Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Krstic

[2016] NSWSC 510

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Krstic [2016] NSWSC 510

Hearing dates:

26 April 2016

Date of orders:

26 April 2016

Decision date:

26 April 2016

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Davies J

Decision:

1. Pursuant to s 49 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)(Act), the property listed below be forfeited to the Commonwealth:

 

a. Funds standing to the credit of National Australia Bank (NAB) account 083230-772015587 held in the name of Option One (Aust) Pty Ltd, together with any interest earned on that amount.

 

b. Funds standing to the credit of St George Bank Limited (STG) account 013189- 494131413 held in the name of Option One (Aust) Pty Ltd, together with any interest earned on that amount.

 

c. Funds standing to the credit of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank (Bendigo) account 633000-155210354 held in the name of Option One (Aust) Pty Ltd, together with any interest earned on that amount.

 

d. Funds standing to the credit of Bank of Western Australia Ltd (Bankwest) account 303547-118552 held in the name of Advanced Option (Aust) Pty Ltd, together with any interest earned on that amount.

 

e. Funds standing to the credit of Credit Union Australia (CUA) account 814282-50548167 held in the name of Advanced Option (Aust) Pty Ltd, together with any interest earned on that amount.

 

f. Funds standing to the credit of CUA account 814282-102053803 held in the name of Advanced Option (Aust) Pty Ltd, together with any interest earned on that amount.

 

2. Pursuant to section 69(2) of the Act, the Plaintiff and the Commonwealth have leave to deal with the forfeited property immediately.

 

3. Matter listed for directions before Common Law Registrar on 31 May 2016.

 4. Liberty to restore on 3 days' written notice

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – proceeds of crime – forfeiture orders

Legislation Cited:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff)
Slavica Krstic (First Defendant)
Reymundo Angara (Second Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr W Chan (Plaintiff)
No appearances (Defendants)

  Solicitors:
Proceeds of Crime Litigation, Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff)
Unrepresented (Defendants)

File Number(s):

2015/258983

Judgment

1. On 21 October 2015 Button J made restraining orders pursuant to s 19 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), relevantly, in relation to property contained in schedule 5 of an Amended Summons. The Plaintiff now seeks forfeiture pursuant to s 49 of the Act in relation to the property in Schedule 5. That property consists of funds standing to the credit of two companies, being Option One (Aust) Pty Ltd and Advanced Option (Aust) Pty Ltd, with the various financial institutions set out in Schedule 5.

2. The Court is required to make a forfeiture order under s 49 if the matters enumerated in subs (1) of that section are satisfied. There are three relevant matters to be satisfied on the present application. They are: that it is a responsible authority who is applying for the order; secondly, that the restraining order has been in force for at least six months; and, thirdly, that the Court is satisfied that the authority has taken reasonable steps to identify and notify persons with an interest in the property. Another requirement set out in s 49(1)(c) of the Act is not required to be satisfied in the present case pursuant to subs (3) of s 49.

3. In the present case, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is a responsible authority as defined in the Act. I am satisfied from the affidavits of Catherine Therese Horan sworn 7 March 2016 and 20 April 2016 that reasonable steps have been taken to identify and notify the persons with an interest in the property. Notification was made to one of two email addresses directed by the Court on an application for substituted service. That email address is [email protected]. The alternative email address in the order made by the Court for substituted service resulted in a notification that there was no such address. However, I am satisfied from these affidavits that the relevant information has been forwarded to the defendant and the interested parties.

4. The third requirement is satisfied because the restraining orders were made on 21 October 2015, being more than six months prior to today. The background to the making of the restraining orders is contained in an affidavit of Matthew Oliveiro sworn 21 April 2016, also relied on in this application.

5. Accordingly, I make orders in terms of paras 1 and 2 of the Short Minutes of Order. The matter is listed for directions before the Registrar on 31 May 2016 and there is liberty to restore on three days' notice. The orders may be taken out forthwith.

**********

Decision last updated: 28 April 2016