THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v SINGH (AKA SANGHA) [2017] NZHC 2159 [6 September 2017]

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v SINGH (AKA SANGHA) [2017] NZHC 2159 [6 September 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNELSON REGISTRYCIV-2015-442-55[2017] NZHC 2159UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act2009IN THE MATTER of an application under sections 22, 25 and58BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEWZEALAND POLICEApplicantAND JASWINDER SINGH (AKAJASWINDER SANGHA)First RespondentAND KULJIT KAUR (AKA KULJHIT KAUR)Second RespondentAND SATNAM SINGH (AKA GORA SINGH,GOVA SINGH)Third RespondentAND BALWINDER KAURFourth RespondentAND KULWANT SINGH (AKA KULWANTDHALIWAI)Fifth RespondentAND NIRMAL WALIASixth RespondentAND SATWINDER KAURSeventh RespondentAND WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDFirst Interested PartyAND ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITEDSecond Interested PartyOn the papers:Counsel: J M Webber for ApplicantR Keam for Fifth and Sixth RespondentsJudgment: 6 September 2017JUDGMENT OF CLARK JIntroduction[1] In September 2015 the Commissioner, New Zealand Police, obtained restraining orders in relation to property owned by the respondents. The orders expire on 6 September 2017.[2] The parties seek, pursuant to s 95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act2009, this Court's approval of a settlement.Background[3] The alleged criminal activity, which provided the basis for the application for restraining orders, was the subject of criminal proceedings in the High Court in November 2015. The first and fifth respondents were convicted on charges of supplying false information to a refugee status officer. The first and third respondents were acquitted of more serious charges of arranging the entry of persons into New Zealand by deception. The acquittals had ramifications for theCommissioner's position because the significant criminal activity relied on has notbeen proved.[4] Following further investigation the Commissioner has determined not to seek forfeiture of the money paid to the first and third respondents by the workers for whom the New Zealand work visas were arranged. That decision recognises the difficulties in seeking to prove the case in relation to the funds said to have been provided to the first and third respondents by the workers prior to their arrival in New Zealand. The High Court Judge found that significant sums were paid by theworkers making the false refugee claims although he was unable to make a specific finding as to the amount the fifth respondent was paid.[5] In July 2017 the High Court approved a settlement which the Commissioner reached with the fifth and sixth respondents who are husband and wife.[6] The Commissioner does not intend to pursue the forfeiture proceedings against the third, fourth, and seventh respondents (husband, wife and husband'smother) and accordingly the restraint of their property has been allowed to lapse.[7] The first and second respondents seek an economic resolution and make no factual concessions in doing so. They and the Commissioner have filed a joint memorandum seeking approval of the High Court to their settlement.Request for approval[8] I take note of the background set out in the joint memorandum. It is proposed that the proceedings against the first and second respondents be settled by way of agreed forfeiture to the Crown of the sum of $6,000 with no order as to costs.[9] I am satisfied that the settlement is a sensible and pragmatic resolution that is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the interests of justice. Bearing in mind the uncertainty on the evidence about the value of the unlawful benefit to the first and fifth respondents from the said significant criminal activity and the inability of the Judge to make a specific finding on that issue, the settlement reflects a reasonable assessment of the value of the unlawful benefit and an economic settlement that is acceptable to all parties.[10] The proposed settlement will result in savings in terms of resources and achieves finality and certainty.[11] Accordingly, the settlement is approved._____________________________Karen Clark JSolicitors:O'Donoghue Weber, Nelson for Applicant