16 Dec 2020
The Court approved the proposed settlement because it was satisfied the settlement was consistent with the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the overall interests of justice under s 95, balancing public interest in forfeiture with recognition of the respondent's legitimate claims and the practical benefits of avoiding contested litigation.
6 Nov 2019
Given the affidavit evidence linking the respondent to a methamphetamine operation, the respondent's admissions that the $15,845 derived from his involvement in criminal activity, and the lack of opposition, the court was satisfied the funds were criminal proceeds and granted a forfeiture order under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.
4 May 2017
The applicants failed to show the Court of Appeal made a sufficiently substantial factual error amounting to a miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal's inference that the first applicant was the cultivator and the person removing cannabis was supported by the witness account together with lack of evidence of another adult male and corroborative circumstantial evidence, so leave to appeal was properly refused.
28 Sept 2016
The court ordered forfeiture because the $215,410 cash was found in connection with a large quantity of methamphetamine and the respondent had been convicted of supplying very large quantities of methamphetamine in periods proximate to the discovery of the cash, establishing the necessary nexus for forfeiture under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009; the respondent's withdrawal of opposition confirmed there was no contest to forfeiture.