toseek a profit forfeiture order set out in detail there. As will become apparent, theapplicant's Asset Forfeiture Order here is to be granted and therefore at this point I saynothing further about the alternative profit forfeiture order sought as outlined in theApplication.Legislative framework[6] The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) provides a regime forthe confiscation and forfeiture of certain property where a causal nexus between theacquisition of that property and significant criminal activity can be established.Although dependent on evidence of criminal activity, proceedings of this type are civilin nature and the evidence required need not be such as would sustain criminalcharges.1[7] The regime is intended to capture both property that is directly derived fromcriminal activity (such as, for example, cash, vehicles or assets exchanged formethamphetamine) and property that may not be itself associated with that criminalactivity, but which represents the value of some other benefit that a respondent hasunlawfully received. An example of this second category might be property paid for1 The standard of proof with respect to the criteria for forfeiture orders is that of the balance ofprobabilities which is well below the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.with legitimate income where the respondent has received an equivalent benefitelsewhere, for example from the sale of methamphetamine.[8] So far as Asset Forfeiture Orders are concerned, an application for these isdetermined under s 50(1) of the Act which provides:50 Making assets forfeiture order(1) If, on an application for an assets forfeiture order, the High Court issatisfied on the balance of probabilities that specific property istainted property, the Court must make an assets forfeiture order inrespect of that specific property.[9] "Tainted property" is defined in s 5 of the Act as follows:tainted property—(a) means any property that has, wholly or in part, been—(i) acquired as a result of significant criminal activity; or(ii) directly or indirectly derived from significant criminalactivity; and(b) includes any property that has been acquired as a result of, or directlyor indirectly derived from, more than 1 activity if at least 1 of thoseactivities is a significant criminal activity[10] "Significant criminal activity" is in turn defined by s 6 of the Act as follows:6 Meaning of significant criminal activity(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, significant criminalactivity means an activity engaged in by a person that if proceededagainst as a criminal offence would amount to offending—(a) that consists of, or includes, 1 or more offences punishable bya maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years or more; or(b) from which property, proceeds, or benefits of a value of$30,000 or more have, directly or indirectly, been acquired orderived.(2) A person is undertaking an activity of the kind described in subsection(1) whether or not—(a) the person has been charged with or convicted of an offencein connection with the activity; or(b) the person has been acquitted of an offence in connection withthe activity; or(c) the person's conviction for an offence in connection with theactivity has been quashed or set aside.[11] Considering all these definitions together, the test as I see it may besummarised as being whether this Court is satisfied that it is more likely than not thatthe identified property in question was derived in some way from activity that, ifcharged as a criminal offence, would be punishable by a term of at least five years'imprisonment.[12] In the present case, the applicant seeks forfeiture of the subject property notedat [2] and [4] above on the basis that it is more likely than not to have been directly orindirectly derived from the supply of methamphetamine (an offence punishable by lifeimprisonment) for which the first respondent, Mr Tamihana, following a guilty plea,has been convicted and sentenced.[13] Indeed, on 1 June 2018, Mr Tamihana was sentenced in the District Court to13 years' imprisonment having pleaded guilty to charges of supplyingmethamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of supply. Aminimum non-parole period of six years and six months was also imposed.[14] At Mr Tamihana's sentencing, the District Court Judge described him and hisoffending in the following way:2You are at least the most comprehensive methamphetamine dealer thatHawke's Bay has ever seen and [the offending] puts you right up there on anational scale over the last 10 years as well. You have established an extensivedistributing network. There have been significant quantities distributed andsignificant profits.[15] Accordingly, there can be no question here that Mr Tamihana (also known asShane Thompson), had engaged in "significant criminal activity" for the purposes ofthe Act.2 R v Thompson [2018] NZDC 11394 at [8].[16] Further, as I understand the position, Mr Tamihana had declared no income fortax or other purposes since March 2013, prior to which time his declared income waslimited to modest sums which did not exceed a little over $49,000. Since that time,the applicant says Mr Tamihana acquired significant property (including the propertythat is the subject of the present application) and engaged in substantial gamblingactivity with no identifiable source of funds for either beyond his methamphetaminedealing. As a result, it is the applicant's contention that the subject property is "taintedproperty" in that it was purchased or acquired using or representing the profits ofmethamphetamine dealings.Procedural background[17] This proceeding has a lengthy and somewhat convoluted history. The presentApplication, filed on 26 October 2017, was the subject of a hearing before theHonourable Justice Clark in the Napier High Court on 5 October 2020. Ms Mitchellappeared as counsel for the applicant. There was no appearance for the first, second,third or fourth respondents, nor for any of the interested parties other than Mr Ross,who appeared as counsel for the first interested party, Michael Howard Allison(Mr Allison). Mr Allison had filed a Notice of Opposition to the Asset ForfeitureApplication but relating only to the residential property outlined at [2(a)] above knownas "Whitby Place".[18] At the conclusion of that High Court hearing on 5 October 2020, additionalsubmissions were to be filed and the applicant was granted leave to file furtheraffidavits addressing evidential matters that had been raised at that hearing by the firstinterested party, Mr Allison, for the first time in his oral evidence. A further affidavitin support of the present Application from Detective Sergeant Alex MacDonald dated29 October 2020 was accordingly filed. In addition, further submissions subsequentto that 5 October 2020 hearing were provided.[19] In the meantime, Her Honour Justice Clark retired as a Judge of the High Court.Various other communications, it seems, took place then between the Court, counselfor the applicant and counsel for Mr Allison. This led at one point to His HonourJustice Simon France issuing a minute on 24 September 2021 noting: "This matter hasstalled due to a lack of response by counsel for the first interested party [Mr Allison]".[20] Regrettably, it seems finality has still not been reached in this matter.Accordingly, in the last week or two, it was suggested to the interested partiesremaining, the applicant, and Mr Allison, that this matter might be the subject of afurther hearing before a new Judge to rehear the evidence involved.[21] In response, both Ms Mitchell, counsel for the applicant and Mr Ross, counselfor Mr Allison, confirmed on 2 May 2022 and 3 May 2022, respectively, that a furtherhearing was not required here. Instead, they said what was sought was a decision onthe papers from this Court based upon all the material filed, including the recordednotes of evidence of the 5 October 2020 hearing.[22] This matter was then referred to me. I have had an opportunity to consider allthe material which is before the Court and now give that decision.The Application for an Asset Forfeiture Order[23] Effectively no opposition has been filed to this Application by or on behalf ofMr Tamihana, or any of the other respondents or indeed by any of the interested partiesother than by Mr Allison, and relating only to the Whitby Place property. (Althoughas I understand it Mr Tamihana initially may have expressed some opposition to thepresent application, he has done nothing further and now indicates he will simply abidethe decision of this Court). Effectively, Mr Tamihana therefore is not pursuing thatopposition.[24] And, so far as the property referred to at [2] (b), (c), (d), and (e) above, beingthe Toyota Hilux, the contents of the Baywide bank account and cash are concerned,along with the five Louis Vuitton bags, outlined at [4] above, the application for AssetForfeiture Orders relating to these is effectively undefended and unopposed. As to thisproperty, I am satisfied the requirements of the Act are met and the orders sought areproperly made by this Court. Those orders are to follow.[25] The sole outstanding issue for this Court therefore relates to the residentialWhitby Place property. As to Whitby Place, the present application as I note isopposed by Mr Allison as the registered legal owner. He claims too that at all timeshe was the true and beneficial owner of Whitby Place, and that his opposition to thepresent application was pursued both at the 5 October 2020 hearing and in submissionssubsequently advanced for Mr Allison here by his counsel, Mr Ross.[26] Effectively, therefore, this disputed issue relating to who may be the genuinebeneficial owner of the Whitby Place property is the question requiring resolutionhere.[27] In Mr Allison's formal Notice of Opposition to the Asset Forfeiture OrderApplication (relating as it does to the Whitby Place property), he sets out the followinggrounds in opposition to the making of the order sought:(a) The first respondent [Mr Tamihana] is not and never has been eitherthe legal or beneficial owner of the [Whitby Place] property;(b) The first respondent does not and never has had any control, effectiveor otherwise, over the property;(c) The second respondent [Nerrisha Grant] did, from time to time, priorto the first interested party [Mr Allison] having any knowledge of hercriminal offending, act as his agent in the administration of theproperty but otherwise has not had any control over the property.(d) No part of the funds used to obtain the property was known by thefirst interested party to be derived from the respondents.(e) If it transpired that any funds passed from the first or secondrespondents to the first interested party they were gambling winningswon legitimately through participation in games of chance, conductedat a time prior to the first interested party having any knowledge [of]any [of] the first and second respondents' serious criminal offending.(f) The first interested party acquired the funds applied towards thepurchase of the property legitimately.Evidence relating to Whitby Place[28] At the outset, Mr Allison accepts in his evidence there is no dispute first, thathe had a lengthy involvement with Mr Tamihana and the second respondent, NerrishaGrant (Mr Tamihana's wife/partner), and secondly, that he and Mr Tamihana werefriends for some time and had common interests, particularly relating to gambling.Mr Allison accepted, too – without question – that Mr Tamihana was a large scaledistributor of methamphetamine and a major and accomplished casino gambler. Tohis credit, Mr Ross on behalf of Mr Allison also confirmed that insofar asWhitby Place is concerned, if the Court accepts it is proven that Mr Tamihana had agenuine beneficial interest in this property, then the forfeiture order sought here by theapplicant would be irresistible, given Mr Tamihana's serious criminal offending.[29] Throughout, Mr Allison does maintain in his evidence, however, thatMr Tamihana had no interest whatsoever, whether legal or beneficial, in the WhitbyPlace property. He says the property belongs entirely to him, Mr Allison, confirmedby his being recorded as legal owner on the title, he having provided the $40,000deposit funds for its purchase, and he having arranged the $140,000 mortgage.[30] I now turn to what I consider are important aspects here regarding this issue ofgenuine beneficial ownership of Whitby Place.Source of the $40,000 deposit[31] In his 22 June 2020 affidavit, Mr Allison initially deposed that the $40,000deposit funds for the Whitby Place purchase "were derived from gambling" andlodged in cash in early December 2016 in his NZCU Baywide account. Settlement ofthe purchase it seems did not occur until over one month later on or about16 January 2017.[32] As to his later evidence before the Court (including his oral evidence on5 October 2020), I am satisfied Mr Allison's further explanations regarding themechanics of the purchase of the property and his relationship to it "evolved"somewhat. The applicant maintains that in fact this evidence changed significantlyover recent times. I address that claim further below.[33] Earlier, on 28 September 2017, Mr Allison had voluntarily attended and gavea statement at the Napier Police Station regarding a search of his home address thathad occurred a week prior. In the statement he gave on that day, Mr Allison providedthe following explanation regarding the purchase of Whitby Place:I own 3 Whitby Place; I purchased it after winning a bit of money fromSkyCity. I also had a bit of money at home as well. I bought Whitby Placefor $180,000, I had a cash deposit of $40,000, I had wins over a few visits tothe Auckland SkyCity casino which totalled to $35,000 and I had $5,000 savedup at home.I had wins probably over a six year period from Auckland SkyCity. I cashedin the chips that I won on the table. My biggest win would probably be around$7,000 from the Omaha game. You can keep the chips and just cash them inwhenever you like, you don't have to cash it in each time you are there.I have a SkyCity swipe card I use it every time I'm there.[34] Subsequently, Mr Allison attended a formal examination with DetectiveSergeant Alex MacDonald which took place on 19 December 2018. During thatexamination, Mr Allison produced the records of his SkyCity membership card andstated that for the two years that he had held that card he used it "pretty much all thetime" but that there "mighta been the odd time" when he attended the casino but didnot have the card on him.[35] At that same examination, when asked again to define the source of the$40,000 deposit paid to purchase Whitby Place, Mr Allison stated that $20,000 hadcome from an occasion when he had had a "lucky hit" at the baccarat table "when Iwas there on the 26th [of November 2016]" while the other $20,000 took the form ofcash and chips that he had saved over five or six years of gambling at the casino.[36] Later, on 22 June 2020 (after Mr Allison had for some 10 months been inreceipt of affidavits from others establishing that SkyCity held no record of himwinning $20,000 at baccarat or any other game on 26 November 2016 or indeed onany other date) Mr Allison swore the affidavit noted at [31] above that implied the$20,000 in chips that were cashed on 26 November 2016 had been amassed throughprior and unspecified activity at the casino rather than at any one game. The affidavitmade no mention of baccarat.[37] Next, from the notes of evidence of the 5 October 2020 oral hearing, it seemsclear that Mr Allison resiled entirely from his earlier explanation that he had won$20,000 at baccarat. As to this, he claimed to have misunderstoodSergeant MacDonald's earlier question, notwithstanding that he had it seems at theexamination repeated this explanation a number of times. His claim at this point itappears changed again. He said that the $20,000 in chips that had been cashed at thecasino on 26 November 2016 had been accumulated over time but was simply "toppedup" to $20,000 by a win at baccarat. Notably, SkyCity had no record of Mr Allisonmaking any win of substance at baccarat on that date.[38] When pressed as to the source of the other $20,000 of the $40,000 deposit paidfor Whitby Place, in his oral evidence on 5 October 2020, Mr Allison presented whatseemed to be an entirely fresh explanation for these funds. In this explanation,Mr Allison now claimed to have cashed casino chips over multiple private"high roller" poker games with Chinese players (not held at the casino) to obtain thesecash funds. No details of times or dates or specific locations of these games wereprovided. Nor, the applicant says, could Mr Allison provide any coherent explanationas to how his apparent success in these games could be reconciled with his overallpattern of losses within the casino nor as to why he would choose to cash chips at suchgames as opposed to at the casino directly. It does appear also that he was unable tooffer any explanation as to why he had not given this account of his possession of thecash to Police or to this Court in his earlier affidavits.[39] What does seem clear to me here is that Mr Allison has had some difficulty inadequately and consistently explaining the source of funds used for the Whitby Placepurchase deposit. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Mr Allison's evolvingexplanations for the source of the $40,000 in cash used to pay the purchase deposithave changed as intervening periods of evidence from the applicant discrediting hisearlier explanations have arrived. Further, it is clear Mr Allison accepts in his evidencethat he is a problem gambler. The SkyCity records show, too, him making an overallloss at his times at the casino relevant to present matters of around $4,000. All thesematters must, as I see it, raise some question as to the credibility of his evidencerelating to the source of the deposit for Whitby Place.Activities and management of the property since purchase[40] Since its purchase, Mr Allison confirms in his evidence he has not lived inWhitby Place at all. He says it has been rented. No rental details, rental or taxationreturns or the like, however, have been provided to the Police or to the Court.[41] When first spoken to by Police on 28 September 2017, Mr Allison whollyrejected any association by Mr Tamihana with the property. As recorded in a PoliceJob Sheet from the affidavit of Emmett Lynch dated 18 July 2019 filed herein, MrAllison had stated on 28 September 2017:I'm the only owner there's no one else involved. Shane has no involvementin the property at all.I talked to Shane in general about the purchase of this place but Shane has noinvolvement whatsoever in the property at 3 Whitby Place.[42] Subsequently, at his later examination on 19 December 2018, Mr Allisonclaimed however that Mr Tamihana's partner, the second respondent Ms Grant, wasacting as a property manager for him in relation to Whitby Place. This, he said, wasas payment for a debt of $5,000 that Mr Tamihana owed him arising out of a pokergame that had occurred on 26 November 2016. However, no further explanation as tothe debt was given.[43] Notably, this explanation was advanced more than a year after Mr Allison hadreceived the applicant's affidavit of Sergeant Alex MacDonald dated 5 October 2017,an affidavit which had provided evidence that established a strong link betweenMr Tamihana, Ms Grant and Whitby Place.[44] In a later affidavit sworn 22 June 2020, Mr Allison stated:Shane has had nothing whatever to do with the property. I did employ hispartner as a "caretaker" as they lived in Akina, Hastings whereas I lived inPuketapu and they were far closer than I wasI did not actually pay cash to Shane's partner as she owed me some moneyfrom gambling and this was a means of settling that debt which worked to ourmutual advantage.[45] This later explanation, however, does seem to be inconsistent with Mr Allison'searlier explanation of a poker debt owing to him from Mr Tamihana. Significantly, inoral evidence at the 5 October 2020 hearing, Mr Allison reverted to his earlierexplanation that the alleged debt had stemmed from Mr Tamihana and not fromMs Grant. Further, no explanation was given as to why Mr Tamihana, who, accordingto Mr Allison, had significant cash at all times, had not simply paid off the $5,000debt.Documentation[46] Despite invitation on a number of occasions from the applicant and the Court,Mr Allison has put no relevant documentation before the Court in any way to back upclaims he makes relating to Whitby Place. As a bare minimum, no confirmation ofpayment by him of rates, insurance, repair costs or receipt of rental is provided.Instead, as I understand it, direct evidence is before the Court that on relevantoccasions rates (amounting to almost $1,600), other payments and some repair costs(including a plumbing repair invoice) have been paid (it seems generally in cash) byMr Tamihana and Ms Grant. Further, it is clear from evidence that Mr Tamihana hashimself on a number of occasions confirmed to others that the property is his.3Mr Allison endeavours to explain this away, however, by saying that Mr Tamihana issimply boasting and that he is wrong on this.[47] Further indications regarding ownership of Whitby Place from evidence beforethe Court include the fact that Mr Allison's father, with whom he lives, unequivocallystated to the Police that his son does not own any property at all and he has never heardof the Whitby Place property. Again, Mr Allison endeavoured to explain this away onthe basis of a claim his father does not know everything about him. Even acceptingthat, it might still be regarded as somewhat surprising in my view that major familyissues here, such as ownership of a home, are matters not to be shared with a parentwith whom one lives on a daily basis.3 Undisputed evidence is also before the Court that Mr Tamihana has referred to "his tenants" atWhitby Place (being teachers and parents of friends) and paying "rates for our house" at WhitbyPlace. Further evidence has been provided confirming that Hastings District Council materialshowing property and valuation details for Whitby Place, obtained just before its purchasenegotiations in December 2017, were located at Mr Tamihana's residence.General veracity and credibility of Mr Allison[48] For the first time, it was at the 5 October 2020 hearing that issues arose andwere the subject of cross-examination over certain intercepted mobile telephone calls.Mr Allison disputed that he was the individual identified by Police in a number ofthese calls made to Mr Tamihana, calls that might suggest some knowledge ofMr Tamihana's drug dealing activities and further supply by the caller of Mr Tamihanawith cannabis for on sale. However, the direct relevance of this to matters before theCourt here is somewhat sketchy. Nevertheless, Mr Allison does deny that he was theperson on these calls. He claimed instead that his cell phone in question, which was awork phone, was used by a number of his employees. In explanation for why he hadnot previously raised this issue, Mr Allison claimed not to have read the evidencebefore the Court relating to these phone calls.[49] The applicant says here significant doubts must arise relating to this swornevidence of Mr Allison. The cell phone it seems is clearly Mr Allison's, noting therecorded answerphone message on it which states "Michael Allison here. Leave amessage sweet".[50] According to the applicant, the cell phone evidence goes directly to issues overMr Allison's credibility. As such, these phone aspects, linked also to his manychanging claims over ownership issues relating to Whitby Place, the applicant saysmust be seen as significant. Weighing up all matters before me, I am satisfiedMr Allison's evidence in relation to the acquisition and management of theWhitby Place property has been somewhat inconsistent. It has changed and evolvedover time in what I accept are attempts to answer developing evidence provided by theapplicant. I am satisfied from all the evidence before the Court, including the notes ofevidence of the 5 October 2020 hearing, that it is difficult to conclude other than thatMr Allison with his regularly changing position cannot be seen as a credible witnesson the crucial matters the Court is required to decide here.[51] Evidence is before the Court, too, that Mr Tamihana particularly, and alsothrough his partner, Ms Grant, played a significant role in paying for and managingthe upkeep of the Whitby Place property. As I have noted, he had in his possessionsignificant paperwork relevant to the property. Mr Tamihana represented on a numberof occasions that he – Mr Tamihana – owned the Whitby Place property, and he hadtenanted it. Ms Grant was clearly the property manager for Whitby Place for a timefrom the outset, as tenants confirmed. Even Mr Allison himself accepted this. Overall,I am satisfied it is Mr Tamihana who is the likely source of the funds made availablefor payment of the deposit for the purchase of the property. The applicant here in myview has done sufficient to show, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Tamihana isthe true beneficial owner of Whitby Place and that Mr Allison, despite being shown asthe legal owner on the title to the property, does not have a beneficial interest in it. Iam satisfied it is more likely than not that the Whitby Place property was purchased inMr Allison's name on behalf of Mr Tamihana and, as such, Whitby Place is taintedproperty in terms of the Act.Result[52] For all the reasons I have outlined above, the application for Asset ForfeitureOrders over all the property outlined at [2] and [4] above succeeds.[53] Orders are now made as follows:(a) The following property being:(i) all interests in the property at 3 Whitby Place, Flaxmere,Hastings registered in the name of Michael Howard Allison,described in certificate of title HBD2/711, legal description Lot64 DP 12304, other than the interests of Credit Union Baywideunder the registered mortgage 10672912.3 but under theeffective control of Shane Tamihana (the first respondent);(ii) a 2006 Toyota Hilux 3.0TD 4WD including ignition keys,registration DKF725, and registered in the name of John Doe(the Hilux) but under the effective control of Shane Tamihana(the first respondent);(iii) the contents of a CU Baywide bank account number 03 17530636956 00, in the name of Shane Tamihana (the firstrespondent), with an approximate balance of $33,856 (the CUBaywide account ending 56 00);(iv) cash totalling $41,536.40, seized from 901B Dufferin Street,Akina, Hastings on 13 September 2017;(v) $15,000 cash retrieved from Stephen Hill Motors Hastings paidby Shane Tamihana (the first respondent); and(vi) five Louis Vuitton bags with protective coverings seized from901B Dufferin Street, Akina, Hastings on 13 September 2017;vests in the Crown absolutely; and is to be in the Official Assignee'scustody and control.(b) Costs, if at issue here, are reserved.Gendall J