In the matter of Nash

[2022] NSWSC 896

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Application of the New South Wales Crime Commission; In the matter of Nash [2022] NSWSC 896

Hearing dates:

17 June 2022

Date of orders:

17 June 2022

Decision date:

17 June 2022

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Hamill J

Decision:

The Court makes orders 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in accordance with the short minutes of order filed by the plaintiff on 17 June 2022.

Catchwords:

CIVIL – confiscation of proceeds of crime – restraining orders sought ex parte – restraining orders made – examination orders refused

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act1900 (NSW), s 193C

Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), ss 4(1), 7, 10A, 10B(2), 12(1)(c)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.4(1)(a)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
Bradley Michael Nash (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
S Santhikumar (Plaintiff)

Solicitors:
New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)

File Number(s):

2022/175072

Ex tempore Judgment (revised)

1. The New South Wales Crime Commission (“the Commission”) brings an application ex parte for restraining orders pursuant to s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), filed against the defendant, Bradley Michael Nash.

2. The proceedings are brought by way of summons filed in Court this morning. The reason the matter is dealt with ex parte, apart from the statutory imperative, is the fact that the orders would be revealed if they are known in advance.

3. An affidavit of Raymond James Bull is read in support of the summons. The summons seeks a number of orders on an interim basis as well as orders for the final hearing.

4. I am satisfied of the necessary matters under the provisions of the Act based on the affidavit of Mr Bull. He is an authorised officer pursuant to s 4(1) of the Act. The affidavit deposes to his suspicion that the defendant has engaged in serious crime related activities, those being dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, contrary to s 193C of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW).

5. Annexed to Mr Bull’s affidavit are a police facts sheet prepared by New South Wales Police, as well as an exchange of correspondence between the authorised officer and the officer in charge. The facts sheet, in bald terms, demonstrates a high level of suspicion, where Mr Nash is essentially seen running from his Central Coast property. When asked what he was doing, he said he was running from the police and later was found to be in possession of “thousands” of dollars in cash. A safe was then found, which contained a little more than half a million dollars in Australian currency.

6. There were other matters disclosed in that affidavit, but ultimately they found the suspicion nominated by the authorised officer and I am satisfied the restraining orders sought should be made.

7. The Commission also seeks orders for examination on oath by a registrar, dates for that proposed examination and the requirement that the defendant provide a statement of his financial circumstances pursuant to s 12(1)(c) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act.

8. Whilst I am satisfied it is appropriate to make the restraining orders ex parte, I am not so satisfied in respect of the examination orders and I will not make those orders.

9. I propose then to make orders in accordance with the short minutes of order filed, being orders 1, 4, 7, 8 and 9 and liberty to be granted to both parties in accordance with order 6.

**********

Decision last updated: 04 August 2022