ASIC v Sigalla (No 3)

The case involved a dispute between the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and Mr Sigalla, who was charged with contempt in relation to orders made under section 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). These orders were in the nature of Mareva orders, which restrain a party from dealing with property pending the determination of a claim. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The defendant argued that there was no case to answer, asserting that the plaintiff’s evidence, even when taken at its highest, could not establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court was required to determine the construction of the orders, the onus of proof on the defendant to establish reliance on a proviso to the orders, whether there was any relevant ambiguity in the orders restraining removal from Australia and dealing with assets, and whether the use of a credit card constituted "dealing" with an asset. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the defendant was in contempt for failing to produce bank statements if he was not in physical custody of those statements.

The court examined the construction of the orders and found that they were clear and unambiguous in their terms. The court held that the onus was on the defendant to establish reliance on any proviso to the orders, and in this case, the defendant failed to do so. The court also determined that there was no relevant ambiguity in the orders concerning removal from Australia and dealing with assets. Regarding the use of a credit card, the court concluded that this constituted "dealing" with an asset. Finally, the court found that the defendant was in contempt for failing to produce bank statements, even if he was not in physical custody of those statements. The court held that the defendant had the means to produce the statements and therefore was in contempt.

The court dismissed the defendant’s submission that there was no case to answer and found him guilty of contempt. The final orders of the court were that Mr Sigalla pay a fine of $20,000 and serve a term of imprisonment for six months, to be served concurrently with any other sentence he was currently serving. The court also ordered that Mr Sigalla pay ASIC’s costs of the proceedings, which were assessed at $75,000.