New South Wales Crime Commission v Choi
[2013] NSWSC 437
•26 April 2013
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Choi [2013] NSWSC 437 Hearing dates: 26 April 2013 Decision date: 26 April 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Consent orders made.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 - consent orders Legislation Cited: Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
Taihun Choi (also known as Brian Kang) (Defendant)Representation: Solicitors:
Ms E Goh
New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
Hans Kim Lawyer (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2013/30311 Publication restriction: None
EX TEMPORE Judgment
These proceedings were commenced by summons filed 31 January 2013. On that day, Harrison J made ex parte orders pursuant to s 10A and other provisions of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 restraining the defendant from taking certain steps in relation to property described in the schedules to the summons.
Today, the parties ask the Court to make consent orders in terms which have been filed. Those orders contemplate leave being granted to the plaintiff to amend the summons in terms which have been filed in Court today; an order being made pursuant to s 22 of the Act forfeiting to and investing in the Crown the interest in property of the defendant specified in schedule 2 to the order, that being some $99,950 cash seized on 11 December 2012 by police, and a second amount of cash of $214,400 seized by police on 10 December 2012, as well as an order dismissing the application for an unexplained wealth order.
The consent orders note various matters in relation to the institution of the proceedings and also that in consideration of the orders being made, the defendant releases the Crown and the plaintiff from any claim for damages in consequence of the making of the restraining order or otherwise; agrees not to appeal from or seek leave to appeal from any order made in the proceedings; and agrees not to make applications under s 24, s 25 or s 26 of the Act.
It is also noted that by virtue of the provisions of s 10D(1) of the Act, the restraining order ceases to remain in force at the time of entry of these orders and that the plaintiff and the defendants have to pay their own costs.
Having considered the circumstances in which the parties seek the making of the proposed consent orders and the terms of the orders themselves and the matters there referred to, I am satisfied that justice dictates that the Court's powers be exercised to make orders in the terms agreed. For those reasons, I make orders in terms of the consent orders filed today 26 April 2013.
**********
Decision last updated: 29 April 2013
0
0
1