THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v HANNA [2022] NZHC 2048

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v HANNA [2022] NZHC 2048 [18 August 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV 2018-485-720[2022] NZHC 2048UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009IN THE MATTER OF applications under sections 43, 44 and 52BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER, THENEW ZEALAND POLICEApplicantAND MICHAEL PATRICK SHEERAN HANNARespondentHearing: 15 August 2022Counsel: V Rea for ApplicantNo appearance for RespondentJudgment: 18 August 2022JUDGMENT OF MALLON JIntroduction[1] The Commissioner seeks determination of a forfeiture application dated12 February 2020 that seeks forfeiture of $7,020 cash. The cash is subject to arestraining order made on 6 October 2020.Background[2] Mr Hanna was charged with and pleaded guilty to methamphetamineoffending. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment for that offending on6 September 2019. A profit forfeiture order was made against Mr Hanna on the basisthat he derived an unlawful benefit of $5,016,000 from significant criminal activity.[3] On 7 June 2019 the Police were contacted by a neighbour of Mr Hanna'smother. She had discovered the $7,020 (denominations of $100, $50 and $20 notesheld together with a rubber band and wrapped in glad wrap) while trimming the hedgeof a common driveway she shares with Mr Hanna's mother. The neighbour rang themother and was given to understand that Mr Hanna claimed the money. She gave thecash to the Police the next day.[4] The forfeiture application was filed. An on notice restraining application wasalso filed. Mr Hanna was served with these applications but has filed no notice ofopposition to them. The Police now seek the asset forfeiture order.Assessment[5] The Court must make an asset forfeiture order of the cash if it is satisfied onthe balance of probabilities that the cash is "tainted".1 Tainted property is propertythat has been acquired as a result of, or directly or indirectly derived from, significantcriminal activity.2 Inferences may drawn from a respondent's failure to oppose theapplication.3 Inferences may also be drawn from the circumstantial evidence.4[6] Here the evidence is that Mr Hanna was convicted of serious drug offending,that qualifies as serious criminal offending. He received an unlawful benefit of over$5 million from this offending. The way the cash was bundled and hidden is indicativeof cash associated with drug dealing. Another neighbour gave a statement that she hadpreviously found cash bound by a rubber band under some plants. Cash was alsofound in a search of a South Auckland address attributed to Mr Hanna. Mr Hanna hasprovided no explanation as to the source of the cash, has not claimed any interest in itand declined to comment when the Police asked him about it. Mr Hanna's mother hasnot claimed that the money was hers. No other person has claimed an interest. I amsatisfied, on the balance of probabilities, from these circumstances viewed as a wholethat the cash is tainted property.1 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 50.2 Section 5 (definition of "tainted property").3 Commissioner of Police v Law [2021] NZCA at [30]–[31].4 As discussed, for example, in Commissioner of Police v de Wys [2016] NZCA 634.[7] When no person has claimed an interest in the property the Court must besatisfied, on the balance of probabilities, of the following additional matters:5 arestraining order was earlier made in relation to the same property; the restrainingorder was in place for a period of at least a year; and the Commissioner has contactedor made all reasonable efforts to contact any person that the Commissioner believesmay have an interest in the property. I am satisfied of these matters.Result[8] Accordingly, and as advised at the hearing of this application, the assetforfeiture order is made in accordance with the 12 February 2020 application.Mallon J5 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, s 50(4).