COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE v WALLACE [2018] NZHC 439

COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE v WALLACE [2018] NZHC 439 [14 March 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDDUNEDIN REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTEPOTI ROHECIV-2016-412-48[2018] NZHC 439BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF THENEW ZEALAND POLICEApplicantAND PHILLIP DAVID WALLACERespondentAND MICHAEL DESMOND JAMES WALLACEFirst Interested PartyDEIDRE JEAN SIMSecond Interested PartyHearing: 7 February 2018Appearances: M J Grills for the ApplicantNo appearance by or for the RespondentNo appearance by or for the First Interested PartyJ Turner for the Second Interested PartyJudgment: 14 March 2018JUDGMENT OF MANDER J[1] The Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) seeks an assets forfeitureorder in relation to two motorcycles with a combined value of $28,250, registered inthe name of the respondent, Mr Phillip Wallace. The second interested party,Ms Deidre Sim, opposes the application claiming that one of the motorcycles is herproperty.Background[2] Mr Wallace was convicted and sentenced on 13 July 2016 on 19 chargesrelating to his ongoing dealing in drugs between July 2014 and April 2016. Theconvictions included nine charges of selling cannabis, four charges of possessingcannabis for supply, two charges of offering to supply methamphetamine, one ofoffering to supply LSD, and notably three charges of supplying methylphenidate, morecommonly known as Ritalin. Mr Wallace was sentenced to a term of imprisonment oftwo years and three months.[3] His convictions on these charges represented a continuation of Mr Wallace'searlier offending for selling cannabis and offering to supply Ritalin in October andNovember 2013, for which he was convicted in June 2014 and sentenced to homedetention and community work.[4] Between July 2014 and September 2015, Mr Wallace made seven sales ofcannabis and two of Ritalin to an undercover officer. A search warrant was executedat Mr Wallace's address on 21 April 2016. The police obtained a production order fortext messaging data with respect to Mr Wallace's cellular phone. Some 21 personswere identified as being regular customers, with the text messaging consistent withMr Wallace having drugs for sale and performing transactions from his home address.The Ritalin was sourced by Mr Wallace from his sons' longstanding prescriptions forthe drug[5] The undercover officer found Mr Wallace was offering Ritalin for sale at$1 per mg. He was selling 10 mg tablets for $10 and 20 mg tablets for $20. Ministryof Health records documenting the Ritalin dispensed to Mr Wallace's two sonsrevealed that between October 2013 and April 2016, 2319 10 mg and 2325 20 mgRitalin tablets had been dispensed. At a street price of $1 per mg, this equates toRitalin with a street value of $69,690. The cannabis sold by Mr Wallace to theundercover officer on nine separate occasions was valued at $450.The Commissioner's application and the parties' responses[6] The Commissioner applies for assets forfeiture orders in respect of:(a) A 2005 Harley-Davidson Road King Custom motorcycle, colouredblack, registration no 94ZTJ (the Harley-Davidson), and(b) A 2000 Triumph Sprint motorcycle, coloured yellow, registrationno 92ULE (the Triumph).[7] Originally, the Commissioner also sought profit forfeiture orders, however,police inquiries revealed that Mr Wallace has no other assets beyond the vehicles.Mrs Grills, who appeared on behalf of the Commissioner, advised that theCommissioner sought to proceed only on his application for assets forfeiture orders.[8] Mr Wallace filed no opposition to the Commissioner's application forforfeiture and has taken no steps in the proceeding.[9] The first interested party, Mr Michael Wallace, has also taken no formal stepsto be heard on the Commissioner's application. After the property was restrained,Michael Wallace contacted the police and advised the Triumph was his. A copy of anaffidavit was provided to police in November 2016, annexed to which was an affidavitfrom the previous owner. However, no evidence of how he had paid for the motorcyclewas provided. Neither the affidavit nor any notice of opposition or application forrelief has been filed.[10] Michael Wallace appeared on a telephone conference in December last year,when the matter was set down for hearing. At that time, he was undecided as towhether he wished to proceed with a claim. He was directed to notify the applicantand to file written notice of his intention to claim an interest in the Triumph by19 January 2017 if he wished to be heard on the Commissioner's application. He wasadvised that in the absence of formal notice being provided it would be presumed hehad abandoned any intention to make a claim as an interested party. No written noticewas filed and Michael Wallace did not appear at the hearing.[11] Ms Deidre Sim claims the Harley-Davidson is hers. She says she paid for it,and she opposes the Commissioner's application for forfeiture of that motorcycle.Asset forfeiture order[12] Section 50(1) of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) governsapplications for assets forfeiture orders. It provides as follows:(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.[13] Section 5(1) defines "tainted property" as meaning:(a) 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 one activity if at least one ofthose activities is a significant criminal activity.[14] "Significant criminal activity" is defined in s 6 of the Act, insofar as it isrelevant to the present case, as follows:(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.[15] "Property" is defined widely as meaning:1(a) real or personal property of any kind(i) whether situated in New Zealand or a foreign country; and1 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 5(1).(ii) whether tangible or intangible; and(iii) whether movable or immovable; and(b) includes an interest in real or personal property[16] Having an "interest" in relation to property means:2(a) a legal or equitable estate or interest in the property; or(b) a right, power, or privilege in connection with the property[17] Under s 50(1) the making of an assets forfeiture order is mandatory if the Courtis satisfied that on the balance of probabilities that specific property is tainted. Section46 provides that any person who claims an interest in the property to which theapplication relates is entitled to appear and to adduce evidence at the hearing.Issues[18] The issues for me to determine are:(a) Should the Harley-Davidson and Triumph Sprint motorcycles be madesubject to assets forfeiture orders on the basis they are tainted property?(b) Should Ms Sim be granted relief on the basis of her claimed interest inthe Harley-Davidson?Should the motorcycles be made subject to assets forfeiture orders?[19] I must determine whether the Commissioner has proved on the balance ofprobabilities that the motorcycles are tainted property. If I determine they are, I mustmake assets forfeiture orders in respect of them, subject to any relief.3[20] I am satisfied that Mr Wallace was involved in significant criminal activitybetween October 2013 and April 2016. On a foundation of text messaging evidence,he was convicted on a representative charge of offering to supply Ritalin between 112 Section 5(1).3 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, s 50(1). See also Hayward v Commissioner of Police [2014]NZCA 625 at [19].October and 27 November 2013 and a representative charge of selling cannabis duringapproximately the same period. Despite his apprehension, Mr Wallace continued withthis type of offending. He sourced Ritalin from his sons who have been prescribed thedrug for many years.[21] Both the evidence of the undercover officer and that obtained from textmessaging data shows Mr Wallace was engaged in this trade over a long period. Theofficer made evidential purchases on eight occasions between July and September2015, and the text messaging evidence encompasses the whole period between July2014 and April 2016. The nature of Mr Wallace's trade in Ritalin is illustrated bywhen the undercover officer attempted to purchase that drug from Mr Wallace on7 March 2016, which was a Tuesday. Mr Wallace told her he did not have any andthat he "doesn't normally get those until Thursday". Ministry of Health records revealthat Mr Wallace's son was dispensed seven 10 mg tablets of Ritalin and seven 20 mgtablets of Ritalin on Thursday, 9 March 2016. The records reveal the regular weeklydispensing of Ritalin to both that son and another.[22] While apparently less lucrative, Mr Wallace was regularly selling quantities ofcannabis over the same period. The drug dealing was ongoing until the policeexecuted a search warrant at Mr Wallace's address in April 2016. Cannabis and emptyRitalin packages were located at that time. As a result, Mr Wallace was convicted ofoffences against s 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 which carry maximum terms ofimprisonment of five years or more. The offending clearly constituted significantcriminal activity.[23] Financial inquiries were undertaken by the Commissioner with the Departmentof Inland Revenue and Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ). For the tax yearsending 2009-2016, Mr Wallace's total declared income over that eight year period was$155,251.88. For the tax years ending 31 March 2009-2011, Mr Wallace wasemployed with Goodman Fielder New Zealand Limited and his annual income wasbetween $28,000 and $32,000. It is apparent that in the 2012 tax year Mr Wallacebecame unemployed. Income from limited employment during that year together withthat sourced from a benefit totalled some $17,000. For the tax years 2013-2016, whichis the period over which Mr Wallace was offending and acquired the two motorcycles,Mr Wallace was on a benefit with an income of between $10,600 and $12,750per annum.[24] Mr Wallace has rented his home since 2011. He has been the legal tenant atthis address which is where the offending took place. Inquiries from the landlordrevealed that Mr Wallace initially paid $310 per week rental, which was raised to $315per week. Other people have lived at the address from time to time, with there beingup to five people living at the property, but at other times only Mr Wallace has residedat the address. The rent payments alone ($310) were more than Mr Wallace's averageweekly income ($224.67) during the 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2016 period.[25] It follows that for the period of the offending, between 2013 and 2016,Mr Wallace received a very low income with his sole source of declared income overthat time being from a WINZ benefit. Despite this modest income, Mr Wallaceobtained a Harley-Davidson on 1 March 2015 and the Triumph motorcycle on 21October 2015. Together both motorcycles are valued at more than doubleMr Wallace's annual declared income during this period. Valuations obtained by theCommissioner in April 2016 provided a retail value for the Harley-Davidson of$21,250 and $7,000 for the Triumph. Both vehicles were registered in Mr Wallace'sname when acquired by him, and remained in Mr Wallace's name as the legal ownerup until the date the property was restrained on 20 April 2016.[26] It is the Commissioner's case that it was not possible for Mr Wallace toaccumulate savings or purchase the motorcycles once rent and other living expenseswere paid. The financial circumstances of Mr Wallace, particularly when coupled withthe circumstances of his drug dealing, the Commissioner says, demonstrates asignificant source of illegitimate income. Documents seized by police at Mr Wallace'saddress at the time of the execution of the search warrant also show significant cashspending not consistent with his declared average income of $224.67 per week.[27] The Act only requires there to have been some contribution from the proceedsof criminal activity towards the acquisition of property in order to taint that property.So long as it can be shown that some proceeds of significant criminal activity hascontributed to its acquisition, it will become tainted property under the Act.4[28] Ms Sim's opposition to the Commissioner's application for forfeiture of theHarley-Davidson motorcycle is based on her contention that the motorcycle waspurchased with money she received from her adoptive mother's estate. Ms Sim claimsshe was the source of the funds used to purchase the Harley-Davidson in March 2015and that she purchased the motorcycle.[29] Ms Sim's opposition related solely to the Harley-Davidson. In the absence ofany opposition or contrary evidence, I am satisfied the Triumph motorcycle was,wholly or in part, acquired by Mr Wallace as a result of significant criminal activity.In particular, that income from Mr Wallace's drug dealing was applied to purchase theTriumph motorcycle thereby rendering it tainted property. Accordingly, there will bean assets forfeiture order in respect of the Triumph. I turn now to Ms Sim's oppositionto the Commissioner's application for forfeiture of the Harley-Davidson based on herclaim that she purchased the motorcycle.Ms Sim's claimed interest[30] Ms Sim was in a domestic relationship with Mr Wallace for about 18 monthsprior to his arrest in April 2016. Her present relationship with Mr Wallace is unclear.It is uncontested that Ms Sim received $85,000 from her adoptive mother's estate.This money was paid to her in several instalments, the largest of which was $60,000transferred to her on 16 October 2012.[31] Ms Sim deposed that she had experienced a number of difficult years. Herbirth mother died of cancer and was very unwell for several years leading up to herdeath. Ms Sim was the primary caregiver and nursed her throughout that time. Shehad, not long before, reconnected with her birth mother, and she described losing heragain in the way she did as devastating for her. In addition, around the same time heradoptive mother was also diagnosed with terminal cancer. In October 2012, Ms Sim'sdaughter, who had two young children, was diagnosed with having a brain tumour.4 Commissioner of Police v Drake [2017] NZHC 2919 at [105] and [114].Ms Sim describes supporting her and her family at that time as being emotionallychallenging. Her daughter required serious medical intervention, including brainsurgery, before she recovered and is now in remission.[32] Because of this difficult period, Ms Sim deposed that she decided she wouldlike to use the money she had inherited "to do something different and to have a bit offun". Ms Sim claims that is how she came to purchase the Harley-Davidsonmotorcycle.[33] Ms Sim's evidence was that she and Mr Wallace found a suitable bike onTrade Me from a vendor in Hokitika, which was listed for approximately $18,000. Inher first affidavit of 31 August 2016, Ms Sim stated she paid a $2,000 deposit into thevendor's bank account by bank transfer in January 2015. In a second affidavit swornon 7 September 2016, Ms Sim corrected herself. She advised that two $2,000withdrawals from her on-call account on 13 and 23 January 2015 were deposited intoher Westpac daily account (the daily account). The day after the first of these depositswere made, Ms Sim deposed she went to the bank and requested the teller withdraw$3,300 from her daily account which she handed to Mr Wallace to pay the vendor thedeposit for the motorcycle. The balance of the purchase price Ms Sim deposed waspaid in cash when she and Mr Wallace travelled to Christchurch to collect themotorcycle. Her evidence was that they met the vendor at a park and that she gaveMr Wallace $16,000 in cash to pay the balance owing.[34] Ms Sim's evidence was that around the same time both her mothers wereterminally ill, her long-term relationship with a former partner was deteriorating. Shedeposed he had access to her bank accounts. As a result, Ms Sim's evidence was thatshe decided to withdraw her inheritance money in large cash amounts and hide thecash "in the cellar amongst other belongings" she had inherited from her mother, so asto stop him accessing the money through her bank account. Ms Sim deposed shewould transfer money from her on-call account to her daily account and from theremake the cash withdrawals. It was this secreted cash that Ms Sim maintained was thesource of the funds used to pay the $16,000 cash to the vendor.[35] Ms Sim said that she and Mr Wallace decided the motorcycle would beregistered in Mr Wallace's name because he had a motorcycle licence. She alsomaintained she was eager that any speeding or infringement tickets would be issuedin Mr Wallace's name and not hers as she did not want to assume any liability for them.Ms Sim maintained the motorcycle was registered in Mr Wallace's name only as amatter of convenience at the time and only as a temporary measure.[36] In explanation for purchasing the motorcycle, Ms Sim explained that shethought it was a "good investment in her and Mr Wallace's relationship", and becauseshe saw it as an opportunity to do something different in her life, and "get out andexplore the country". Ms Sim deposed that throughout her relationship withMr Wallace he never seemed to have any money, and that to the best of her knowledgehe did not have sufficient funds to purchase the motorcycle himself.[37] Upon receipt of Ms Sim's second affidavit, the Commissioner made inquiriesregarding the purchase of the Harley-Davidson from the previous owner, Mr ShaunRobinson. He swore an affidavit detailing the circumstances of his sale of the Harley-Davidson to Mr Wallace. His evidence conflicts with that of Ms Sim. Mr Robinsonwas contacted by Mr Wallace in February 2015 regarding the motorcycle which hehad listed on Trade Me for $20,000. Mr Wallace offered $18,000 cash for the vehicleunseen, and Mr Robinson agreed. He requested an $8,000 deposit.[38] Banking records confirm that $8,000 was deposited into Mr Robinson'saccount on 23 February with an accompanying narration of "Phill". Mr Robinsonrequested that a further deposit be made into his account in the sum of $5,000 as hedid not wish to receive all the balance of the purchase price in cash at the time hedelivered the motorcycle. A printout from Mr Robinson's bank account shows afurther deposit of $5,000 on 25 February with the narration "Phillip". Ms Sim whencross-examined about her evidence of the $3,300 cash she provided to Mr Wallace inJanuary for the purpose of providing a deposit, in comparison to Mr Robinson's bankrecords, replied she must have been mistaken and been confused when preparing herevidence.[39] Mr Robinson's evidence was that he delivered the Harley-Davidson toChristchurch on 1 March. Mr Wallace was late. Mr Robinson described that when hearrived "there was another guy and girl with him" who stayed in the car and wentaround the corner to a house which Mr Robinson described was the address ofMr Wallace's "mate's house" where he had been directed to deliver the motorcycle.Mr Robinson met and dealt only with Mr Wallace. It was only Mr Wallace to whomhe showed the motorcycle, and it was Mr Wallace who paid him the balance of $5,000in cash.[40] Mr Robinson deposed that Mr Wallace gave him his driver's licence numberand they carried out the change of ownership online. Mr Robinson obtained a receiptfrom Mr Wallace which both men signed. That document was subsequently locatedat Mr Wallace's address at the time of the execution of the search warrant.Mr Robinson recalls Mr Wallace texting him, either on the following Monday orTuesday, to tell him the motorcycle went well and he was very happy with it.[41] Under cross-examination, Ms Sim again conceded that her evidence of havinghanded Mr Wallace $16,000 in cash to pay the balance owing was incorrect, and thatshe was confused. Ms Sim was also cross-examined about her claim that she hadwithdrawn large amounts of cash which she had physically stored in her cellar to hidefrom her previous partner who she said was able to access her accounts. Ms Sim wastaken through her bank statements.[42] Ms Sim deposed that she had been in a relationship with Mr Wallace for about18 months prior to his arrest in April 2016. That takes the commencement of herrelationship with Mr Wallace back to October/November 2014. Her relationship withher prior partner had by that time come to an end. Ms Sim accepted that had been thecase "give or take" a few months.[43] It was put to Ms Sim that from October/November 2014 there was no reasonfor her to be taking out money and hiding it. In response, Ms Sim maintained the cashhad already been taken out and hidden by her. That conflicts with Ms Sim's affidavitevidence which relies on a number of transfers from her on-call account to her dailyaccount and cash withdrawals during the period she was in her relationship withMr Wallace.[44] Ms Sim under cross-examination conceded that to avoid her former partnerhaving access to her account she would merely have to change passwords. Sheacknowledged that she had done this, but maintained that her former partner was "verycomputer savvy" and suggested he was able to hack into her account. Despiteexhibiting her bank statements, Ms Sim provided no examples of her former partner'sillicit use of her bank accounts, or expenditure by him from those accounts to illustratehis unauthorised access, which she maintained was the motivation for heraccumulating and hiding a large amount of cash.[45] There is one transfer from the on-call account to Ms Sim's daily account in thesum of $8,500 which was the subject of a teller-assisted withdrawal on the same day.However, subsequent transfers of sums from the on-call account to the daily accountwere used for apparently normal daily expenditure. There are some cash withdrawalsbut nothing to suggest the accumulation of at least $18,000 in cash in the period up towhen the relationship with her former partner ended in October/November 2014. Bythe time of the Harley-Davidson purchase which occurred on 1 March 2015, Ms Simhad withdrawn all but $3,000 from her on-call account from the original $60,000 thathad been deposited in October 2012.[46] Around the time of the transfer of the two deposits of $8,000 and $5,000 on 23and 25 February 2015 to Mr Robinson's account, there are no withdrawals fromMs Sim's bank account which can be linked to those electronic payments. Ms Sim'sdaily account only had a modest balance during this period, and text messages fromMs Sim made shortly after, on 10 and 11 March to Mr Wallace, show that Ms Sim wasstruggling for money. She was complaining that she could not afford her medicationsor buy items at a shop without her card being declined. Ms Sim referred to needingmoney to see a specialist, and having to scrounge for food. She appears to becomparing her unfavourable financial position to Mr Wallace's more advantagedposition in terms of what he was able to afford. That appears incongruous with thesituation Ms Sim seeks to present, that little over a week before she had providedthousands of dollars to purchase the Harley-Davidson.[47] The text messaging data also includes numerous references by Mr Wallace tothe "trike" as belonging to him. The Harley-Davidson motorcycle is a three-wheelvehicle and is referred to as a "trike". Mr Wallace, frequently when responding topeople who were messaging him, described himself as being "out on my trike". Therewere references to him "washing my trike" or "cleaning me trike" or "taking my trikefor a ride" In one exchange, Mr Wallace refers to paying expenses relating to theHarley-Davidson:Unknown N: Hey mate you should come out and c me one evening.Mr Wallace: Well my mate from Chch is coming down today; we weredoing same thing we are; so will come see you tomorrow; Iam so broke just cost me $700 to put reg on trike & the resthad to spend on jag to get it a WOF & reg; waiting for Ben topay his rent; haven't been this broke for long timeUnknown N: Well suck it in because ur getting paid for the work u did overthe summer any day nowAnd on 20 March 2016, Mr Wallace exchanged texts:Mr Wallace: My trike reg is 94ZTJ Cheer's CarlCarl: Whatt cc is ur bike? Got a relay for u. Pricing oil and filternowMr Wallace: 1450cc budMr Wallace: And a chrome oil filter bud[48] Significantly, Mr Wallace would refer to the trike as being his even in textmessage exchanges with Ms Sim. For example, on 5 November 2015:Ms Sim: Do you hav my keysMs Sim: Can't find them anywheteMr Wallace: Ok well we just about at Marks will check my trike boot.A further example was on 23 January 2016:Ms Sim: At concert heaps of people its at a winery windycloudy butwarm thinkin of you xxxMr Wallace: Is it a outside concert? Me cleaning me trike; me thinking ofyou.And in a similar vein on 21 March 2016:Mr Wallace: Me is Hm hun was just short ride. Hope you had good sleep.Ms Sim: No nt really too sore.Mr Wallace: No good hun; I just spent last couple hrs cleaning my trike &the wagon still luxin it. Its so dirty.[49] Ms Sim in cross-examination suggested that Mr Wallace always called it histrike, and that it was a joke between them because he really liked it, but knew that itreally belonged to her. I do not consider that explanation to be convincing.Mr Wallace's references to the Harley-Davidson as being his to the exclusion ofMs Sim, particularly when communicating with her, suggests the motorcycle was his.Realistically, at the very least, if Ms Sim had paid the whole $18,000 to purchase thevehicle and for the purposes she claimed, he would have referred to the motorcycle as"our" trike.[50] There are other related aspects of Ms Sim's evidence which do not ring true.She described in her affidavit evidence the importance she placed upon the purchaseof the Harley-Davidson, and that she purchased the motorcycle to get herself into abetter "head space" and saw it as an opportunity "to do something different" in herlife. She referred to exploring the country with Mr Wallace, and that it would offerher some freedom from the stresses that she had been under. However, the evidenceshows that she took no interest in the purchase of the Harley-Davidson fromMr Robinson. Furthermore, and importantly, she gave no evidence of how she hadbeen involved in using the motorcycle with Mr Wallace. The evidence is to thecontrary. The text message evidence has numerous references to Mr Wallace usingthe Harley-Davidson and being out on "my trike". There is no evidence of Ms Simgoing on any rides or trips with Mr Wallace, nor of her taking any steps to obtain hermotorcycle licence to allow her to use the Harley-Davidson. Ms Sim gave no evidenceof how she had used or been involved in using the motorcycle for the purposes sheclaimed it had originally been purchased by her.[51] Ms Sim sought in her evidence to suggest the Harley-Davidson was underrepair and that was why it was at Mr Wallace's place. She refers to the motorcycleneeding some work, and that Mr Wallace and his son were working through thosethings "for me". The text messaging data which covers the period from October 2015to April 2016 makes numerous references to the Harley-Davidson and to Mr Wallacebeing out riding on the "trike". It is apparent that the Harley-Davidson was fullyoperational during this period. There is no indication of any major mechanicalproblems, only to maintenance and to him cleaning it. There is some evidence fromthe undercover officer of speaking to Mr Wallace on 6 August 2015 when he told herhe had been working on the Harley-Davidson, but again he referred to it as "his" bike.[52] While of only secondary importance, financial inquiries made of the InlandRevenue Department relating to Ms Sim's declared income shows she received a lowincome between 2010 and 2016. For the year ending 31 March 2014, Ms Sim'sincome from benefits and employment amounted to $14,017.96; for the following taxyear, she received $21,735.67; and for the year ended 31 March 2016, $13,729.91.Ms Sim does not own her own home and was paying the additional expense of rent.[53] Her inheritance in October 2012 is not in issue. However, as already observed,those funds steadily reduced over the subsequent years. Ms Sim's bank statements donot show any withdrawals of cash in February 2015 to pay the deposits for the Harley-Davidson either directly to the vendor or to provide cash to Mr Wallace. It would havebeen quite simple for Ms Sim to have electronically transferred the money to thevendor if she was truly the purchaser, or to Mr Wallace's account for him to pay if shewanted him to act as her agent.[54] For the reasons canvassed, I do not consider Ms Sim's claim of having covertlybuilt up a cash reservoir in her cellar is tenable. Under cross-examination, when manyof the inconsistencies in her evidence were highlighted by reference to her own bankstatements, she claimed to have been confused, and in explanation referred to thestresses she had been under as a result of being on medication, and her family'sdifficulties. However, she was unable to account for the discrepancies in her evidence.I found her evidence inconsistent and unconvincing. Her account of how shepurchased the Harley-Davidson motorcycle for herself was not credible.[55] It is possible Ms Sim may have provided some money to Mr Wallace which heused to assist in his purchase of the motorcycle, but that is not the basis upon whichMs Sim presented her claim. It would be speculative to dwell on the circumstances ofany such payments. Based on the totality of the evidence, I find it proved on thebalance of probabilities that the Harley-Davidson motorcycle was obtained byMr Wallace, wholly or in part, with funds from his drug dealing activities. As alreadyobserved, it is sufficient that there has been some contribution from the proceeds ofsignificant criminal activity for the asset to become tainted property. It follows that Iam obliged to make an assets forfeiture order in respect of that item of property.Decision[56] I make the following orders:(a) An assets forfeiture order in respect of the 2005 Harley-Davidson RoadKing Custom motorcycle, coloured black, registration no 94ZTJ. Thatproperty is vested in the Crown absolutely and is to be placed into thecustody and control of the Official Assignee.(b) An assets forfeiture order in respect of the 2000 Triumph Sprintmotorcycle, coloured yellow, registration no 92ULE. That property isvested in the Crown absolutely and is to be placed into the custody andcontrol of the Official Assignee.Solicitors:Crown Solicitors Office, DunedinCommunity Law Otago, Dunedin