19 May 2022
The Court approved the settlement under s95 because forfeiture of $220,000 to the Official Assignee satisfied the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, including deterrence, and was consistent with the overall interests of justice given the disproportionate cost and limited utility of contested proceedings; the restraining order will be discharged on payment.
6 May 2022
On the balance of probabilities the Court was satisfied that the identified property was directly or indirectly derived from the first respondent's large-scale methamphetamine supply and that Whitby Place was purchased and held beneficially for the first respondent (despite legal title in Mr Allison). Therefore the property was 'tainted property' within the meaning of the Act and an assets forfeiture order was mandatory under s50, vesting the listed property in the Crown and placing it in the custody and control of the Official Assignee.
3 Nov 2021
Where a plausible innocent explanation for cash exists (legitimate ACC/WINZ payments withdrawn as cash and earmarked for children) the court will not declare those funds tainted on the balance of probabilities; however where unlawful benefit is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
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.
31 May 2021
On the balance of probabilities the Cash was more likely than not proceeds of supply of controlled drugs given its concealed location at an address associated with drug offending, the occupants' conduct and criminal histories, and the corroborating subsequent seizures and charges against an associate; accordingly the Cash is 'tainted property' under s5 and an asset forfeiture order must be made under s50.
20 Apr 2021
On the admissible evidence and credibility findings, the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cash was not the property of Mr Lawson and therefore he had no further interest; however the Court adjourned determination of the asset forfeiture application to allow the Commissioner to file further evidence (including material concerning a third person, Ms W) by 10 May 2021.
4 Sept 2020
On the balance of probabilities the seized cash ($59,400 and $13,710) was tainted because Mr Nicol's convictions for serious drug offences, absence of legitimate income and inability to accumulate such sums lawfully supported the inference the cash derived from sale of methamphetamine; therefore an asset forfeiture order under s 50 was required and made.
31 May 2019
On the balance of probabilities the $20,000 was tainted property: it was found with evidence of drug supply, the respondent admitted ownership in interview, legitimate income was insufficient to account for the cash, the brother's claim was unsupported and not acted on despite notice; the Commissioner was not required to serve the brother before forfeiture because the Commissioner did not have knowledge that the brother had an enforceable interest and the brother had opportunity to apply for relief but did not do so. Therefore an assets forfeiture order vests the cash in the Crown under s50.
8 Feb 2019
The Court approved the settlement under s95 because it was consistent with the Act's forfeiture purposes and the overall interests of justice, having regard to the lengthy court process, storage costs, pragmatic recovery of approximately 10% of the claimed amount, savings in time and cost, avoidance of litigation risk, and public interest in finality.
12 Dec 2017
The Court approved the settlement agreements under s95 because the agreements and evidentiary material demonstrated that the specified asset and profit forfeiture orders would give effect to the purposes of the Act; where a respondent did not oppose, the Court made a profit forfeiture order on the evidence filed.