New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proceeds of crime act 1991

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2013

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL v RHODES & ORS [2013] NZHC 3320

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3320
Court

High Court

The court refused costs because the third parties were not 'successful' for the purposes of s88(b): the Crown's orders for confiscation and pecuniary penalty were ultimately effective, the release or expiry of restraints on the third parties' properties occurred because the Crown no longer needed to resort to those properties to satisfy the pecuniary penalty rather than because of a judicial determination excluding them, and one third party was unsuccessful on other related points (the Mazda). Therefore s88 did not apply and Rule 15.23 was not applied to award costs.
8 Nov 2013

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SKINNER [2013] NZHC 2956

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2956
Court

High Court

Section 172 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 is a permissive saving provision and does not mandate that proceedings begun under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 must be completed under that Act; read with ss3 and 9 the 2009 Act permits the Commissioner to discontinue or not to be constrained by prior restraining-step proceedings under the 1991 Act and to proceed under the 2009 Act, therefore the jurisdictional challenge to the Commissioner's application was dismissed.
20 Jun 2013

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v DODD [2013] NZHC 1489

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1489
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the Crown established derived benefits of $10,200 (admitted money laundering), $3,500 (methamphetamine offers assumed to have resulted in sales) and $940 (cannabis offers assumed to have resulted in sales) yielding a pecuniary penalty of $14,640 under s25; the Crown failed to prove effective control of the motorcycle by respondent under s29(1) so the s29(3) declaration was refused.
18 Nov 2010

SOLICITOR-GENERAL V SAGGERS HC AK CIV-2008-404-001456

Citation

openlaw-c17608ca_8974_4bb6_89be_8827576bbd26.pdf
Court

High Court

Because there was significant commonality between the forfeiture proceeding and the relationship property proceeding and a real risk of inconsistent findings if heard separately, the court directed under r 10.12 High Court Rules that both proceedings be heard at the same time before the same Judge; the Registry was directed to allocate a case management conference and costs for the hearing were ordered to lie where they fall.
18 Nov 2010

SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND V SAGGERS AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2008-404-001456

Citation

openlaw-95aa3141_2627_4360_bdaa_673162a107d2.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the Crown accepted the invoice as reasonable and the first respondent did not contest it, the court was satisfied the sum of $46,670.09 should be approved and ordered paid from monies restrained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991.
10 Jul 2009

SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND V SPIJKERBOSCH HC ROT CIV 2007-463-999

Citation

openlaw-f902347c_9650_463a_b59c_8f37ace84c07.pdf
Court

High Court

Property was tainted by serious drug offending and forfeiture justified, but total forfeiture would be grossly disproportionate given the respondent's lesser culpability and mitigating circumstances; a partial forfeiture of 40% of the net value (using a nominal $190,000 less $90,000 mortgage) ordered; $5000 cash found to be proceeds of offending and forfeited under s32(3) Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
23 Jun 2008

SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NZ V HARKINS HC AK CIV-2008-404-001757

Citation

openlaw-e3c7ef23_10f9_4e5c_b32c_2b5b0537d44a.pdf
Court

High Court

Having found the claimants failed to prove ownership and having regard to the commercial methamphetamine manufacture and supply from the premises, the $70,000 was properly characterised as proceeds of crime and ordered forfeited under the PCA; the $3,500 was accepted as coming from a plausible innocent transaction and was not tainted, and there was insufficient evidence to establish benefits exceeding the $70,000 forfeited so no pecuniary penalty was ordered.
1 May 2008

DE BRUIN V R SC 9/2008

Citation

SC 9/2008
Court

Supreme Court

De Bruin had no statutory standing to participate in the co-offender's preliminary hearing and suffered no shown real disadvantage; the 55% transfer to Delaney was void under Property (Relationships) Act s47(1) as intended to defeat the Crown, so Delaney is limited to her untainted 3.5% contribution and incidental adjustments; the Court of Appeal's costs decision was within its discretion; leave to appeal is refused.
17 May 2006

SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND V EDMONDS HC DUN CIV 2006-412-000021

Citation

openlaw-032c9a9b_6d8a_4ba9_ab58_afce1b2a8dbf.pdf
Court

High Court

Given admissions by respondent, the quantity and conservatively estimated high value of the cannabis found on his property, and timely inter partes application following an ex parte order, there was sufficient evidence that the property was tainted under the Proceeds of Crime Act and no proper basis was shown to oppose the restraining order; consequently the court granted the restraining order in terms of the applicant's draft.
3 Oct 2005

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND V MACDONNELL AND ORS HC AK CIV 2002-404-2825

Citation

openlaw-a9138a78_f451_43af_8b6f_023b54cd16e4.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that substantial unexplained income and specific assets of Mr Hunt and Ms Ada Pue were proceeds of a commercial methamphetamine operation and therefore tainted; forfeiture orders were made for identified assets and pecuniary penalty orders were imposed for the remaining assessed benefits (after a generous 10% allowance), while the application against MacDonnell was dismissed and Tania Pue was given a pecuniary penalty rather than forfeiture due to limited involvement and undue hardship considerations.