Ad v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police

The appeal concerned the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and an appellant whose property had been subject to restraining orders under the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* (Cth). The central dispute revolved around whether an exclusion order could be made in respect of property that had already been forfeited under the Act, and whether the appellant should be permitted to argue that the initial restraining orders were obtained by fraud.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included the interpretation of "conviction day" within the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* (Cth), the constitutional validity of specific provisions of the Act, namely sections 18, 26(4), 92, 95, and paragraphs (a)(ii), (a)(iv), and (g) of the definition of "serious offence," and the overarching question of whether an exclusion order could be made in relation to property already forfeited.

The court reasoned that the statutory scheme of the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* (Cth) did not permit an exclusion order to be made in respect of property that had already been forfeited. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's arguments regarding the alleged fraud in obtaining the restraining orders were not a valid basis for challenging the forfeiture or seeking an exclusion order at that stage. The constitutional challenges to the specified sections of the Act were also dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The court granted leave to appeal to the extent required, dismissed the appellant's notices of motion for a stay and to adduce further evidence, and set aside the appellant's notice to produce. The appellant was ordered to pay the Commissioner's costs.