The Solicitor-General for New Zealand v The Beneficial Owners of Various Bank Accounts HC WN CIV 2008-485-1070

[2008] NZHC 2337

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2008-485-1070

BETWEEN  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND

Applicant

ANDTHE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS First Respondents

ANDTHE SIGNATORIES TO THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNTS BEING: ROBERT FRANCES AGIUS; ANDREW NEILL; ALLAN JOHN MCLEISH; IAN DAVID JOHNS; AND KELLY JANE FAWCETT

Second Respondents

AND  ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED Third Respondent

AND  BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Fourth Respondent

Hearing:         21 May 2008 (In Chambers)

Appearances: N P Chisnall for Applicant

No appearance for Respondents

Judgment:      21 May 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J

[1]      This is an application by the Solicitor-General for registration of a foreign

restraining order.   The order is from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.   It

SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND V THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS AND ORS HC WN CIV-2008-485-1070  21 May 2008

relates to funds held in various bank accounts in New Zealand, in the ANZ and BNZ, the source of which is alleged to be fraud, money-laundering and tax evasion.

[2]      When the matter initially came before me on an ex parte basis I expressed concern that the terms of the restraining order sought to be registered entitled the Public Trustee of New South Wales to effectively uplift funds from the New Zealand bank accounts the subject of the order and transfer them to Australia.  This power seemed to me to be more than a restraining order with respect to the funds.  I was also concerned that the terms of the order would entitle the Public Trustee to transfer funds – identified in the order – to Australia which could effectively render hollow any New Zealand challenge to the registration of the order, given the funds would already have left this jurisdiction.

[3]      As a result, the Crown have now obtained an amended order from the New South Wales Supreme Court which remedies the problem that I identified by removing the right of the Public Trustee to deal with the funds in the New Zealand bank accounts.

[4]      I  am  therefore  satisfied  that  the  order  of  13  May,  together  with  the amendment of 20 May, can be registered in New Zealand pursuant to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992.

[5]      Finally, in line with R v Bujak [2007] NZCA 347, this order should be served on all parties who have an interest in the various bank accounts the subject of the restraining order. This will include but of course would not be limited to all signatories to the bank accounts and the companies in whose name the accounts are held.

[6]      Finally, as a result, any interested party will have 14 days after service of this order within which to apply to challenge this order before the New Zealand Courts.

“Ronald Young J”

Solicitors:           Crown Law, Wellington