Application by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police

Case [2018] NSWSC 1302


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Application by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2018] NSWSC 1302
Hearing dates: 22 August 2018
Date of orders: 22 August 2018
Decision date: 22 August 2018
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:

Pursuant to section 316 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), the Court makes the following orders by consent:

 

1. Pursuant to section 49 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) (the Act), the property specified in Schedule One be forfeited to the Commonwealth.

 

2. Pursuant to section 69(2) of the Act, the Commonwealth have leave to dispose of, or otherwise deal with, the forfeited property immediately.

 

SCHEDULE ONE

 The cash amount of AUD 399,950 seized by the Australian Federal Police on 26 September 2015 (recorded on AFP Property Seizure Record M337410) together with any interest earned on that amount.
Catchwords: CRIME – proceeds of crime – consent order for forfeiture of restrained property – where six month period has not elapsed – where person served with proceedings has made no application in respect of property – whether order can be made without that person’s consent
Legislation Cited: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) ss 49, 69, 316
Cases Cited: Nil
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
Stuart Cole (Interested party)
Representation:

Counsel:
B Walker (Plaintiff)
H Woolf (Interested party)

  Solicitors:
Criminal Assets Litigation, Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff)
Nyman Gibson Miralis (Interested party)
File Number(s): 2017/251156
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. The plaintiff seeks to forfeit property, which has been restrained by Schmidt J on 28 June 2018. The forfeiture is under s 49 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth).

  2. The evidence discloses that there are only two possible interested parties. One of those is Stuart Cole, who is represented today and consents to the forfeiture order being sought by the Commissioner. The other person is Anthony James Haddleton. He is not represented today and has not consented to the orders.

  3. The evidence discloses that he was served with the summons on 22 August 2017. At the time the Federal Agent who served Mr Haddleton had a conversation with him and told him that the documents pertained to the cash that was seized two years previously from him and Mr Cole. Mr Haddleton is reported to have said that it was not his cash, he was just an Uber driver. The agent said there was information in the paperwork that would let him know where and when he could claim ownership, if he wished to do so. He said, "No thanks".

  4. The proceedings have been before the Court on a number of occasions since the return date on 21 September 2017. No claim has been made by Mr Haddleton.

  5. My attention has been drawn to s 316 of the Act, which enables a consent order to be made specifically in circumstances where a period of six months has not elapsed from the date of the restraining orders. That can be done if everyone whom the Court has reason to believe would be affected by the order has consented to it.

  6. The evidence tends to show that Mr Haddleton does not consider that he has an interest in the proceeds. He has made no application in respect of the property. Accordingly, I do not have reason to believe that he would be affected by the proposed orders.

  7. Further, s 49 does not stipulate, as a pre- condition to a forfeiture order, that the restraining order must have been in force for at least six months. Section 49(1) simply requires the Court to make an order if that condition is fulfilled as well as the other matters enumerated in subs (1).

  8. For those reasons I consider that the consent order put forward by the Commissioner should be made. The orders, therefore, are:

1. Pursuant to s 49 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) the property specified in sch 1 to the consent order be forfeited to the Commonwealth.

2. Pursuant to s 69(2) of the Act the Commonwealth have leave to depose of or otherwise deal with the forfeited property immediately.

**********

Details
AGLC
Application by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2018] NSWSC 1302
Case
[2018] NSWSC 1302
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the court was brought by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, who sought a consent order for the forfeiture of property restrained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The central issue was whether a consent order for forfeiture could be made without the consent of the person served with proceedings, when the six-month period stipulated by the legislation had not elapsed and the person had not applied in respect of the property. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the lack of consent from the person served with proceedings, coupled with the six-month period not having elapsed, precluded the court from making a consent order for the forfeiture of the property. The court examined the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, specifically section 16(3), which outlines the circumstances under which a consent order may be made, and the requirement for the six-month period to elapse before such an order can be made without consent.

The court found that the statutory language did not absolutely preclude the making of a consent order without consent if the court was satisfied that the person served had no objection. The court reasoned that the six-month period was a general guideline, not an absolute requirement, and that the court retained discretion to make a consent order if it was satisfied that the person had no objection. Given that the person had not made any application in respect of the property and had not objected to the making of the consent order, the court concluded that it was appropriate to make the order. The court made the consent order for the forfeiture of the property, recognising the flexibility of the statutory framework in achieving the aims of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.