THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v KARL ALFRED TRUAN DOLLMAN [2017] NZHC 3094

THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v KARL ALFRED TRUAN DOLLMAN [2017]NZHC 3094 [12 December 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDINVERCARGILL REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAWAIHŌPAI ROHECIV-2013-425-334[2017] NZHC 3094BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEWZEALAND POLICEApplicantAND KARL ALFRED TRUAN DOLLMANFirst RespondentAND CHRISTIAN KARL DOLLMANSecond RespondentAND DIRK JAMES LADBROOKThird RespondentAND KERRYN ROBERT McDONALDFourth RespondentAND RYAN NICHOLAS KITTOFifth RespondentAND LORI KATHRYN McEWINGSixth RespondentAND JEREMY JOHN PROCTORSeventh RespondentAND KERRI-ANNE REBECCA PIPSONEighth RespondentAND AIDEN JOHN THWAITESFirst Interested PartyAND JULIA RENEE HABERFIELDSecond Interested PartyHearing: 12 December 2017Appearances: R W Donnelly for CrownR G R Eagles for First, Second and Third RespondentsS Williamson for Fourth RespondentK McHugh for Fifth RespondentK Barker for Sixth RespondentJ Ross for First Interested PartyR G R Eagles for Second Interested PartyJudgment: 12 December 2017JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J[1] The applicant and a number of the respondents and interested parties in theseproceedings have agreed on terms of settlement and the details of those settlementshave been set out in memoranda filed with the Court.[2] The parties to the various settlement agreements request that the Court approvethem in accordance with s 95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 ("theAct"), on the grounds that each settlement accords with the purposes of the Act andthe overall interests of justice.[3] Having reviewed the applications, and the affidavit evidence filed in relationto them, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to approve the following settlementagreements:The first respondent[4] The applicant and first respondent have agreed terms of settlement. The termsof the settlement are:1. An asset forfeiture order be made in respect of the cash, in the sum of$38,635.00, found by the Police at the first respondent's address on 24July 2014. The terms of the asset forfeiture order are that the cash is:1.1 Tainted property.1.2 Vests in the Crown absolutely.1.3 Is in the custody and control of the Official Assignee.2. A profit forfeiture order be made in respect of the first respondent. Theterms of the profit forfeiture order are:2.1 The value of the benefit, in accordance with s 53 of the Act, is$359,242.00.2.2 The maximum amount recoverable, in accordance with s 54 ofthe Act (taking into account the cash in the sum of $38,635.00),is $323,607.00.2.3 The property to be disposed of is:2.3.1 62 Roxburgh East Road, Roxburgh, Certificate of TitleOT12C/134; the legal description is Lot 1 DP 20442 ofOtago District (Roxburgh East Road).2.4 The sum resulting from the realising of Roxburgh East Street(less amounts required to be paid in priority pursuant to unders 83 of the Act) is in full and final satisfaction of the maximumamount recoverable against the first respondent andaccordingly there will be no balance outstanding that would berecoverable as a civil debt pursuant to ss 55(4) or 83(4) of theAct or any other applicable section.3. Costs are to lie where they fall.[5] The Court hereby approves this settlement, in accordance with s 95 of the Act,and makes orders accordingly.Fifth and sixth respondents[6] The applicant, the fifth respondent and the sixth respondent have agreed termsof settlement. The terms of the settlement are:1 A profit forfeiture order be made in respect of the fifth and sixthrespondents. The terms of the profit forfeiture order are:1.1 The value of the benefit, in accordance with s 53 of the Act is$218,750.00 (not $352,370.00 as stated in the application).1.2 The maximum amount recoverable, in accordance with s 54 ofthe Act is $218,750.00 (not $352,370.00 as stated in theapplication).1.3 The property to be disposed of (subject to the mortgage to Bankof New Zealand, secured by mortgage instrument number8499382.3, being repaid in full) is:1.3.1 16 Saturn Street, Invercargill, Certificate of TitleSL 168/75; the legal description is Lot 9, DP 4038 ofSouthland District (Saturn Street).2. The sum resulting from the realising of Saturn Street (less amountsrequired to be paid in priority under s 83 of the Act) is in full and finalsatisfaction of the maximum amount recoverable against the fifthrespondent and the sixth respondent and accordingly there will be nobalance outstanding that would be recoverable as a civil debt pursuantto ss 55(4) or 83(4) of the Act or any other applicable section.3. Costs are to lie where they fall.[7] The Court hereby approves that settlement, in accordance with s 95 of the Actand makes orders accordingly.The seventh respondent[8] The seventh respondent has not taken a position in respect of the applicationfor a profit forfeiture order sought against him. Based on the evidence filed by theapplicant, and in particular the affidavit of Detective Andrew Beswick sworn on1 October 2015, the applicant seeks a profit forfeiture order against the seventhrespondent.[9] The terms of the order sought are:(a) that the unlawful benefit is $55,200;(b) the maximum recoverable amount is $55,200;(c) the property to be disposed of is:(i) the 1994 Harley Davidson Dyna Wide Glide motorcycle.[10] In the absence of any steps being taken by the seventh respondent, and beingsatisfied that the applicant's case for a profit forfeiture order in the amount sought, andin respect of the property identified, is established on the evidence filed, I make ordersaccordingly.Remaining applications[11] The balance of the applications are to be called on a date to be arranged, inconsultation with counsel, on or after 1 March 2018 next year.[12] It is understood that at that point:(a) the applicant may be in a position to put a settlement agreement beforethe Court for approval in relation to the second respondent and secondinterested party;(b) the applicant will have filed a further forfeiture application in relationto property owned by the fourth respondent;(c) the applicant will proceed against the third respondent as explained inthe separate minute issued today.Solicitors:Preston Russell Law, InvercargillHewat Galt Lawyers, InvercargillAWS Legal, InvercargillEagles Eagles and Redpath, Invercargill