New South Wales Crime Commission v Giordano

In the case of New South Wales Crime Commission v Giordano, the court was presented with an application for a restraining order under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW). The dispute centred around the applicant's claim that the defendant had engaged in criminal activities and had accumulated assets through such activities, necessitating the restraint of those assets to prevent their dissipation. The court was tasked with deciding whether the criteria for granting such an order were met and if the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the ex parte nature of the application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had provided adequate evidence to support the assertion that the defendant's assets were derived from criminal conduct and that there was a real risk of dissipation if the assets were not restrained. The court needed to determine if the applicant had met the threshold requirements set out in the legislation and whether it was appropriate to grant the order without prior notice to the defendant, given the urgency and potential for asset dissipation.

The court found that the applicant had presented a compelling case supported by substantial evidence indicating that the defendant's assets were indeed derived from criminal activities. The court was satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated a real risk of dissipation if the assets were not restrained immediately. The urgency of the application and the potential for significant harm to the applicant's ability to recover assets justified the ex parte nature of the proceedings. Consequently, the court granted the restraining order, recognising the applicant's right to protect its interests under the statute.

The final orders of the court included a restraining order that effectively froze the defendant's assets pending further proceedings. This order was intended to prevent the dissipation of the assets and to allow the applicant to pursue its claim for the recovery of proceeds of crime. The court also noted the importance of the defendant being given the opportunity to be heard on the matter once the restraining order had been made.