COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v GOLDING [2019] NZHC 2895
Given the affidavit evidence linking the respondent to a methamphetamine operation, the respondent's admissions that the $15,845 derived from his involvement in criminal activity, and the lack of opposition, the court was satisfied the funds were criminal proceeds and granted a forfeiture order under the Criminal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZHC 2895
- Parties
- Applicant: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE; Respondent: STEVEN JOHN GOLDING
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 6 November 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under the Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 for Assets Forfeiture / Oral Judgment on Uncontested Forfeiture Application
- Outcome
- Assets forfeiture order granted
- Legal Topics
- Forfeiture Order, Criminal Proceeds, Evidence of Illicit Funds, Admission by Respondent, Unopposed Application
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Applicant
STEVEN JOHN GOLDING
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 for Assets Forfeiture / Oral Judgment on Uncontested Forfeiture Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the cash seized was proceeds of criminal activity and therefore forfeitable under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009
- 2 Whether the respondent's admissions and the affidavit evidence suffice to grant an assets forfeiture order
- 3 Whether any procedural or evidentiary bar to forfeiture existed given no appearance by respondent
Ratio Decidendi
Given the affidavit evidence linking the respondent to a methamphetamine operation, the respondent's admissions that the $15,845 derived from his involvement in criminal activity, and the lack of opposition, the court was satisfied the funds were criminal proceeds and granted a forfeiture order under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.
Court Disposition
Assets forfeiture order granted
Orders
- Assets forfeiture order in respect of the sum of $15,845 seized by police from the respondent on 20 April 2015
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v GOLDING [2019] NZHC 2895 [6 November 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2019-404-1990[2019] NZHC 2895UNDER The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND STEVEN JOHN GOLDINGRespondentHearing: 6 November 2019Counsel: C Stubbington for PlaintiffNo appearance for RespondentJudgment: 6 November 2019ORAL JUDGMENT OF WHATA JSolicitors: Pollett Legal Limited, Tauranga[1] This is an application for an assets forfeiture order in relation to an amount ofcash found by police during a search warrant that was executed at the respondent'sproperty in April 2015. The respondent has been served with both the application forasset forfeiture and the affidavit in support. The respondent has also been examinedin relation to the money seized that is subject to the forfeiture order. He admitted helied about the source of cash when the money was first seized, stating:"Well I, I gave the Police a story. I told them that um that I'd, it was savings and youknow I didn't use a bank and that ah I, I think I gave them a like, it was still part ofmy RTW money um, yeah, but that, that'd be on record I'd say with them. But ofcourse I lied about where you know it came from but yeah it had, that's part and parcelof the course so I'm not lying about it now but back then I did ..."[2] He also confirmed that he had no assets besides the money seized by the policeand that he was living a cash lifestyle while involved in the drug scene.[3] The further background is that Mr Golding was part of a methamphetamineoperation and there is substantial evidence linking him to that methamphetamineoperation, as set out in the affidavit of Ya Tsui. It is further noted in the affidavit insupport that the respondent confirmed the $15,845 cash seized by police came fromhis involvement in the drug scene and the money was as a result of his involvement incriminal activities, including manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine.[4] Given this and the fact the respondent does not oppose the application, theassets forfeiture order is granted on the terms sought. In summary, there shall be anassets forfeiture order in respect of the sum of $15,845 seized by police from therespondent on 20 April 2015.