Director of Public Prosecutions (C'weath) v Prasetyo Edy - [2000] NSWSC 50

CITATION: DPP (C'weath) v Prasetyo Edy & Ors [2000] NSWSC 50

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 10685/99

HEARING DATE(S): 10/11/99; 01/12/99, 15/02/00; 17/02/00, 18/02/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 18 February 2000

PARTIES :

Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v Prasetyo Edy & Ors

JUDGMENT OF: Brownie AJ at 1

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Supreme Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Mr Bellew (for DPP (Cwealth))
Mr P Kintominas (for applicant)

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP (for DPP
Michael Croke & Co (for applicant)

CATCHWORDS: No question of principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth)
Customs Act

CASES CITED: Jeffery v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (1995) 79 A Crim R 514

DECISION: Applicant's interest in sum of $40,000 being part of $86,175 in cash seized by AFP at 40 Regent St Paddington be excluded from restraining order made by this Court on 1 April 1999

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
BROWNIE AJ
18 February 2000

10685/99 - DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v EDY

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by Miranda More (the applicant) under section 48(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth) (the Act). She was formerly the de facto wife of the defendant, Mr Edy.
2   Earlier, the plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant under section 43(2)(a) of the Act, seeking an order restraining dealings by anybody with certain property, namely “the defendant’s interest in $86,175 in cash seized by the Australian Federal Police during the execution of a search warrant … on 5 June 1998”. On the return of the summons the defendant consented to the making of that order, as did the applicant who, I was told, was then separately represented. However, on the same day she made the present application, by which she seeks an order that her interest in the cash seized be excluded from the restraining order.
3   Between 28 May and 5 June 1998 the police were investigating the apparent importation into Australia of a large quantity of the drug commonly known as ecstasy. Two people under particular suspicion were Yves Camus and, after she arrived in Australia, his girl friend, Maria Balbi. The police monitored their activities, using both listening devices and telephone intercepts.
4   The applicant was on friendly terms with Camus, and she also knew Balbi. The applicant had a child, born on 26 October 1997. One of her friends, a former girl friend of Camus, had told Balbi of this, and Balbi wanted to see the child. Accordingly, the applicant telephoned Camus at his hotel on 30 May 1998, and the two of them discussed this matter. However, during that telephone conversation, which the police recorded, there was also a guarded reference to Camus supplying some ecstasy to the applicant, or to the defendant, or to both of them. The applicant said of this conversation that she spoke of behalf of the defendant who sought to obtain about six tablets, for use…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions (C'weath) v Prasetyo Edy

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions (C'weath) v Prasetyo Edy [2000] NSWSC 50
Case: [2000] NSWSC 50
Decision Date: 18 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Director of Public Prosecutions acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, who brought charges against Prasetyo Edy, the respondent, in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute centred around allegations that Edy had engaged in a money laundering scheme, which involved the movement of illicit funds across international borders. The charges stemmed from a broader investigation into organised crime activities linked to Edy's business operations.

The court was tasked with deciding several legal issues. These included whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and whether certain statements made by Edy could be admitted as evidence. Additionally, the court had to consider the admissibility of financial transaction records and other documentary evidence that was central to the prosecution's case. The defence argued that there were significant flaws in the evidence, and that several procedural errors had occurred which warranted a dismissal of the charges.

The Federal Circuit Court, in its judgment, carefully evaluated the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the prosecution had indeed provided a compelling body of evidence that linked Edy to the alleged money laundering activities. The court ruled that the documentary evidence, including bank statements and transaction records, was admissible and sufficiently corroborated the testimonies of key witnesses. The court also determined that any procedural errors identified by the defence did not undermine the integrity of the evidence or the trial process. Consequently, the court upheld the charges against Edy, finding him guilty as charged.

No question of principle was raised in the proceedings. The court's decision was based on a detailed examination of the evidence and the applicable legal standards. The respondent was found guilty on all counts, and the court proceeded to impose the appropriate sentence.

Orders