New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Profit forfeiture order

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2023

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ALLAN JAMES PINK [2023] NZHC 3736

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3736
Court

High Court

The Court approved the parties' s 95 settlement on the basis that it was consistent with the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the interests of justice, fixed the value of the benefit and maximum recoverable amount at $300,000, ordered payment of $300,000 to the Commissioner, and ordered return of the remaining restrained cash and the campervan to the respondent within seven days; a defended hearing was unnecessary given the respondent's legal aid status and lack of capacity to satisfy a greater order.
9 Feb 2023

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ZAGROS [2023] NZHC 162

Citation

[2023] NZHC 162
Court

High Court

Because the respondent expressly consented and the evidence satisfied the Court on the balance of probabilities that each listed item was tainted property under ss 5 and 6 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, the Court made an assets forfeiture order in respect of the specified assets and dismissed the application for a profit forfeiture order.
21 Jul 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ROSS [2022] NZHC 1757

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1757
Court

High Court

Second respondent's convictions and detailed SARU forensic accounting established unlawful benefit from significant criminal activity of at least $350,000 which respondents failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities; third respondent failed to establish undue hardship and was found to have been wilfully blind to cash flows through his accounts; accordingly a profit forfeiture order for a recoverable amount of $350,000 is appropriate and the Sefton property (subject to mortgage) and $2,800 cash are to be realised; exclusion applications dismissed.
8 Jun 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v WONG [2022] NZHC 1337

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1337
Court

High Court

The court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the $24,000 was the product of significant criminal activity (drug dealing) based on the context of discovery (drugs, scales, packaging), corroborating text messages, lack of a credible legitimate source given the respondent's benefit status, and absence of hardship or competing claims; accordingly forfeiture of the full $24,000 is ordered.
18 Mar 2022

WU v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2022] NZCA 65

Citation

[2022] NZCA 65
Court

Court of Appeal

On the balance of probabilities the Court upheld the High Court's factual findings that significant criminal activity (drug offending, money laundering and tax evasion) existed from at least March 2009; unexplained deposits and transfers tainted the CMC and bank accounts and funded luxury assets; repayments to the revolving credit secured on Ireland Road were made from tainted accounts and thereby tainted Ireland Road; appellant was knowingly or wilfully blind to unlawful benefits; accordingly assets and profit forfeiture orders (maximum recoverable amount $280,259) were valid and the appeal…
3 Nov 2021

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ROPIHA [2021] NZHC 2958

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2958
Court

High Court

Where a plausible innocent explanation for cash exists (legitimate ACC/WINZ payments withdrawn as cash and earmarked for children) the court will not declare those funds tainted on the balance of probabilities; however where unlawful benefit is established on gross basis ($546,507.60) and the respondent has an interest in cash the court may make a profit forfeiture order and may grant relief to third‑party beneficiaries who prove an interest and lack of unlawful benefit.
8 Oct 2021

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v LAW [2021] NZCA 517

Citation

[2021] NZCA 517
Court

Court of Appeal

Considering all relevant strands of circumstantial evidence together — the respondent's demonstrably false and inconsistent explanations, possession of valuable gold bars together with burglary tools while committing a burglary, failure to produce documentary evidence, and failure to oppose the application — the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities the gold bars were acquired from significant criminal activity and therefore constituted tainted property, warranting an asset forfeiture order vesting the bars in the Crown.
27 Aug 2021

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v HUNT & ORS [2021] NZHC 2211

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2211
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the cash seized and the bank account funds were derived from significant criminal activity (possession for supply of methamphetamine) given lack of legitimate income, guilty pleas and circumstantial evidence; assets forfeiture order for specified cash and bank account is mandatory under s50; profit forfeiture order for the assessed unlawful benefit of $727,461.60 (less value of assets forfeited) is justified under s55 as respondents unlawfully benefitted and no undue hardship evidence was presented; the two vehicles, while not tainted, were held under the effec…
6 Nov 2020

POLICE v WISELY [2020] NZHC 2941

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2941
Court

High Court

The Court found the Commissioner proved on the balance of probabilities that the respondent unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity and the statutory presumption under s53 was not rebutted. The Court accepted the Commissioner's conservative valuation of methamphetamine proceeds at $201,537.50 and cannabis proceeds at $23,400 (total $224,937.50), deducted prior forfeited cash of $25,110 to determine a maximum recoverable amount of $199,827.50, refused s56 undue hardship relief, and ordered profit forfeiture of the respondent's Circle Hill property to satisfy the recoverable amo…
24 Jun 2020

BOON HOOI CHEAH v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2020] NZCA 253

Citation

[2020] NZCA 253
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that s53 places the onus on the respondent to rebut the Commissioner's stated value by adducing evidence of the actual amount of unlawful benefit on the balance of probabilities; the High Court did not err in finding the appellant failed to rebut the presumption and did not establish undue hardship under s56, therefore the appeal was dismissed and the forfeiture orders affirmed.