THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL V BROWN HC AK CIV-2008-404-006760

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL V BROWN HC AK CIV-2008-404-006760

There was no dispute that the specified motor vehicles, cash sums and items of jewellery were tainted property and should be forfeited under s15, so the court ordered forfeiture; however, the court lacked sufficient evidence to determine the appropriate pecuniary penalty and whether the respondent's half‑share in 5...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-03f476fd_7b0d_47dc_b077_8fadf50682f8.pdf
Parties
Applicant: The Solicitor-General of New Zealand; Respondent: Ronald Terence Brown
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 (forfeiture and Pecuniary Penalty) / Forfeiture Orders Made; Pecuniary Penalty Application Adjourned for Further Evidence
Outcome
Partial grant: forfeiture orders made for specified vehicles, cash and jewellery; remainder of Crown application (pecuniary penalty and sale of property) adjourned to 2 August 2011 for further evidence
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Pecuniary Penalty, Tainted Property, Restraint Orders, Valuation, Adjournment
Criminal Law Asset Forfeiture Confiscation Property Law Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 Forfeiture Pecuniary Penalty Tainted Property +3 more

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Solicitor-General of New Zealand

Applicant

Ronald Terence Brown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 (forfeiture and Pecuniary Penalty) / Forfeiture Orders Made; Pecuniary Penalty Application Adjourned for Further Evidence

  1. 1 Whether specific motor vehicles, cash and jewellery are tainted property and forfeitable under s15 Proceeds of Crime Act 1991
  2. 2 Whether a pecuniary penalty order should be made assessing benefit at $4.5m less forfeited property
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's half-share in 5 Rawene Avenue should be sold to satisfy a pecuniary penalty order

Ratio Decidendi

There was no dispute that the specified motor vehicles, cash sums and items of jewellery were tainted property and should be forfeited under s15, so the court ordered forfeiture; however, the court lacked sufficient evidence to determine the appropriate pecuniary penalty and whether the respondent's half‑share in 5 Rawene Avenue should be sold, so the pecuniary penalty application was adjourned to permit updated valuation and evidence of family circumstances.

Court Disposition

Partial grant: forfeiture orders made for specified vehicles, cash and jewellery; remainder of Crown application (pecuniary penalty and sale of property) adjourned to 2 August 2011 for further evidence

Orders

  • Pursuant to s15 Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 the following property is forfeited to and shall vest absolutely in the Crown: listed motor vehicles (2003 BMW M3 CSL CQU342; 2007 BMW M3 EER640; 2006 VW Golf R32 DHB591; 2007 Porsche 911 GT EBM55; 2006 VW Passat EMM993; 2004 Mini Cooper S EDB137), specified cash sums...
  • Crown's remaining application concerning a pecuniary penalty order and orders relating to 5 Rawene Avenue is adjourned to 9:00 am on 2 August 2011 before Woolford J