19 Oct 2022
The investigator's affidavit provided sufficient evidence that the $11,135 was acquired or derived from significant criminal activity and the respondent was served and acknowledged receipt by email and telephone; therefore the Court ordered the cash to vest absolutely in the Crown and to be placed in the Official Assignee's custody and control.
26 Jan 2022
On the affidavit evidence the Court was satisfied there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondent unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity and that there was a real risk of disposal or concealment if notice were given; accordingly a restraining order under s25 was justified and the identified vehicles were ordered to be restrained and placed in the Official Assignee's custody and control.
28 Jun 2019
The Court held it is not limited to ordering sale only under s 35(e)(v) and may order sale under s 34 to preserve the potential net realisation value of restrained assets; holding costs (storage, insurance, maintenance, registration) and likely depreciation are relevant and may justify sale where they materially diminish eventual net proceeds; IRD depreciation schedules are acceptable indicia of depreciation absent contrary evidence; alternative storage at respondents' premises cannot be treated as a basis to refuse sale without a specific application demonstrating the Official Assignee would…
19 Nov 2018
Affidavit evidence established reasonable grounds to believe the property was tainted and that there was a real risk of disposal or concealment if notice were given; accordingly the Court lawfully granted without‑notice restraining orders placing the property under the Official Assignee's custody and control and ordered the interim orders to remain in force until the on‑notice application is finally disposed of, subject to the stated expiry date.
30 Aug 2018
The Court concluded on the balance of probabilities that the Chrysler vehicle and $40,810 cash were derived from significant criminal activity (sales of synthetic cannabis and alleged money laundering) and, with no opposition from the respondents, ordered those assets restrained and forfeited to the Crown; the application as to the relocatable house was adjourned to allow the interested party and others to file opposition given potential competing interests and ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.
18 Feb 2016
Because the Court was satisfied the on‑notice application and hearing notice had been brought to the respondent's and the bank's attention, and the applicant had prosecuted the matter with due diligence under s39, the absence of any appearance or opposition justified making a final restraining order placing the specified funds in the official assignee's custody.
5 Oct 2012
On an ex parte interim application the Court exercised its discretion under s26 to grant the minimum necessary restraint: an order preventing disposal/ dealing with the property was made to preserve it pending sentencing and substantive hearing, but the Court declined to place the property in the Official Assignee's custody because the application was interim, ex parte and the restraint should be confined to what is necessary; the non‑disposal order can be registered under s27 to prevent sale.
10 May 2012
On the evidence (respondent's admissions and recovery of $41,030), and applying s6 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, the Commissioner discharged the evidential burden of reasonable grounds to believe the cash was tainted; accordingly the restraining order under s24 was justified and the sum of $27,530 is to be placed under the Official Assignee's custody pending the forfeiture hearing.
15 Nov 2010
The court approved the parties' agreed variation: the tractor remains subject to the original restraining orders but may be released into respondents' possession while under the Official Assignee's care if respondents satisfy the Official Assignee that the tractor will be preserved in its current state and that they will comply with the hire purchase; items of jewellery identified in the applicant's on‑notice application are restrained and placed under the Official Assignee's custody pending further orders.
29 Feb 2008
Despite defects in parts of the ex parte material, the Court was satisfied there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondent derived an indirect benefit from the alleged offending under s43(1)(b) and it was desirable to place the property under the Official Assignee's custody with conditions limiting entry pending resolution; errors were careless rather than misleading and did not justify setting aside the interim order.