New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Civil forfeiture

Legal area

Court

30 Nov 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v RODRIGUEZ [2022] NZHC 3164

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3164
Court

High Court

Given the complex, multi‑jurisdictional nature of the investigation, demonstrable diligence by Police, significant MLAT delays (some caused or extended by the respondent/related entities' actions), and the respondent's refusal to cooperate, it was lawful and in the public interest to extend the restraining order for 12 months from 10 September 2022; on the facts the court declined to require a s29 undertaking because the respondent's claimed prejudice was financial and diminished by her conduct and the realities of overseas delays.
31 Oct 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v DAVIES [2022] NZHC 2814

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2814
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the cash sums of $6,010 and $35,440 were tainted property derived from criminal activity (including sale of illegal drugs) given their discovery with drugs, scales and weapons, implausible explanations, and unexplained bank records; therefore an assets forfeiture order under s 50 was appropriate and the cash vests in the Crown.
6 Jul 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ZHANG [2022] NZHC 1593

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1593
Court

High Court

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

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v CREELMAN [2022] NZHC 1393

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1393
Court

High Court

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.
12 May 2022

THE COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALAND v WOODLEY & ORS [2022] NZHC 1018

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1018
Court

High Court

Detective Constable Chaston's affidavit provided reasonable grounds that the respondents had benefited from significant criminal activity (large scale cannabis cultivation), that they had an interest in the Property and that the Property was tainted; further, there were reasonable grounds that without notice orders and ancillary entry and custody orders were necessary to prevent disposal or dissipation of the Property, therefore the without notice restraining and ancillary orders should be granted as sought.
8 Oct 2019

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SCOTT [2019] NZHC 2555

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2555
Court

High Court

The Court approved the settlement under s95(3) because it gave effect to the Act's primary purpose, was a pragmatic resolution given the absence of known unrestrained assets of the second respondent, would save time and costs and narrow the issues for the Commissioner’s forthcoming civil forfeiture application, and both parties accepted the commercial risks of settlement.
29 May 2019

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NZ POLICE v HARRISON [2019] NZHC 1199

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1199
Court

High Court

On the without‑notice application the duty judge concluded the $23,000 released from Ms Harrison's KiwiSaver account is no longer protected by the KiwiSaver Act and granted the without‑notice restraining order under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, while noting the Commissioner should consider converting the proceedings to a Part 32 freezing order and that an on‑notice application must be expedited within seven days; the Registry was directed to arrange appointment of counsel and an affidavit was ordered to be restricted from access without leave.
29 Mar 2019

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v PARKES & ORS [2019] NZHC 639

Citation

[2019] NZHC 639
Court

High Court

Section 95 requires the Court to approve a Commissioner’s settlement if consistent with the Act’s purposes and the overall interests of justice; applying that test the Court approved the consent settlement because it secures substantial recovery to the Crown (approximately $280,000), reflects a strong evidential case of proceeds from drug offending, saves time and expense, and includes a modest return of $5,000 to the respondent to assist reintegration, with the profit forfeiture claim dismissed as part of the compromise.
7 Dec 2018

COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE v LOWEN [2018] NZHC 3226

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3226
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied statutory criteria for restraint under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 were met and that preserving the net sale proceeds as tainted property was necessary; a restraining order does not prevent the sentencing court from accepting or giving effect to offers of reparation and reparation is prioritised under ss 82–83, therefore the net proceeds were to be restrained and placed in the Official Assignee's custody pending resolution.
27 Sept 2018

POLICE v SNOOK [2018] NZHC 2537

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2537
Court

High Court

Assets forfeiture orders were made in respect of the three identified bank accounts and the respondents' interests in 61 Jillett Street except for the ANZ mortgagee's interest and an exclusion of NZD 25,000 (legitimate KiwiSaver funds); profit forfeiture was declined because (a) Ms Snook did not, on the evidence, unlawfully benefit from the money laundering transaction and (b) ANZ mortgage advances are loans giving rise to corresponding liabilities and, absent further benefit, do not constitute an unlawful "benefit" under ss52–53.