Liu Zhong Bao v New South Wales Crime Commission

The New South Wales Crime Commission sought to forfeit property owned by Liu Zhong Bao, who was not suspected of engaging in serious crime related activity, but whose property was subject to a restraining order. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether an assets forfeiture order could be made under section 22 of the *Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990* (NSW) in respect of property owned by an individual who was not suspected of engaging in serious crime related activity, but whose property was subject to a restraining order. The Court also considered the application of section 25 of the Act, which deals with exclusion orders.

The Court of Appeal held that section 22 of the *Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990* (NSW) permits the forfeiture of property even if the owner is not suspected of serious crime related activity, provided the property is subject to a restraining order. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the Act is to recover assets derived from serious crime, and the restraining order itself signifies that the property is considered to be potentially derived from such activity. The Court found no error in the primary judge's decision to make the forfeiture order and affirmed that section 25 did not provide a basis for excluding the property in these circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, and Liu Zhong Bao was ordered to pay the costs of the New South Wales Crime Commission.