Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Lordianto

Case

[2017] NSWSC 1196

07 September 2017


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Lordianto [2017] NSWSC 1196 [2017] NSWSC 1196 07 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) brought proceedings against Lordianto, seeking the forfeiture of assets derived from criminal activities. The dispute centred on whether certain properties, including a chose in action, were subject to restraining orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth). The court was required to determine when a chose in action is considered "acquired" and the meaning of "third party" within the Act. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the applicants had knowledge of the criminality through "wilful blindness."

The court examined the statutory language of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) to interpret the term "acquired" in the context of a chose in action. It considered whether "acquired" included instances where the chose in action was obtained through the actions of a third party. The court also scrutinised whether "third party" could encompass individuals who were knowingly or recklessly involved in the criminal activities. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the applicants' awareness of the potential criminality amounted to "wilful blindness."

The court concluded that a chose in action was acquired when the right to enforce the chose against another party crystallised. It found that a "third party" could indeed include those knowingly or recklessly involved in the criminal enterprise. The court held that the applicants' knowledge of the potential criminality, even if they chose not to investigate, constituted "wilful blindness." Based on these findings, the court determined that the chosen properties were subject to restraining orders.

The court ordered that the chosen properties, including the chose in action, be subject to restraining orders under the Act. This decision reinforced the importance of understanding the timing of when a chose in action is considered acquired and the implications of "wilful blindness" in the context of forfeiture proceedings.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law

Legal Concepts

  • Proceeds of Crime

  • Wilful Blindness

  • Restraining Orders

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Cited

16

Statutory Material Cited

5

Russell v Scott [1936] HCA 34
Russell v Scott [1936] HCA 34
Croton v The Queen [1967] HCA 48
Cited Sections