DPP v Mokbel & Navarolli
[2007] VSC 72
•23 March 2007
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
No. 1545 of 2005
IN THE MATTER of the Confiscation Act 1997
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | Applicant |
| v | |
| ANTONIOS SAJIH MOKBEL | Firstnamed Respondent |
and
| EMIDIO NAVAROLLI | Secondnamed Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | BONGIORNO J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 19-20, 23 December 2005, 25 January 2006, 1 February, 2006 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 23 March 2007 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Mokbel and Navarolli | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2007] VSC 72 | 1st revision 26 March 2007 |
---
Confiscation – Bank account – property of person other than account holder – need to prove beneficial interest in person charged with Schedule 2 offence – ss.16 and 18 Confiscation Act 1997
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr N Mukhtar, QC with | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Firstnamed | No appearance | |
| For the Secondnamed Respondent | Mr R Richter, QC with Mr C Boyce | Garde-Wilson Lawyers |
---
HIS HONOUR:
On 9 December 2005 the Director of Public Prosecutions for Victoria filed an application in this Court for a restraining order pursuant to s.16 of the Confiscation Act 1997 in respect of property in which the DPP alleged one Antonios Sajih Mokbel had an interest within the meaning of that Act. Mokbel had been charged with a number of serious drug trafficking offences. The property was described in the application as being the money in bank account number 5779.32902 with the ANZ Banking Group at its South Yarra branch in the name of Emilio (sic) Navarolli. Strictly speaking, of course, what is really being sought to be restrained is the debt owing by the Bank to Navarolli as trustee for Mokbel. At the time the hearing of the application began on 19 December 2005, this bank account was already restrained by an order of Gillard, J made on 26 September, which, although it had been set aside by the Court of Appeal on 14 December was and is still in force by virtue of an order of that Court until the hearing and determination of this application.
The offences with which Mokbel stood charged were Schedule 2 offences within the meaning of the Confiscation Act 1997. He has not yet been tried on these charges, as he disappeared in March 2006 before that trial could take place. Thus the DPP’s application was brought pursuant to s.16(2)(c) of the Act which provides that where a person has been charged with a Schedule 2 offence and that person has an interest in the property sought to be restrained, the DPP may apply to this Court for a restraining order in respect of that property. An interest in property for the purposes of the Act means not only a legal or equitable estate or interest in the property but also a “right, power or privilege over, or in connection with, the property”.
It may be noted that although the material filed in respect of an application pursuant to s.16(2)(c) must include an affidavit by a member of the Police Force or a relevant prosecutor who deposes to his belief that the person whose property is sought to be restrained has an interest in that property or that that property is tainted property, the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction to grant a restraining order (and the DPP’s power to seek such an order) is not grounded on a belief by the deponent of the affidavit in support as to one or other of those jurisdictional facts, but is grounded rather upon the actual existence of one of the facts themselves. That is to say the person charged must have an actual interest in the property unless the property is itself tainted.
The purposes for which the restraining order was sought by the DPP as set out in the application were:
·to satisfy any forfeiture order which might be made subsequently,
·to satisfy automatic forfeiture or to satisfy any pecuniary penalty order which might be made.
The DPP’s application of 9 December 2005 first came before the Practice Court on 19 December, five days after the Court of Appeal had ruled that such applications should, unless circumstances of urgency or security dictated otherwise, be made on notice and not ex parte.[1] Accordingly, Navarolli, the account holder in respect of the bank account sought to be restrained, was represented by counsel although Mokbel was not represented and did not appear. On that same day counsel for the DPP moved for an order pursuant to s.18 of the Confiscation Act 1997 restraining any dealing in the proceeds of the ANZ Bank account to which the application related. He did so on affidavits of John Gerard Coghlan, a police officer, sworn on 9 December 2005 and 16 December 2005 and an affidavit of Stephen John Spargo of 22 September 2005. Mr Navarolli’s counsel foreshadowed an application to cross‑examine Mr Coghlan and, if necessary, to rely upon an affidavit sworn by Mr Navarolli contesting the DPP’s claim.
[1]But now see s.17 of the Confiscation Act 1997 as amended by Part 5 of the Justice Legislation (Further Amendment) Act 2006.
There were exhibits to Mr Coghlan’s affidavits, one of them being the transcript of an Australian Crime Commission hearing in which Antonios Mokbel was questioned. The DPP submitted that he could rely upon Mokbel’s answers to questions at that hearing as evidence that he had an interest in the property the subject of this application. The admissibility of this material was argued at length. The Court’s decision on this question was reserved and the matter was adjourned, part heard, for further hearing on another day.
For reasons which are irrelevant to this application it was not until 19 May 2006 that the hearing of the matter could be resumed. On that day the Court ruled that the DPP was not entitled to rely upon Mokbel’s answers to the Australian Crime Commission on this application, those answers being hearsay when considered by reference to an application concerning a bank account in Navarolli’s name and of which Navarolli claimed ownership. In effect, admissions by Mokbel out of court could not be used against Navarolli, having regard to the real issue in contention. Although the application also named Mokbel as a respondent, as all his assets, whenever acquired, were the subject of a restraining order made by the County Court on 24 August 2001, if the proceeds of the ANZ account in truth belonged to him they were effectively restrained anyway. If those proceeds did not belong to him he had no interest in the proceeding to protect.
The matter then proceeded on that day, Mr Coghlan was cross-examined and counsel for Navarolli sought to make a “no case submission”. He was permitted to do so. Again the time available to complete the matter was insufficient and it was adjourned. Unfortunately it was not resumed until 13 November 2006 when the Court ruled that the DPP had established a prima facie case for the granting of a restraining order.
The hearing resumed on 17 November when counsel for Navarolli sought to rely upon an affidavit of Navarolli sworn 20 September 2005 (although wrongly dated 18 September) and on further oral evidence from him. This affidavit was read and Navarolli was examined by his counsel and cross‑examined by counsel for the DPP. Thus the issue as to whether Mokbel had an interest in the property sought to be restrained and which was claimed by Navarolli as his was fully litigated.
The DPP’s case was that although the ANZ account was in Navarolli’s name, the proceeds of it belonged to Mokbel. Navarolli’s case was that the ANZ account was his and that Mokbel had no interest in any money in it within the meaning of the Confiscation Act 1997, at any relevant time.
In his affidavit of 9 December Mr Coghlan deposed to Mokbel’s having been charged with a number of Schedule 2 offences and said that during an Australian Crime Commission hearing on 18 August 2005 he, Mokbel, had admitted that money in the relevant ANZ Bank account belonged to him. Mr Coghlan identified that account by its number and deposed that it was in the name of Emidio Navarolli.
Another of the exhibits to Mr Coghlan’s affidavit was a transcript of an Australian Crime Commission examination of Emidio Navarolli conducted on 13 September 2005. This transcript of that examination revealed a close connection between Navarolli and Mokbel over some 15 years. Navarolli said that he lived in a house owned by Mokbel for which he paid $110 per week rent. He said that he bet on horses jointly with Mokbel. He did this by betting on horses selected by Mokbel and that he and Mokbel would split their winnings. He said that Mokbel drove a car owned by him or his company and that Mokbel, along with others, used an apartment at Docklands which Navarolli said was rented by a friend in his, Navarolli’s, name. Mr Navarolli told the ACC hearing that as far as the ANZ Bank account was concerned he “lived off it” but that Mokbel was “allowed to bank his money in that account, and I could split that money with him”.
At one point in his evidence to the Crime Commission, Mr Navarolli said that Mokbel was “an authority on that account”, meaning the ANZ account. But almost immediately afterwards he said that he, Navarolli, was the sole signatory on the account (as was apparently the fact) but that Mokbel came to him and got the cheque book because of that fact. Later in his evidence Navarolli said that the ANZ account was the only financial dealing he had had with Mokbel although Mokbel had lent him $8,000 or $10,000 “a few years ago”.
Mr Navarolli also told the Crime Commission that he had obtained a number of bank cheques using money from the ANZ account to pay legal fees for Mokbel, perhaps totalling more than $100,000. He said that those payments were loans by him to Mokbel. He also spoke of a credit card with Westpac which, although in his name, was utilised by Mokbel. He said that Mokbel reimbursed him when he used the card on Mokbel’s behalf. He then said:-
“… which is how we were going to run the ANZ account at the start, but then, you know, sometimes he’s had a cheque, and then obviously I say, well, leave it in there. If you win, fine, then top it up more. Otherwise, if I lose, then obviously, you know, I need to pay up. Or if he wins he doesn’t give it to me because I have got some of his money sitting in there.” (emphasis added)
Finally, although inconsistent with a number of his prior answers, towards the end of the Australian Crime Commission examination, Mr Navarolli insisted that all the money in the ANZ account “at the moment” belonged to him because Mokbel had taken his “winnings” in cash.
Mr Coghlan’s affidavit of 9 December also deposed to the matters required by s.16(4) of the Confiscation Act 1997. He was cross-examined by counsel for Mr Navarolli.
In the affidavit on which he relied, Mr Navarolli said that he was a company director, his company being Navarolli International Fashions Pty Ltd, of which his brother and his wife were also directors. He said that he opened the ANZ account on 19 November 2003 to be used for personal expenditure unconnected with his business. He produced a bundle of bank statements relating to the account. He said that after the account had been opened for some time he began to use it as his gambling account.
Mr Navarolli said that his betting on horse races changed from “low level and occasional” betting to more frequent betting in about the middle of 2004. He said that on 12 October 2004 cheques totalling $154,500 were deposited in the ANZ account and were the proceeds of winning bets. This amount comprised virtually the total balance of the account after those cheques were credited.
Mr Navarolli said that although he had mislaid some of the receipts and deposit slips relating to money paid into the account, all funds deposited into the account was either his money or money that was paid to him by third parties, namely, bookmakers. He said that with the exception of a few transactions almost all the money deposited was the proceeds of betting on horse races either with bookmakers or with the TAB. With respect to Mr Mokbel’s interest in any money in the account Mr Navarolli said:-
“Tony Mokbel has no interest in any of the money deposited into the account. A large proportion of the money paid in was from the proceeds of winning bets which he had placed with bookies on my behalf.”
He said that there were several occasions when a cheque was paid to him by a bookmaker which consisted of the proceeds of winning bets made both by him and Mokbel. On those occasions he said he paid Mokbel’s share directly to him in cash. He did not elaborate on the mechanism he used to achieve this result which must have involved very large amounts of cash. Mr Navarolli produced a bundle of cheque stubs which, he said, contained particulars of all cheques drawn on the ANZ account by him. Many of these show amounts paid to bookmakers which, he said, were paid by him to cover his losing bets.
A number of the cheque stubs produced by Mr Navarolli showed payments to other accounts of his or to third parties which, he said, were for other expenses. He said that some of these payments were reimbursement of his company, Navarolli International Fashions Pty Ltd, for payments due on “my car”, “rental and bond” expenses and “my parking fines”.
Mr Navarolli deposed to having paid $145,300 towards legal expenses incurred by Mr Mokbel. Of this expenditure he said:-
“I do not consider these payments to be loans as I have expectation that this money will be repaid (sic). I have paid this money because I consider myself to be a loyal family friend of Tony. A second reason why I am happy to have made this contribution is that I have relied heavily on betting tips given to me by Tony which he has been very generous with over the past three years or so and am therefore more than willing to use some of my winnings to help him in his very difficult situation.”
On its face this statement means that Navarolli was a punter – perhaps even a very big punter – from at least about the latter half of 2002.
In another reference to “my car” Mr Navarolli said that on 28 October 2004 he withdrew $75,007.50 with which he purchased a bank cheque payable to Mercedes Benz of Melbourne for that car. It emerged later, in Navarolli’s cross-examination, that this car was used by Mokbel although his description of the extent of Mokbel’s use diminished as it became clear that his case was imperilled by concession that money from the ANZ account might have benefited Mokbel.
Mr Navarolli also deposed to dealings on the account which related to Modaz Pty Ltd, a company associated with a Mr Jack Smidt which, he said, lent him $500,000 “… to establish my business with Versace”. Mr Navarolli said he repaid Smidt three amounts of $90,000, $99,600 and $202,000 and tried to repay the balance owing in August 2005 which he said was $138,400 (sic), together with an extra $60,000 which Mr Smidt had told him he needed, but was prevented from doing so by the first restraining order made by this Court in respect of the ANZ account on 19 August of that year. He said that this had caused him embarrassment. He later conceded that Jack Smidt was an associate of Mokbel.
Mr Navarolli produced no documentary evidence of any loan from Modaz Pty Ltd apart from a cheque butt which he said was from that company’s cheque book and which had the figures “$500,000” and the word “loan” on it. How he came to have possession of this document was unexplained. Mr Navarolli did not depose to the terms of his loan from Modaz Pty Ltd as to interest and repayment or any other conditions on which he obtained that loan. No affidavit was filed by Mr Smidt and he was not called as a witness, although Navarolli conceded he would have been available.
Mr Navarolli concluded his affidavit by maintaining that the ANZ account was his, that it was not controlled by Mokbel and that the only money paid into it was his money or money payable to him by third parties which was lawfully acquired. Despite his affidavit referring to very large sums of money going into and out of the ANZ account because of his gambling activity with bookmakers, it did not identify any single bet by which he won (or lost) a large amount of money. No horse is mentioned by name as having been backed and no particular whatsoever of any betting activity was disclosed. Mr Navarolli did not produce any documents evidencing any of his betting activities with bookmakers. He said they were all effected by Mokbel on his behalf but he did not explain how Mokbel actually placed those bets for him. His affidavit did not explain how he and Mokbel organised their joint betting activities and accounted to each other when that was necessary. He contented himself with saying that when there were cheques paid to him by a bookmaker which consisted of the proceeds of winning bets made by both himself and Mokbel, he paid Mokbel’s share directly to him in cash. Where Mokbel got the money to place the bet in the first place or where Navarolli got the cash to pay Mokbel was not explained.
In his oral evidence Mr Navarolli said there was a “moral expectancy” that the amounts he had paid for Mokbel’s legal expenses would be repaid “… when Tony got back on his feet”. He said that when he told the Australian Crime Commission that there was some of Mokbel’s money in the account he was “… talking to a past tense situation”. He said Mokbel had no money in the account when he attempted to repay the money he said he owed to Jack Smidt’s company. In answer to a direct question from the Court as to whether Mokbel had any right to any of the money in the account, Mr Navarolli said:
“… he had no money whatsoever in the account and he just never had any power, any right, or privilege over that account.”
He later said that there were times when Mokbel did have money in the account. He referred to one occasion when he had $20,000 there. Mr Navarolli said that he did not know where Mokbel was and had had no communication with him since his disappearance.
Mr Navarolli was cross-examined. He said he was a very good friend of Mokbel and that he had seen him on most days (presumably before he disappeared) and that he and Mokbel were loyal friends to each other. He had agreed to act as licensee of the Red Lion Hotel in Kilmore for Mokbel’s now ex-wife even though he had no interest in the business. He said he did this as a favour.
Mr Navarolli said a number of times that he could not recall ever having had betting accounts in his name with Simon Beasley, a bookmaker or any other bookmaker. He desisted from asserting a lack of memory only when it became clear that the cross‑examiner had access to the transcript of a Racing Victoria stewards’ inquiry into his account with a bookmaker called David Cox. Although he agreed that he attended that stewards’ enquiry in December 2002 he said that he did not know what the purpose of it was. When he was shown a copy of a transcript of the enquiry Mr Navarolli reacted with dismay and asked if he could seek legal advice. His surprise was palpable. However he then conceded he had accounts with bookmakers and answered questions about them although he did so in an evasive, guarded and disingenuous manner. Before conceding his activities in this connection he said that he would not accept that he had an account with David Cox unless he “physically” saw it.
The transcript of the stewards’ enquiry, which was later admitted into evidence without objection, showed that Navarolli and Mokbel were questioned together by four Racing Victoria stewards as to Mokbel’s betting activities and the fact that he used betting accounts in Navarolli’s name. Whilst Mokbel did most of the talking, comments made by Navarolli from time to time revealed a quite different picture of Navarolli’s engaging in betting from the one he attempted to have this Court accept on the hearing of this application.
The stewards said they were concerned with reports that Mokbel was placing bets using an account with bookmaker David Cox in Navarolli’s name. They wanted to find out what the betting arrangements between Navarolli and Mokbel and Cox were. Mokbel told the stewards that he had had barristers talk to the DPP about how he could “… go about my betting, go about my normal life”, in light of the restraining order over all his assets. He said that they said that as long as he had access to “clear funds” and “… its got nothing to do with your normal assets you can get on with your life …”. He said that what he did was “he opened an account in a legit (sic) name”. He said Navarolli knew all about it and that he was quite happy to let Mokbel bet under his name. Navarolli did not seek to contradict or qualify Mokbel’s admission to the stewards that he was betting on his own account in Navarolli’s name.
Navarolli told the stewards he authorised the account to be opened in his name with Cox although he had never had a bet on the account himself as he was not a punter. He said the purpose of the account was “… so Tony could legitimately bet, based on the advice that we were given you know by his barristers”.
In the course of their discussion with Navarolli and Mokbel the stewards made it clear that they were concerned to ascertain the origin of the bets being placed on the accounts Navarolli had with Cox and other bookmakers. Navarolli acknowledged that settlement of the betting accounts at that time (late 2002) was effected using funds in a bank account in the name of Navarolli Fashions International Pty Ltd, his business, which he said was then not yet trading. Mokbel said that because there was half a million dollars in that account at one stage that was the account they chose – “Who was going to check it out?”. He agreed with the Chairman of the stewards that when cheques came from Navarolli Fashions International (presumably for settlement purposes) he would pay Navarolli Fashions International back. Mokbel said that the only trading on the Navarolli Fashions International bank account was related to his betting activity.
At no stage during the stewards’ enquiry did Navarolli ever say that Mokbel placed bets as his agent using his accounts with bookmakers. To the contrary, he said he was not a punter and the only betting carried on using his personal accounts and his business bank account was by Mokbel.
In cross-examination as to the stewards’ enquiry as in the rest of his evidence Navarolli attempted to convey at every possible opportunity that all Mokbel’s betting was done, at least partly, on his, Navarolli’s, behalf. Of course, at the time the stewards’ enquiry occurred the ANZ account with which this case is concerned did not exist. It was not opened until November 2003. But at no time did Navarolli say that at some point after the stewards’ enquiry he began betting when he had not bet before. He never explained his statement to the stewards that he was not a punter. Rather, he continued to strenuously assert that he and Mokbel had been betting together at all relevant times, including the period with which the stewards’ enquiry was concerned. The only qualification on this situation adverted to by Navarolli was that in his affidavit he said that his betting on horse races changed from “low level and occasional” to “more frequent” about the middle of 2004. He said that the betting accounts were opened, not so that Mokbel could bet but so that he and Mokbel could bet together. However, he also said he was “dumbfounded” at what Mokbel had told the stewards about betting on his, Navarolli’s, betting accounts whilst acknowledging that he did nothing to correct any misapprehension of the true situation as he knew it to be which Mokbel was creating. His explanation for not telling the stewards that he and Mokbel bet together, as he asserted in this Court, was that it was really none of their business. I do not accept any of his evidence in this regard.
Navarolli was cross-examined as to the evidence he gave before the Australian Crime Commission to which reference has already been made. He persisted in explaining his references in that evidence to Mokbel having money in the ANZ account as referring to some time past. He said a number of times that Mokbel took his winnings in cash although no cogent explanation was ever forthcoming as to how that was achieved when the bookmakers appeared to be settling with cheques which, as the records produced by Navarolli himself showed, were paid into the ANZ account after it was opened.
When questioned about the mechanics of Mokbel’s placing bets on his behalf Mr Navarolli said:
“He would basically circle what he thought would go well, and if there were six, seven races, I might agree on three or four, it was so varied, and between Melbourne, Sandown or any other venues, there could be up to 15, 20 races a day, so …”
At no time during Navarolli’s evidence was the name of any horse mentioned, nor was any specific bet even vaguely identified as being noteworthy for its success or failure, nor was there any reference to winning streaks or losing streaks. No satisfactory explanation was ever given as to how Navarolli and Mokbel settled as between themselves, no documents as to any such settlements were ever identified or produced, no records of Navarolli’s betting either as to the bets he authorised or their result was ever produced, nor was there any explanation ever given for the non-existence of material which might have corroborated even to some extent his highly unlikely story. His evidence as to his betting activities with Mokbel had a pungent odour of unreality and invention about it.
Navarolli was an unconvincing witness. On many occasions in his evidence he tried to avoid answering questions and when he did answer he often tried to avoid being pinned down to specific answers, leaving room to introduce qualifications if subsequent questions suggested that such qualifications might be advantageous. He engaged in obfuscation and dissimulation. He contradicted himself on a number of occasions in circumstances where such contradictions could not be explained as honest mistakes. I am satisfied that when he said, initially, that he could not remember whether he had betting accounts with bookmakers he was deliberately lying, as he was when he said repeatedly that Mokbel placed bets on his behalf. This latter lie was constructed solely for the purpose of being able to maintain that the cheques from bookmakers which were paid into the ANZ account and formed virtually all of the funds in that account were his property and not Mokbel’s.
When Navarolli was questioned by the Australian Crime Commission he made admissions that some of the money in the ANZ account was Mokbel’s. In this proceeding he attempted to explain those admissions as relating to some earlier time. His explanation was disingenuous. Not only does the transcript of the ACC hearing not bear the meaning he attempts to ascribe to it, his attempts to explain those admissions in the witness box did not provide an acceptable explanation. They were desperate attempts at recovering what was by then a fast deteriorating situation.
I am satisfied that Mr Navarolli never bet on horses using Mr Mokbel as his tipster and/or his agent. Accordingly, he had no winnings. It follows that any money which came from bookmakers and was deposited in the ANZ account must have been solely Mokbel’s. Navarolli had no interest in it. Thus, payments out of that account to Mokbel’s advantage such as the amount paid for his legal fees and the amounts paid to acquire the Mercedes Benz motor car and to pay rent for the Docklands’ apartment, are all explicable without having to resort to the disingenuous explanation given by Navarolli in his affidavit and in his evidence.
In his affidavit Mr Navarolli swore that virtually all of the money in the ANZ account came from bookmakers. He identified only one amount which did not, namely $25,000 paid in on 26 November 2004 which he said was a deposit paid by someone who was going to buy a car from him. As that purchase did not proceed the amount was refunded. It follows that all of the money in the ANZ account, at the time this proceeding was commenced was Mokbel’s not Navarolli’s. I am satisfied that the ANZ account was used, if not created, to enable Mokbel to escape the consequences of a restraining order which had affected all his assets since 2001.
The Court being satisfied that Antonios Sajih Mokbel is the beneficial owner of the debt comprised by the balance in the relevant ANZ account it follows that the evidentiary foundation exists for a restraining order in respect of the proceeds of that account pursuant to s.18(1)(b) of the Confiscation Act 1997. It remains to consider whether there are “reasonable grounds for making the restraining order” as required by that section.
It was not contested between the parties that Mr Mokbel disappeared during his trial on Commonwealth offences, and whilst awaiting trial on the Schedule 2 offences upon which this application for a restraining order is made. Those facts alone constitute reasonable grounds for making the restraining order in the somewhat unusual circumstances of this case. Having regard to the fact that the legal title to the bank account is in the name of Emidio Navarolli the order must go against him as well. Having regard to the 2001 County Court order there is strictly no need for an order against Mokbel, but it is convenient that the order be made against both respondents to ensure there is no opportunity for any misapprehension as to the Court’s conclusions in this case.
Subject to hearing counsel as to form the Court will make the following order:-
1.That pursuant to s.18 of the Confiscation Act 1997 Antonios Sajih Mokbel and Emidio Navarolli be restrained, whether by themselves or by their servants, agents or otherwise, from disposing of or in any way dealing with the proceeds of bank account number 34405779-32902 with the ANZ Banking Group Limited at its South Yarra branch.
2.That there be liberty to apply generally.
I shall hear counsel on the question of costs.
Following the delivery of the above judgment, discussion ensued as to the correct form of the orders to be made in this case. Without objection from the solicitor for Mr Navarolli (Mr Mokbel being unrepresented) orders were made in the following form.
1.Pursuant to section 18 of the Confiscation Act 1997 no person (including Antonios Sajih Mokbel and Emidio Navarolli) shall dispose of or otherwise deal with the property or any interest in the property in, or constituted by the moneys in bank account number 5779-32902 in the name of Emidio Navarolli held at branch (number 3440) of the ANZ Bank located at 145 Toorak Road, South Yarra.
2.Under section 15(3)(a) of the Confiscation Act 1997 the property specified in paragraph 1 of this order is restrained for the following purposes:
(a)to satisfy any forfeiture order that may occur under Division 1 of Part 3 of the Confiscation Act 1997;
(b)to satisfy automatic forfeiture of property that may occur under Division 2 of Part 3 of the Confiscation Act 1997;
(c)to satisfy any pecuniary penalty order that may be made under Part 8 of the Confiscation Act 1997.
3.The applicant’s solicitor draw up this order and it be signed by the Judge making the order, in accordance with Rule 60.04(1) of the Rules of Court.
---
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this and the 13 preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for Judgment of Bongiorno, J of the Supreme Court of Victoria delivered on 23 March 2007.
DATED this twenty third day of March 2007.
Associate to Justice Bongiorno
0
0
0