5 Dec 2023
The Court must approve a s95 settlement if it is consistent with the Act's purposes and the overall interests of justice; the agreed settlement recovered a substantial portion of the unlawfully derived benefit, avoided further litigation and costs, and promoted deterrence, and therefore approval was appropriate.
4 Dec 2023
The settlement was approved because it was consistent with the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the overall interests of justice: it secures a significant recovery of unlawfully derived benefit, avoids further cost and delay, and serves a deterrent purpose, thereby justifying judicial approval under s95.
30 May 2023
The Court approved the settlement under s95 because it is consistent with the Act’s purpose and the overall interests of justice: the parties’ compromise (payment of $30,000 plus costs, release of specified assets from restraint and forfeiture of the payment and remaining restrained assets) is a pragmatic resolution that secures forfeiture without further costly litigation; the Court accepted the calculated unlawful benefit ($7,000,000) and maximum recoverable amount ($6,912,000) and that the respondent has effective control of the property to be realised.
31 Jan 2023
The Court approved the proposed settlement under s95 because it was consistent with the Act's purposes and the overall interests of justice: it achieved forfeiture of known proceeds, provided deterrence, avoided further litigation and public expense, and adjusted the recoverable profit figure to reflect corrected quantity and prior forfeiture.
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.
16 May 2022
The Court approved the parties' s95 settlement because, weighing the scale of offending, admissions, arguable disputes, litigation costs and public interest, a $900,000 consent profit forfeiture (allocated $600,000 to Lin and $300,000 to Du) was consistent with the purposes of the Act and overall interests of justice; consequential restraining order extensions, conditional lifts and sale/enforcement mechanisms were ordered to give effect to the settlement.
21 Oct 2021
The Court approved the consent settlement under s95 because it was consistent with the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the interests of justice, determined the unlawful benefit at $60,000, and made a profit forfeiture order for that amount, with payment to the Official Assignee and rescission of the restraining order upon receipt of funds.
22 Feb 2021
The court accepted the parties' joint memorandum as a consent application under s55 and, being satisfied the settlement met the criteria of s95(3), approved the settlement: the value of the benefit and maximum recoverable amount were fixed at $20,000 and a payment of $20,000 to the Official Assignee within three months was ordered, with ancillary undertakings recorded.
1 Feb 2021
The Court approved the parties' joint settlement as recorded in the memorandum, finding the pragmatic, economic and litigation risk grounds sufficient under the Act to satisfy the interests of justice; accordingly the defended hearing was vacated and the interim restraining order was extended for 12 months.
3 Dec 2020
The Court must approve a s95 settlement if it is consistent with the Act's purposes and the overall interests of justice; here the settlement was approved because it forfeited a significant sum that furthers deterrence and the Act's purposes, saved time and cost, reflected litigation risks for both parties and addressed effective control of trust-held property, therefore vesting specified assets in the Crown.