8 Dec 2023
On the balance of probabilities the cash was tainted given the respondent's minimal legitimate income, unexplained cash and third‑party deposits to his bank account, and repeated findings of cash alongside controlled drugs; accordingly a type 1 forfeiture order was made and includes any interest accrued after deposit.
28 Nov 2023
In the absence of any credible, evidentially supported explanation and given the contextual indicators (cash alongside methamphetamine, absence of drug-use paraphernalia, inconsistency with declared income and bank records, and presence of unlawfully held firearms), the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the $17,355 was derived from significant criminal activity (supply of methamphetamine) and is therefore tainted property subject to forfeiture.
10 Jul 2023
On the balance of probabilities the respondent engaged in significant criminal activity and knowingly derived an unlawful benefit of not less than $50,000 and has an interest in the 2018 Nissan Navara; therefore a profit forfeiture order under s 55 of the Act must be made specifying the assessed benefit and the property to be realised.
26 Apr 2023
On the evidence the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the $23,920 cash was directly or indirectly derived from the respondent's supply of methamphetamine and, because s50(1) mandates forfeiture where property is tainted, an assets forfeiture order was required and made vesting the cash (and accrued interest) in the Crown.
9 Mar 2023
Given the combination of physical evidence from the search, intercepted communications arranging drug sales, the denomination and location of cash, unexplained substantial cash deposits in the respondent's bank account, and the respondent's convictions for supply-related offences, it was more probable than not that the $25,305 was derived from supply of methamphetamine and/or cannabis and therefore constituted tainted property obliging the Court to make an assets forfeiture order under s50(1).
6 Mar 2023
The court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities under s50 that the $82,610 cash was tainted property because it was found alongside controlled drugs and dealing paraphernalia, supported by communications and the respondent's history of drug-dealing and absence of legitimate income; no applicable exception in s50(4) prevented mandatory forfeiture, so the Court must and did order forfeiture.
30 Nov 2022
On the balance of probabilities the Court found that renovations to 31 Vickerys Road and purchases (including the Night Rod) were funded in part by proceeds of significant criminal activity (methamphetamine supply, vehicle taxings/theft and unlawful gambling), that the cash seized from unlicensed gaming machines comprised tainted proceeds exceeding the $30,000 significant-activity threshold, and that no undue hardship exception under s51 applied; accordingly the Court was required to make assets forfeiture orders vesting the named property and items in the Crown and directing their sale with…
29 Nov 2022
The Judge held there were reasonable grounds to believe the respondents had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity because unpaid customs duty constitutes a qualifying 'benefit' for s 25 purposes; given the risk of dissipation if notice were given and the evidential material before the Court, it was appropriate to exercise discretion to make without‑notice restraining orders placing the identified assets in the custody and control of the Official Assignee to preserve them for potential forfeiture.
12 Sept 2022
On the balance of probabilities the cash was acquired as a result of or derived from significant criminal activity given the respondent's gang association, prior drug convictions, presence of drugs and paraphernalia, indicia of dealing (notebook, multiple phones), travel consistent with drug activity, and absence of legitimate banking or IR records; accordingly an assets forfeiture order was mandatory under s50 and was made vesting the $200,040 in the Crown.
11 Aug 2022
The judge was satisfied there was a real risk of dissipation if notice were given and, on the material filed, there were reasonable grounds to believe the identified assets were tainted property and the respondent had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to grant without-notice restraining and further orders placing the specified assets in the Official Assignee's custody to preserve them for potential forfeiture.