Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao

The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (the appellant) sought the forfeiture of property alleged to be the proceeds of crime. The property in question was the family home of the respondents, Xing Jin (the second respondent) and Qing Zhao (the first respondent). At the time the forfeiture proceedings were initiated, Mr. Jin had been charged with offences related to dealing with proceeds of crime, and the circumstances relevant to both the criminal charges and the forfeiture proceedings were substantially identical. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria had ordered a stay of the forfeiture proceedings pending the finalisation of the criminal proceedings against Mr. Jin.

The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the Court of Appeal had erred in staying the forfeiture proceedings. Specifically, the Court considered whether the refusal to stay the forfeiture proceedings created a risk of prejudice to the second respondent in his criminal proceedings, and whether the respondent was required to articulate specific matters of prejudice before a stay would be granted. The Court also considered the general principle that forfeiture proceedings under the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* (Cth) should ordinarily continue, even when criminal proceedings are pending.

The High Court reasoned that while criminal proceedings do not automatically impede civil proceedings under the *Proceeds of Crime Act*, it is not intended that forfeiture proceedings should continue if doing so would expose a respondent to prejudice in their criminal trial. The Court noted that requiring Mr. Jin to defend the forfeiture proceedings before his criminal trial would not serve the interests of justice, particularly as the Commissioner would not suffer any relevant prejudice from a delay. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the long-standing common law principle against the multiplicity of actions, which was relevant to the first respondent, Ms. Zhao, who had not been charged with any offence but was involved in the forfeiture proceedings concerning the family home.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal to stay the forfeiture proceedings. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.