New South Wales Crime Commission v Ryan

[2019] NSWSC 1039

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	New South Wales Crime Commission v Ryan; Loriz [2019] NSWSC 1039
Hearing dates:	31 July 2019
Date of orders:	31 July 2019
Decision date:	31 July 2019
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Ierace J
Decision:	Orders made as sought
Catchwords:	CRIME – confiscations – restraining order – serious crime derived property
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), s 10A
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Dean Kevin Ryan (Defendant) Linda Loriz (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: R Katrib (Solicitor) (Plaintiff)   Solicitors: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2019/00236990

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: The New South Wales Crime Commission (“the plaintiff”) seeks restraining orders on an ex parte basis against both defendants pursuant to s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) (“the Act”), in respect of certain property set out in a schedule to the summons. The defendants in this matter are Dean Kevin Ryan (“the first defendant”) and Linda Loriz (“the second defendant”). The summons dated 26 July 2019 is supported by an affidavit of Katie Elaine Bourne sworn on the same date, who is an authorised officer of the plaintiff for the purposes of the Act.

2. Section 10A(5) requires the Court to make the restraining order if the application is supported by an affidavit of an authorised officer stating that he or she suspects that one of the statutory requirements set out in s 10A(5)(a) is satisfied and the grounds on which that suspicion is based. As well, the Court must consider that, having regard to the matters contained in the affidavit, and any evidence adduced, there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion.

3. The authorised officer deposes to a suspicion that the first defendant has engaged in serious crime activity or activities as defined in s 6 of the Act in three respects. Firstly, that he dishonestly obtained a financial advantage contrary to s 192E of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which, as an offence punishable by imprisonment for five years involving fraud, falls within the definition of “serious criminal offence” pursuant to s 6(2)(d) of the Act. Secondly, that he participated in a criminal group contrary to s 93T of the Crimes Act, which also falls within that definition pursuant to s 6(2)(g1) of the Act. Thirdly, that he knowingly dealt with the proceeds of crime contrary to s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act, which, as an offence punishable by imprisonment for five years involving money laundering, also comes within the definition of a “serious criminal offence” pursuant to s 6(2)(d) of the Act.

4. Ms Bourne deposes that her suspicion is based on certain emails and documents, including a set of agreed facts in relation to the first defendant. That was created in respect of a guilty plea entered by him in relation to those offences, and as well certain records, all of which are set out at par 4 of Ms Bourne’s affidavit.

5. In relation to the second defendant, Ms Bourne deposes to a suspicion that she has also engaged in serious crime-related activity or activities as defined in s 6 of the Act, namely, dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to s 193C(1) of the Crimes Act. As an offence punishable by five imprisonment years involving money laundering, this also comes within the definition of a “serious criminal offence” pursuant to s 6(2)(d) of the Act.

6. Ms Bourne deposes that her suspicion is based on certain emails and information therein which are set out at par 6 of her affidavit, together with certain documents which are set out at pars 8 and 9.

7. Having regard to Ms Bourne’s affidavit and annexures in relation to both defendants, I am satisfied that her suspicions are based on reasonable grounds. Therefore, I am satisfied that the onus borne by the plaintiff has been satisfied and that it is appropriate to make the orders in the terms sought.

**********