New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Effective control

Legal area

Court

12 Aug 2020

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SNOWDEN [2020] NZHC 2036

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2036
Court

High Court

The Court held that Limitation Act 1950 s 4(5) is not displaced in all respects by the CPRA and accrual for an assets forfeiture cause occurs when the specific property was acquired or derived from significant criminal activity; claims based on pre-1 January 2011 benefit fraud were time-barred but tainting from concealed drug offending discovered later was not time-barred; the Karaka property was tainted by mortgage repayments and other payments funded by criminal activity and the respondent had effective control of the property, but the Court granted relief from assets forfeiture in respect…
1 Jul 2020

R v MATAMATA [2020] NZHC 1530

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1530
Court

High Court

The Court found on the evidence that both Kiwi Street properties were instruments of crime because they enabled the commission and facilitation of slavery and trafficking offences; the defendant retained effective control over the properties and thus had an enforceable interest; the parties agreed the defendant's partial interest equated to 49% equity valued at $215,000; having regard to s142N factors and third-party interests, a consent Instrument Forfeiture Order forfeiting that partial interest to the Crown was appropriate and was made with specified procedures for payment and application…
12 Jun 2020

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v JOHNSON [2020] NZHC 1317

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1317
Court

High Court

The Court found reasonable grounds to believe the funds used to repay the mortgage derived from significant criminal activity (sale of methamphetamine) based on the totality of financial analysis and surrounding circumstances, and therefore the property at 1415 State Highway 1 is tainted; accordingly a restraining order was made under s24. The Court declined to make a s25 order because there was no evidential basis that the respondent held an equitable interest or effective control over his parents' property. The interested parties' application to exclude their interest under s30 was dismisse…
11 Feb 2020

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v McGOLDRICK-SAVAII [2020] NZHC 133

Citation

[2020] NZHC 133
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the Mercedes was acquired wholly or in part from significant criminal activity (methamphetamine dealing) based on declared income insufficient to fund expenditures, admissions of unlawful benefit, and concealment of ownership; therefore it is tainted property and an asset forfeiture order under s50 is warranted, vesting the vehicle in the Crown.
13 Dec 2019

COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE v MATTHEW AARON ROWLAND [2019] NZHC 3314

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3314
Court

High Court

The Court approved the settlements as consistent with the purposes of the Act and ordered by consent a profit forfeiture in the amount of $1,750,000 against Matthew Rowland with the listed assets to be realised (including assets under his effective control and specified UK assets), ordered return of specified personal items to Rowland, and ordered Ashleigh Zammit to pay $8,000 to the Proceeds of Crime Account with the 2014 Mini to be returned to its registered owner thereafter; costs to lie where they fall.
28 Aug 2015

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v READ & ORS [2015] NZHC 2055

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2055
Court

High Court

Court accepted convictions and sentencing facts established unlawful benefit and applied s53 presumption valuing the benefit at $1,714,889; Court held respondent had no enforceable legal or equitable interest in GRT as a discretionary beneficiary but did have effective control over the GRT by virtue of deed terms (sole power to appoint/remove trustee and clause prioritising Read) and practical conduct; ISL interest included right to apply for reinstatement and therefore treated as an interest; motorbike transfer to Parkinson was a sham/arrangement to defeat the Act and declared void under s16…
30 Jul 2014

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v EDWARDS & ANOR [2014] NZHC 1773

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1773
Court

High Court

The Court found on the evidence that the 2004 BMW X5 and the $1,000 cash were tainted property or, alternatively, that profit forfeiture was available because the respondent had obtained benefits from drug offending equal to or exceeding their value; accordingly asset forfeiture orders were granted and forfeiture would not produce undue hardship.
28 Nov 2013

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v BUNNING [2013] NZHC 3161

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3161
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the motorcycle was acquired or derived from proceeds of methamphetamine dealing (significant criminal activity) and the respondent exercised effective control over it (registration papers found in his bedroom, motorcycle at his address, aunt registered at father's request). Therefore, under s58 the motorcycle is treated as the respondent's property and an assets forfeiture order vests the motorcycle in the Crown under s50; s50(4) does not prevent forfeiture because the other claimed interest-holder did not take steps to seek relief and no restraining order requ…
18 Dec 2007

SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND V NGUYEN HC AK CIV 2007-404-5878

Citation

openlaw-ace50ff1_7e9a_492c_94f0_0251e213e078.pdf
Court

High Court

While s48 permits a distinction between tainted property and a non-tainted interest, the applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that her interest was not tainted or not under the defendant's effective control; her evidence was uncorroborated and inconsistent, there was no demonstrated hardship, and the seriousness of the alleged offending and likelihood of forfeiture weighed against exclusion, so the application was declined.
13 Feb 2007

SOLICITOR-GENERAL V BARTLETT HC WHA CIV-2006-485-2334

Citation

openlaw-109d9b0b_d2b9_4add_ad65_54d06401f072.pdf
Court

High Court

The Solicitor-General met the statutory threshold of reasonable grounds that Bartlett committed the alleged offences and derived $571,488; evidence showed he had effective control of the Pouto property despite title being in trustees' names; given real risk of dissipation and mortgage default the Court properly exercised its discretion to grant a restraining order and place the property in the custody and control of the Official Assignee.