COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SHAHIDAN [2021] NZHC 1328

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SHAHIDAN [2021] NZHC 1328 [8 June 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2020-404-0594[2021] NZHC 1328BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND SHAHIDRAWADEY BIN SHAHIDANRespondentHearing: 9 and 10 February 2021Counsel: M Harborow and A Masters for applicantRespondent in personJudgment: 8 June 2021JUDGMENT OF KATZ JThis judgment was delivered by me on 8 June 2021 at 3:00 pmPursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors: Meredith Connell, AucklandCopy to: S B Shahidan (respondent)Introduction[1] The Commissioner of Police alleges that Shahidrawadey bin Shahidan hasunlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity through involvement in moneylaundering, receiving and the unlawful provision of financial services.[2] Funds ("Igateway Funds") held in two Bank of New Zealand ("BNZ") bankaccounts ("Igateway 00" and "Igateway 01" respectively) are alleged by theCommissioner to be the proceeds of this criminal activity. As at 23 April 2020, thebalance of the Igateway 00 account was $35,438.51 and the balance of the Igateway 01account was $1,842,208.15.[3] Restraining orders under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009("the Act") have previously been made over the Igateway Funds on a "without notice"basis. The Commissioner now applies on an "on notice" basis for those orders to becontinued.[4] Mr Shahidan opposes the Commissioner's application. He says he has not beeninvolved in significant criminal activity and, further, that the Igateway Funds are not"tainted" property in terms of the Act.Relevant legal principles – restraining orders[5] Restraining orders are interim in nature.1 They have a statutory life of12 months but may be extended upon application.2 Restraining orders do not inthemselves forfeit property rights.3 Their purpose is to maintain the status quo pendingdetermination of an application by the Commissioner for civil forfeiture orders(asset forfeiture orders and/or profit forfeiture orders).4 They may relate to all or partof a respondent's property, including property over which a person has "effectivecontrol".51 Vincent v Commissioner of Police [2013] NZCA 412 at [45].2 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, ss 37(1) and 41.3 Commissioner of Police v Li [2014] NZHC 479 at [5].4 At [5].5 At [5].Section 24 restraining order – tainted property[6] To make a restraining order under s 24, the court must have reasonable groundsto believe that the property sought to be restrained is "tainted" property. Taintedproperty is any property that has, wholly or in part, been acquired as a result ofsignificant criminal activity or derived directly or indirectly from significant criminalactivity.6 The respondent need not be engaged in the significant criminal activitypersonally, provided the property was wholly or partially derived from significantcriminal activity.7 Significant criminal activity is activity from which property,proceeds or benefits of a value of $30,000 or more have been acquired (directly orindirectly).8Section 25 restraining order – unlawful benefit from significant criminal activity[7] In the alternative, a restraining order may be granted under s 25 if there arereasonable grounds to believe that a person has "unlawfully benefited" fromsignificant criminal activity. A person will have unlawfully benefited from suchactivity if he or she has knowingly derived a benefit from it, either directly orindirectly.9[8] The making of a restraining order under s 25 does not require that the propertysought to be restrained is itself derived from significant criminal activity. Whatmatters is the knowing receipt of financial reward from crime. Knowledge hereincludes wilful blindness.10The threshold requirement – "reasonable grounds for belief"[9] Both s 24 and s 25 require that there be reasonable grounds for belief that theprovisions of the relevant section have been met. In Vincent v Commissioner of Police,6 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 5(1).7 Doorman v Commissioner of Police [2013] NZCA 476, [2014] 2 NZLR 173 at [32]–[36].8 Section 6(1)(b).9 Section 7.10 Vincent v Commissioner of Police [2013] NZCA 412 at [48]-[53].the Court of Appeal made the following observations about this thresholdrequirement:11It is important to recall what the judge must be satisfied about before issuinga restraining order. He or she must be satisfied that there are "reasonablegrounds to believe" that the property is tainted property or that the relevantperson unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity. The judge isnot required to make a finding that the relevant property is tainted property orthat the particular person did in fact unlawfully benefit from significantcriminal activity restraining orders will often need to be obtained in situations of urgency,as is illustrated by the provision for "without notice" applications. They are,as we have said, temporary orders, which give the police time to gather furtherevidence, and may lead to forfeiture but only on the completion of furtherprocesses. Restraining orders are issued on the basis of reasonable grounds tobelieve, rather than proof, that the target has unlawfully benefited fromsignificant criminal activity[10] The threshold required for making restraining orders is therefore relatively low,consistent with their role as a "holding" measure.12The evidence required[11] The Commissioner may rely on a range of evidence in seeking to establish thata respondent has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity. For example,unlawful benefit may be established as a result of inferences drawn from a number ofstrands of circumstantial evidence.13 In Commissioner of Police v Hayward, VenningJ stated: 14[22] The Commissioner can invite the Court to infer that therespondent was involved in other significant criminal activities that he wasnot charged with. The Commissioner can also, for instance, rely on thedisparity between moneys passing through the respondent's bank account orfinding its way into the purchase of assets as compared to his declaredlegitimate income to prove or establish the benefit the respondent receivedfrom his significant criminal activities.11 At [45] and [47].12 Commissioner of Police v Li [2014] NZHC 479 at [8]; and Commissioner of Police v Antolik[2016] NZHC 2649 at [33].13 Commissioner of Police v de Wys [2016] NZCA 634 at [9].14 Commissioner of Police v Hayward [2012] NZHC 1097. This statement was made in the contextof an application for profit forfeiture orders under s 52, to which the higher standard of proofapplies by virtue of s 53.[12] A particularly important strand of circumstantial evidence will often bethe possession of significant funds of unexplained or unidentified source. InCommissioner of Police v de Wys, the Court of Appeal observed that:15[71] We accept the Commissioner's submission that the possession of largesums of unidentified income is potentially very significant. If the cash sumscannot be adequately explained then this will tend to support an inference thatthe relevant cash has been sourced from illegitimate or criminal activity.Referring to the other circumstantial evidence in this case will then assist indetermining the likely nature of such activity.[13] I will first consider whether there are grounds for making a restraining orderunder s 25. If there are, it will not be necessary to consider the alternative basis for arestraining order, in s 24.[14] In order to make a restraining order under s 25, I must be satisfied that thereare reasonable grounds for belief that:(a) significant criminal activity has taken place;(b) proceeds or benefits in excess of $30,000 have been acquired or derived(directly or indirectly) from such criminal activity;(c) Mr Shahidan has unlawfully benefited from this "significant criminalactivity"; and(d) the property sought to be restrained is property which Mr Shahidan haseither an interest in, or effective control of.Are there reasonable grounds for belief that significant criminal activity hastaken place?[15] The Commissioner alleges that Mr Shahidan has unlawfully benefited fromsignificant criminal activity by:(a) laundering and receiving the proceeds of the fraudulent VenusFXforeign exchange ("Forex") trading scheme into the Igateway 00 andIgateway 01 accounts in New Zealand; and15 Commissioner of Police v de Wys [2016] NZCA 634.(b) unlawfully providing a financial service in or from New Zealand.[16] Based on the affidavit evidence filed, and the cross-examination ofMr Shahidan, the relevant background appears to be as follows.The establishment and activities of VenusFX[17] VenusFX purported to offer a range of investment services, including Forextrading. The VenusFX trading scheme is alleged to have been established byMr Shahidan and a number of associates in Malaysia. Mr Shahidan was the ChiefOperating Officer of VenusFX.[18] The Commissioner alleges that Venus Financial Markets Limited("Venus Financial Markets") was, in effect, the corporate entity underpinning orassociated with the VenusFX scheme. Venus Financial Markets is a New Zealandcompany. It was registered in New Zealand on 11 December 2015, with Mr Shahidanas its sole director and shareholder.[19] Under the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute ResolutionAct) 2008 ("FSP Act"), financial service providers who fall within the scope of theFSP Act are required to be registered on a public register and be part of an approveddispute resolution scheme.16[20] VenusFX/Venus Financial Markets held itself out to be in the business ofproviding financial services, being Forex trading. On the VenusFX website homepage,it stated:We enable anyone to invest alongside professional investors in foreignmarkets, crude oil business and growth businesses through equity, debt andinvestment fund options. Join the over 2,000-strong crowd looking for moreinteresting investments – it's big opportunities, quick and has no obligations.[21] Venus Financial Markets was not, however, registered as a Financial ServiceProvider in New Zealand. Mr Shahidan states in his affidavit that he applied forregistration of Venus Financial Markets but that this application was rejected. Further16 Section 11.investigation by the Commissioner, however, indicates that Mr Shahidan's applicationto register Venus Financial Markets expired after he failed to respond to verificationquestions and requests.[22] VenusFX advertised itself as a legitimate Forex trading service. TheCommissioner alleges that investors were invited and encouraged to transfer fundsinto bank accounts associated with VenusFX (including the Igateway accounts) in thehope that the scheme would rapidly return large profits. The VenusFX website statedit was Asia's leading investment platform and a Facebook page associated with thescheme regularly posted about the large profits that investors were making.[23] VenusFX appears to have falsely claimed on its Facebook page that it had a"broker legal registration certificate." The document it displayed in support of thisclaim, however, was simply the New Zealand Companies Office "Certificate ofIncorporation" for Venus Financial Markets.[24] Further, on the VenusFX website, the company claimed to be a member of theFinancial Services Complaints Limited ("FSCL"). This is an external disputeresolution scheme established under the FSP Act. FSCL has confirmed that VenusFinancial Markets was not a FSCL partner.[25] Although Mr Shahidan claimed in cross-examination that investors did theirown Forex trading and VenusFX did not undertake this service on their behalf, thisclaim lacked credibility and was not supported by the contemporaneous documentsprovided by the Commissioner. These documents indicated that VenusFX in factcontrolled the investment of funds and investors could not (and did not) do their owntrading.Mr Shahidan's role in VenusFX[26] Mr Shahidan claimed in his affidavit that he had only a minor role in VenusFX,primarily as a programmer doing technical work on the "back end of the system". Heclaimed not to have been involved in financial matters.[27] It appears, however, from the statement that Mr Shahidan made to the RoyalMalaysian Police that his role (on his own admission) was significantly greater thanthat.17 For example, he admitted being a founder of the venture, along with severalfriends:In 2014, I got to know Sukri at an forex investment company, NexusFX, wherehe was a marketing officer and he suggested that we start an investment knownas VenusFX. At this point I invited my friends Firdaus and Syfia to help meexpand this VenusFX forex business.[28] Mr Shahidan created and administered VenusFX's website and uploaded itsmarketing plan. He was involved in the process of (unsuccessfully) applying for afinancial services licence for VenusFX in Malaysia. He was also the sole shareholderand director of Venus Financial Markets in New Zealand and applied (unsuccessfully)to register that company on the New Zealand Financial Service Providers Register.[29] Finally, several YouTube videos of VenusFX events were put to Mr Shahidanin cross-examination. The relevant videos strongly support the inference thatMr Shahidan was a much more central figure in VenusFX than he was willing to admit.Amongst other things, he is shown giving speeches promoting the scheme,encouraging investment in the scheme and, later, fronting up to disgruntled investors.The Igateway accounts[30] Two days before Mr Shahidan registered Venus Financial Marketson 11 December 2015, he registered another New Zealand company, IgatewayLimited ("Igateway"). Mr Shahidan was the sole director and shareholder of Igateway.[31] The Commissioner alleges that Igateway traded as "IZZIPAY", which helditself out to be a payment processing website. Mr Shahidan disputed that assertion,but it is supported by contemporaneous documentation provided by the Commissioner.The Commissioner accordingly submitted that a deposit using IZZIPAY was likely a17 Mr Shahidan challenged the admissibility of that statement in this proceeding. I accept theCommissioner's submission, however, that the statement is admissible. Malaysian law does notapply to the statement. Its admissibility falls to be determined under the provisions of the EvidenceAct 2006. There is no evidence to suggest that the statement is unreliable (s 28), influenced byoppression (s 29), or improperly obtained (s 30).payment into the Igateway accounts. On the VenusFX website, IZZIPAY was listedas the "Partner" of VenusFX.[32] Between 24 February and 27 September 2016, funds totalling $2,201,383.65were deposited into the Igateway accounts. The timing of these deposits coincideswith the period in which VenusFX is believed to have operated, with the company'swebsite being active from around January 2016 to January 2017.[33] In May 2016, BNZ placed a "stop" on the Igateway accounts. BNZ askedMr Shahidan for further information and supporting documentation regarding hisbusiness, the source of the deposits, and confirming his identity. Mr Shahidan told arepresentative of BNZ that the funds deposited into the Igateway accounts related tohis business of providing system software services. Mr Shahidan failed, however, toprovide any of the documentation requested by BNZ.[34] In his affidavit, Mr Shahidan repeated the claims he had made to BNZregarding the Igateway accounts. Mr Shahidan stated that when he was instructed toopen VenusFX in New Zealand, he took the opportunity to open another company atthe same time for his software programming business. Because most of his clientswere internationally based, it was "sensible to have an international account". Heclaimed that his non-Malaysian software clients were instructed to deposit theirpayments into this account. Further, the Igateway accounts were his "saving accounts"so no withdrawals were made.[35] Mr Shahidan was cross-examined at some length on these assertions. Many ofhis answers lacked credibility. For example, he was asked to explain a 2 July 2016post on a Facebook page in the name of VenusFX regarding circulation of overseasbank account numbers for investor deposits. That post stated that:(a) investors living in Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand,Sri Lanka and the Philippines were to deposit funds into the Igateway01 account;(b) for investors in Malaysia, India, Indonesia and China, VenusFX hadestablished bank accounts in each of those countries for deposits to bepaid into; and(c) investors from other countries were instructed, as a default, to pay theirdeposits into the Igateway 01 bank account.[36] Mr Shahidan suggested (entirely implausibly) that the relevant Facebook page,despite being headed VenusFX was not in fact VenusFX's Facebook page and that theinstructions to investors to deposit money into the Igateway 01 account (of whichMr Shahidan was the sole signatory and account holder) had been posted by someunrelated person, for unknown reasons. Nor could Mr Shahidan explain why at leastone depositor specifically referenced their deposit into the Igateway account"VenusFX". Further, it seems inherently improbable that Mr Shahidan, apparentlyworking on his own, would have been able to generate revenue of over $2 million forsoftware programming services over a seven month period when he was also workingfulltime as the Chief Operating Officer for VenusFX.[37] Annexed to Mr Shahidan's affidavit were a number of deposit slips/banktransfer forms which documented payments of foreign currency into the Igatewayaccounts. Mr Shahidan claimed that these deposit slips showed payments for softwareservices, but there is nothing on the face of the documents to support that claim. Ifurther note that the transfer forms show payments from Kenya and Singapore and aretherefore consistent with the instructions given in the 2 July 2016 Facebook post.[38] The Commissioner's analysis of the Igateway accounts indicates that otherthan some payments that appear to relate to bank fees, no funds were returned todepositors (the alleged investors) of the $2,201,383.65 that was transferred into theIgateway accounts between 24 February 2016 and 27 September 2016. Those depositsranged in value from $58.64 to $84,785.69. There was no bank account activity toindicate that any of the deposited funds were invested. Some of the Igateway Fundswere transferred into other New Zealand bank accounts controlled by Mr Shahidan.Otherwise, there were minimal expenses coming out of the Igateway accounts. Itappears they were only used to receive deposits.[39] Almost all of the depositors into the Igateway accounts were individuals, notcompanies, as one might expect if the payments were from international clients whohad engaged Mr Shahidan's software programming services.[40] Finally, neither Venus Financial Markets nor Igateway declared any income tothe Inland Revenue Department (whether derived from a software programmingbusiness, or any other business) for the relevant period. Nor has Mr Shahidan declaredany personal income to Inland Revenue.Investigations in Malaysia[41] In 2016, a number of complaints were made to the Royal Malaysian Police bypersons in Malaysia claiming they had lost money from investing in the scheme. TheRoyal Malaysian Police commenced an investigation under s 420 of the MalaysianPenal Code, which relates to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.Mr Harborow, counsel for the Commissioner, submitted (and I accept) that inNew Zealand the equivalent offences would be theft by a person in a specialrelationship18 and obtaining by deception.19[42] On 6 June 2016, VenusFX was placed on the Malaysian Financial ConsumerAlert List. The list is apparently a guide to increase consumer awareness of entitieswhich may be wrongly perceived or represented as being licensed. Venus FinancialMarkets was placed on the Singaporean investor alert list on 29 July 2016. TheSingaporean list names unregulated people or entities who may be wrongly perceivedas being licensed or regulated.[43] The Royal Malaysian Police investigations concluded that Mr Shahidan andMohammad Sukri Bin Abdul Rahim were responsible for establishing and running theVenusFX investment scheme. Mr Shahidan and Mr Abdul Rahim are said to havedirected a third party, Vishnu Moorthy, to find investors. They are also said to havedirected other third parties to register a number of companies on their behalf in18 Crimes Act 1961, s 220.19 Crimes Act 1961, s 240.Malaysia, and to open bank accounts in the names of those companies. The bankaccounts were used to receive funds deposited by customers of VenusFX.[44] The Royal Malaysian Police investigation found that the operators of theVenusFX scheme made false claims and engaged in dishonest conduct, includingclaims of secured profits and segregated accounts for investors' funds.[45] Mr Shahidan, however, was never charged with or convicted of any crimes inMalaysia. Rather, the outcome of the Royal Malaysian Police investigation was thatMr Shahidan was subjected to a two-year supervision order under the MalaysianPrevention of Crime Act 1959. The conditions of his supervision included night-timeelectronic monitoring and regular reporting to a police station.[46] In March 2017, assets with a total value of approximately $1,096,932.20were seized (or subject to foreclosure orders) under the Malaysian Anti-MoneyLaundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001("AML/ATF Act"). This included $817,003 of funds that had been deposited byVenusFX investors into a bank account held in the name of an associate ofMr Shahidan. These funds were forfeited on the basis that they had been derived fromVenusFX's fraudulent activities and were the product of money launderingtransactions.[47] Three vehicles registered in the name of third parties but attributed toMr Shahidan and his associates were subsequently forfeited under the AML/ATF Act.This included a Mercedes Benz which Mr Shahidan acknowledged duringcross-examination was a company car that was provided to him for his personal use.The vehicle was in Mr Shahidan's possession when it was seized.The New Zealand police investigation[48] On 18 June 2019, Inspector Navindran Chandra of the Royal Malaysian Policecontacted the New Zealand police about their investigation of Mr Shahidan andVenusFX. Inspector Chandra had identified through enquiries with the National Bankof Malaysia that Mr Shahidan had been moving funds into bank accounts inNew Zealand, held in the name of Igateway, being the Igateway Funds. These werebelieved to be some of the proceeds of fraudulent offending by VenusFX in Malaysia.[49] Investigations by the New Zealand police identified that between February andSeptember 2016, deposits totalling over $2,201,383.65 were received into theIgateway accounts. At the time the without notice restraining orders were granted, thevalue of the Igateway Funds was $1,877,646.66.Discussion[50] I now turn to consider whether, based on the evidence I have outlined above,there are reasonable grounds for believing the significant criminal activity has takenplace.[51] First, I note that the VenusFX scheme operated internationally, including inMalaysia, Singapore and elsewhere. Money-laundering offences can, however,involve conduct occurring outside New Zealand. As the learned authors of Adams onCriminal Law observe:20First this may be where the property which is the proceeds of the offence hasbeen brought into or removed from New Zealand, the property itself can besituated in New Zealand or elsewhere, and the offence by which the propertywas derived can be committed outside New Zealand. For example, the creditstanding in a New Zealand bank account may be derived from the sale of drugsoverseas and transmitted through an overseas bank.[52] In Rodriguez v Commissioner of Police, the Court of Appeal addressed the useof domestic restraining orders where money laundering involves "predicateoffending" in overseas jurisdictions:21[26] Ms Guthrie made the point that money laundering can involve thecommission of an offence in multiple jurisdictions and that the courts haveregularly recognised the Act must respond in situations involving multi-jurisdictional crime. We agree with her submission that the purpose ofdeterrence must include deterring foreign criminals from using New Zealandas a haven to deposit the proceeds of crime, regardless of whether there hasbeen a request to act by a foreign state.20 Simon France (ed) Adams on Criminal Law – Offences and Defences (online looseleaf ed,Thomson Reuters) at [CA243.05].21 Rodriguez v Commissioner of Police [2020] NZCA 589.[29] We therefore agree that where money laundering is alleged in respectof funds located in New Zealand the Commissioner is at liberty to apply for adomestic restraining order under s 25 irrespective of where the so-calledpredicate offending may have occurred.[53] Counsel for the Commissioner also referred to various provisions of the CrimesAct 1961,22 which provide that the predicate offending can occur outside of thisjurisdiction, provided the conduct would amount to offending if it had been committedin New Zealand. Here, at least some of the predicate offending occurred overseas.The Commissioner also alleges, however, that significant criminal activity has alsotaken place in New Zealand including, money laundering, receiving,23 and breachingthe FSP Act.24[54] Money laundering, in essence, is dealing with the proceeds of criminal activityin such a way as to make the proceeds appear to have been legitimately acquired.Section 243 of the Crimes Act creates two different offences: one of money launderingand one of possession of the proceeds of crime with intent to money-launder thoseproceeds.25[55] I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that Mr Shahidanopened the Igateway bank accounts in New Zealand with the intention of receivingfunds from investors who believed they were investing in a legitimate Forex tradingscheme and that the subsequent deposit of the funds into the Igateway accounts wasintended to distance the funds from the fraudulent activity taking place in Malaysiaand elsewhere. It is clearly arguable that the accounts were established inNew Zealand in the name of Igateway (not VenusFX of Venus Financial Markets) inan attempt to distance the funds from the overseas investors and to attempt to disguisethe unlawful origin of the deposits.[56] In conclusion, based on the detailed evidence I have set out above, there areclearly reasonable grounds for believing that money laundering has taken place in asum that very significantly exceeds the $30,000 statutory threshold. There are also22 Sections 243(1), 246(2) and 246(5).23 Crimes Act 1961, ss 243 and 246.24 Sections 11 and 12.25 Simon France (ed) Adams on Criminal Law – Offences and Defences (online looseleaf ed,Thomson Reuters) at [CA243.05].reasonable grounds for believing that the offence of receiving (as set out in s 246 ofthe Crimes Act) had been committed in relation to the same funds.[57] Finally, I am satisfied that there are also reasonable grounds to believe thatMr Shahidan has breached ss 11 and 12 of the FSP Act. The FSP Act applies to personswho are in the business of providing a financial service in New Zealand.26 Itsterritorial scope extends to people ordinarily resident in New Zealand, or have a placeof business in New Zealand, regardless of where the financial service is provided.27The definition of "financial service" in the FSP Act includes: trading financialproducts or foreign exchange on behalf of other persons; providing forward foreignexchange contracts; and investing or managing money, securities or investmentportfolios on behalf of other persons.28[58] Under the FSP Act it is an offence to provide a financial service without beingregistered,29 as well as an offence to hold out that you are providing a financial serviceand are registered (even if no financial service is in fact provided).30 Mr Shahidanconfirmed that he applied for both VenusFX and Igateway to be registered on theFSP register. The application to register Venus Financial Markets expired inSeptember 2016 when Mr Shahidan did not respond to pre-registration verificationquestions and requests. The Igateway application expired in June 2016 whenMr Shahidan failed to respond to clarification requests regarding what type offinancial service was being provided by the company. Based on the evidence I haveoutlined above, however, there are reasonable grounds for belief that Venus FinancialMarkets, despite not being registered, provided financial services.[59] In conclusion, based on the evidence before the Court, there are reasonablegrounds for believing that significant criminal activity has taken place, being moneylaundering, receiving, and breaches of the FSP Act.26 Section 7.27 Section 7A(2)(d).28 Section 5.29 Section 11.30 Section 12.Are there reasonable grounds for believing that Mr Shahidan has unlawfullybenefitted from significant criminal activity?[60] The next issue is whether there are reasonable grounds for believing thatMr Shahidan has unlawfully benefited from this significant criminal activity.[61] A total of $2,201,383.65 was deposited into the Igateway accounts during theperiod when, it is alleged, VenusFX/Venus Financial Markets was fraudulentlyobtaining money from investors. As I have outlined above, there are clearlyreasonable grounds for believing that this money was deposited by those investors,and was not the proceeds of a legitimate software programming business.[62] Mr Shahidan is the sole account owner and authorised signatory for both ofthe Igateway accounts. There are therefore reasonable grounds for believing thatMr Shahidan has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity.Does Mr Shahidan have an interest in the Igateway Funds?[63] It is not disputed that Mr Shahidan has an interest in the Igateway Funds, andI am satisfied that he does. Mr Shahidan is the sole signatory on the Igateway accountsand the sole director and shareholder of both Igateway and Venus Financial Markets.Conclusion[64] The Commissioner has established that grounds exist for the making of arestraining order under s 25 of the Act and I am satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.It is therefore not necessary to consider whether there are also grounds to make arestraining order under s 24 of the Act.Result[65] I order that, until further order of the Court, the following property(collectively, the "Property") shall not be disposed of, or dealt with, by any personother than as provided for in this order, and is to be under the Official Assignee'scustody and control:(a) the credit balance of the BNZ Igateway 00 account (as more fullydescribed in the Commissioner's on notice application for restrainingorders dated 24 April 2020); and(b) the credit balance of the BNZ Igateway 01 account (as more fullydescribed in the Commissioner's on notice application for restrainingorders dated 24 April 2020).[66] If costs cannot be resolved between the parties, then leave is reserved to filememoranda. Any memorandum on behalf of the Commissioner is to be filed by28 June 2021. Any memorandum in response on behalf of Mr Shahidan is to be filedby 5 July 2021.____________________________Katz J