Commissioner for the Australian Federal Police

[2016] NSWSC 1775

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Commissioner for the Australian Federal Police [2016] NSWSC 1775
Hearing dates:	8 December 2016
Date of orders:	08 December 2016
Decision date:	09 December 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Schmidt J
Decision:	Orders sought made.
Catchwords:	PROCEEDS OF CRIME – forfeiture orders sought - granted
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (Supreme Court (NSW)), Harrison J, 30 March 2016, unrep)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr W Chan (Plaintiff)   Solicitors; Criminal Assets Litigation, Australian Federal Police
File Number(s):	2016/67125
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police seeks forfeiture and other orders under s 49 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) in respect of cash of some $2,530,510 seized by the AFP in June 2014, which was the subject of restraining orders made by Harrison J in March 2016 (see Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (Supreme Court (NSW)), Harrison J, 30 March 2016, unrep).

2. The cash was seized at the Australian Customs and Border Service Container Examination Facility at Botany, in circumstances explained in an affidavit sworn by Jeffrey Kokles, an AFP officer, in March 2016. There he explained the basis for the suspicion that the cash was the proceeds of an indictable offence, or an instrument of a serious offence, namely money with a value in excess of $AUD100,00 reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime, contrary to s 400.9(1) if the schedule to the Criminal Code Act1995 (Cth), with which Andreas Tsourelis was charged following a cross border investigation of movements of Australian currency by Cypriot nationals identified to be he and his uncle Loukas Kyriakou.

3. In March 2016 Mr Kyriakou was the subject of an Interpol Red Notice for various offences, including money laundering and drug offences. He has since been arrested in Cyprus. The cash the subject of this application is the second amount of cash located during this AFP investigation. The first, $5,512.847.65, suspected to have been delivered by Mr Tsourelis and Mr Kyriakou, became subject of forfeiture orders made in August 2015.

4. The Commissioner now seeks forfeiture orders under a 49 of the Act in respect of the second amount of cash, which was seized when it was located inside terracotta ovens inside ovens in a shipping container addressed to Mr Kyriakou’s sister, Varvara Christodoulou, in Cyprus. The AFP investigation into Mr Tsourelis, Mr Kyriakou, Ms Christodoulou and Best Terracotta Ovens Pty Ltd, of which Mr Kyriakou was a director and sole shareholder, disclosed no lawful explanation for their possession of such large amounts of Australian currency.

5. Having considered the evidence relied on by the Commission, affidavits sworn by Officer Kokles, Special Member Navarrete and Ms Van Lent, an AFP litigation assistant, I am satisfied that the forfeiture orders sought must be made. The evidence establishes that:

1. The restraining orders made in these proceedings have now been in force for at least 6 months (s 49(1)(b);

2. Various steps have been pursued by the AFP to identify to identify and notify persons who may have an interest in the cash, but no applications for exclusion of the property from any forfeiture order has been made;

3. Those identified were Mr Tsourelis, Mr Kyriakou, Ms Christodoulou and Best Terracotta Ovens;

4. Solicitors for Mr Tsourelis have advised that he has no interest in the property;

5. Best Terracotta Ovens Pty Ltd was deregistered in May 2016;

6. Mr Kyriakou was arrested in June 2016. Service was affected at his last known address in Cyprus, without response;

7. Service was also affected on Ms Christodoulou in Cyprus, without response.

6. In all of those circumstances s 49(3) takes effect, with the result that the Court need not be satisfied of the matters specified in s 49(1)(c). In all of those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Court’s power to make the forfeiture order sought must now be exercised.

Orders

7. Accordingly, I make orders in the terms sought.

**********

Decision last updated: 09 December 2016