27 Sept 2022
On the balance of probabilities the seized cash was acquired as a result of, or derived from, the respondent's significant criminal activity and therefore constituted tainted property under s5 of the Act, entitling the Court to grant an asset forfeiture order under s50.
13 Dec 2019
The Court approved the settlements as consistent with the purposes of the Act and ordered by consent a profit forfeiture in the amount of $1,750,000 against Matthew Rowland with the listed assets to be realised (including assets under his effective control and specified UK assets), ordered return of specified personal items to Rowland, and ordered Ashleigh Zammit to pay $8,000 to the Proceeds of Crime Account with the 2014 Mini to be returned to its registered owner thereafter; costs to lie where they fall.
15 Mar 2017
The Court approved the s 95 settlement because it was consistent with the Act's purposes and in the overall interests of justice: the property was properly forfeited to the Crown given its likely derivation from significant criminal activity, the settlement pragmatically resolves the proceedings saving time and cost, and the withdrawal of the profit forfeiture claim was acceptable in the absence of other realisable assets.
19 May 2014
The Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cash seized on 24 February 2011 ($11,021.50) and 24 May 2012 ($31,800.00) was tainted property because of the combination of the large unusually formatted cash sums, contemporaneous drug items and paraphernalia, text messages indicative of drug dealing, the respondents' lack of credible lawful sources or supporting documentation, and the first respondent's convictions related to the same incidents; accordingly, mandatory asset forfeiture orders under s50 were made and the third party's relief was dismissed.
27 Nov 2013
The vehicle was released because (1) two vehicles were necessary for the working rural family; (2) the vehicle's modest value (Turners valuation $10,000) and the existence of substantially larger restrained assets made the risk to forfeiture equity insignificant; and (3) the court could and did impose conditions to protect forfeiture interests, so variation of the restraining order was justified.