Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Dickson (No.3)

The matter before the court involved an application by the first defendant, Mr. Dickson, to exclude certain items from forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth). The Australian Federal Police sought to forfeit assets that were considered proceeds of crime, following Mr. Dickson's conviction on criminal charges. The legal issues before the court centred on the onus of proof on Mr. Dickson to satisfy specific elements under s 94(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2004 (Cth) in relation to each item of property he sought to exclude from forfeiture.

The court held that Mr. Dickson had not discharged his onus of proof in relation to any of the items he sought to exclude from forfeiture. This was based on his concession that some of the items were funded by proceeds from unlawful activities, as well as the insufficiency of his evidence to prove the required matters under s 94(1)(b), (e), and (f). Notably, Mr. Dickson had conceded that certain items were funded by monies from the ANZ Trusts, which were linked to his criminal activities. As a result, the court found that Mr. Dickson had failed to prove the necessary elements to exclude these items from forfeiture.

In light of the above, the court dismissed Mr. Dickson's application for exclusion of the specified items from forfeiture. The court further ordered that Mr. Dickson pay the plaintiff's costs. The decision underscores the high threshold that applicants must meet to exclude property from forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime Act, particularly when the property is linked to criminal activities.