THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE V TANGITEPU TANGITEPU HC PMN CIV-2012-454-134

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE V TANGITEPU TANGITEPU HC PMN CIV-2012-454-134

There was reasonable cause to believe the respondent could answer questions and produce documents concerning ownership of the two vehicles allegedly purchased with proceeds of crime, and therefore an examination order under s 106 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 was justified and must be granted.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-554a1259_c7b7_4dd1_a6d0_b6cb3fb2132e.pdf
Parties
Applicant: The Commissioner, The New Zealand Police; Respondent: Tangitepu Tangitepu
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
25 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 for an Examination Order / Decision on Application for Examination Order (s 106)
Outcome
Examination order granted
Legal Topics
Examination Order, Proceeds of Crime, Nominee Ownership, Evidence Production
Criminal Law Asset Recovery Civil Procedure Statutory Enforcement Examination Order Proceeds of Crime Nominee Ownership Evidence Production

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Commissioner, The New Zealand Police

Applicant

Tangitepu Tangitepu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 for an Examination Order / Decision on Application for Examination Order (s 106)

  1. 1 Whether an examination order should be granted under s 106 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is a nominee for the true owner of the vehicles
  3. 3 Whether there is reasonable cause to believe the respondent can answer questions and produce documents relevant to ownership of the vehicles

Ratio Decidendi

There was reasonable cause to believe the respondent could answer questions and produce documents concerning ownership of the two vehicles allegedly purchased with proceeds of crime, and therefore an examination order under s 106 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 was justified and must be granted.

Court Disposition

Examination order granted

Orders

  • Examination order granted against Tangitepu Tangitepu under s 106 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 requiring attendance and production of documents relating to the ownership of a Holden Commodore and an Audi A4.