3 Oct 2023
The Court approved the settlement because it was consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice: the restrained assets will be realised for the Crown, the value forfeited is appropriate given the scale of alleged offending, and settlement avoids the costs and risks of contested proceedings while acknowledging practical difficulties in pursuing profit forfeiture.
20 Jun 2023
The Court approved the consent settlement because it was consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice, supported by evidence that the property was tainted and given the absence of identified substantial additional assets to satisfy a profit forfeiture order, and because the settlement reasonably conserved resources and avoided litigation risk.
8 Jun 2023
Given Mr Allison’s unsuccessful opposition to forfeiture, prior warning that costs would be sought, adequate service and opportunity to respond, and the Commissioner’s establishment of actual reasonable legal costs of $8,932.31 specific to Allison’s opposition, the Court exercises its discretion under the High Court Rules to award those costs to the Commissioner against Mr Allison.
7 Jun 2023
The Court approved the negotiated settlement under s 95(3) because it advanced the Act's purposes and overall interests of justice by realising significant restrained assets for the Crown, reducing litigation and public cost, addressing litigation risk over proprietary claims, and acknowledging that pursuing profit forfeiture against the convicted respondent would be ineffective given his lack of recoverable assets.
26 Apr 2023
The Court held that where continued storage costs, anticipated depreciation and repair needs will materially reduce the net realisable value of restrained vehicles, and there are no competing proprietary claims and imminent forfeiture proceedings are anticipated, it is appropriate to order the Official Assignee to sell the restrained vehicles and hold proceeds in an interest‑bearing trust pending resolution.
12 Dec 2022
By consent and on the basis of evidence that emerged after the initial application (showing beneficial ownership and relationship property interests), the Court ordered release of the specified property from restraint, struck the named former interested party from the record, permitted joinder of the Baylis parties, and allowed filing of the amended forfeiture application; the proceedings were adjourned for callover with directions to file a joint timetable memorandum.
2 Nov 2022
On the balance of probabilities the Court was satisfied the respondent unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity (funds derived from the VenusFX fraudulent scheme and associated money laundering and unregistered provision of financial services) and had proprietary interests in the restrained Igateway accounts as sole director, shareholder and authorised signatory; accordingly a profit forfeiture order for $2,201,383.65 was made and the funds are to be disposed of pursuant to s83(1).
30 Sept 2022
The Court accepted the police evidence of cultivation, seized drugs and cash and the financial analysis showing unexplained deposits and proceeds; those materials gave reasonable grounds to conclude 14 Mulford Street was an instrument of crime and that the respondent had unlawfully benefited (estimated not less than $165,000), and accordingly the restraining orders in the draft were granted.
6 Jul 2022
The Court approved the s95 settlement because it was consistent with the Act's purposes and the overall interests of justice: it fairly balanced public interest in deterrence and realization of proceeds of offending against pragmatic considerations of cost, delay and the impracticality of pursuing further profit forfeiture; accordingly $5,000 was released to the respondents' nominated account and the remainder of the restrained funds vested in the Crown and the Official Assignee.
14 Jun 2022
The Court approved the proposed settlement because it was consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice: it avoided significant cost and delay, provided certainty, reflected that the Commissioner had a strong but not risk‑free case that the cash was tainted, and the third respondent disclaimed any interest and consented to forfeiture with no residual debt obligation.