THE COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALAND POLICE v MARTIN [2021] NZHC 2006
The Court approved the agreed forfeiture because the respondent admitted the funds were tainted and the proposed settlement satisfied s95(3) CPRA as consistent with the statute's purposes and the overall interests of justice; accordingly an asset forfeiture order was made pursuant to ss50 and 59(1).
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 2006
- Parties
- Applicant: THE COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALAND POLICE; Respondent: ADRIAN JOHN MARTIN
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 5 August 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 Asset Forfeiture Application / Application for Approval of Settlement and Asset Forfeiture; Consent Order Made
- Outcome
- Asset forfeiture order made and proceedings concluded
- Legal Topics
- Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009, Asset Forfeiture, Restraint Orders, Tainted Property, Court Approval of Settlements S95(3)
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
THE COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Applicant
ADRIAN JOHN MARTIN
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 Asset Forfeiture Application / Application for Approval of Settlement and Asset Forfeiture; Consent Order Made
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether funds in respondent's bank account constitute tainted property derived from criminal activity
- 2 Whether the proposed forfeiture settlement is consistent with the purposes of the CPRA and the overall interests of justice under s95(3)
- 3 Whether to make an asset forfeiture order pursuant to ss50 and 59(1) CPRA
Ratio Decidendi
The Court approved the agreed forfeiture because the respondent admitted the funds were tainted and the proposed settlement satisfied s95(3) CPRA as consistent with the statute's purposes and the overall interests of justice; accordingly an asset forfeiture order was made pursuant to ss50 and 59(1).
Court Disposition
Asset forfeiture order made and proceedings concluded
Orders
- Forfeiture of all funds seized from the respondent's ASB bank account inclusive of accrued interest pursuant to ss50 and 59(1) of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009
- Court approves the settlement under s95(3) CPRA as consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
THE COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALAND POLICE v MARTIN [2021] NZHC 2006 [5 August 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2020-485-36[2021] NZHC 2006UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009IN THE MATTER OF an application under sections 22, 24 and 25BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALANDPOLICEApplicantAND ADRIAN JOHN MARTINRespondentOn the papers:Counsel: S B McCusker for ApplicantS J Fraser for RespondentJudgment: 5 August 2021JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J[1] The applicant initiated these proceedings under the Criminal Proceeds(Recovery) Act 2009 (CPRA) against the respondent following the discovery of acannabis cultivation operation on the respondent's property.[2] The CPRA proceedings sought the restraint of all funds in the respondent'sASB bank account, which at the time of the restraint held an approximate balance of$58,914.97.[3] As at 29 July 2021, interest of $856.05 had accrued.[4] The respondent has subsequently pleaded guilty to and being convicted ofoffences in relation to cultivation of cannabis and the possession of cannabis plant forthe purposes of supply.[5] The applicant has now filed an application for asset forfeiture over the fundsin the ASB bank account, inclusive of accrued interest. The respondent consents tothe making of an asset forfeiture and acknowledges the funds constitute "taintedproperty" for the purposes of the CPRA.[6] Under s 95(3) of the CPRA, the Court must approve any settlement betweenthe parties if it is satisfied it is consistent with the purposes of the CPRA and the overallinterests of justice.[7] I am satisfied that the proposed settlement is consistent with the purposes ofthe CPRA and in the overall interests of justice.[8] The order relates to all of the funds seized in the respondent's bank account.The respondent concedes that they were property that had been directly or indirectlyderived from criminal activity. The amount in the bank account appears to representthe bulk of the respondent's assets.[9] It is appropriate that these proceedings be bought to a conclusion.[10] The applicant has filed a draft assets forfeiture order pursuant to ss 50 and59(1) CPRA. I make an order in accordance with that draft and direct that followingthe making of this asset forfeiture order, these proceedings are at an end with costslaying where they fall.Churchman JSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, Wellington for Applicantcc: S Fraser, Barrister, Wellington for Respondent