New South Wales Crime Commission v Hakimi

[2021] NSWSC 789

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

New South Wales Crime Commission v Hakimi [2021] NSWSC 789

Hearing dates:

22 April 2021

Date of orders:

22 April 2021

Decision date:

22 April 2021

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Walton J

Decision:

In all the circumstances, I make the relevant orders provided with the summons for relief.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) – restraining order – ex parte – orders made

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
Wais Hakimi (Defendant)

Representation:

Solicitors:
New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)

File Number(s):

2021/111306

ex tempore Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: The Court has before it a summons which seeks a hearing instanter and ex parte in order to partially deal with the relief sought on the summons.

2. This matter concerns an application by the New South Wales Crime Commission (“the Commission”) pursuant to ss 10A and 10B(2) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) ("the Act").

3. Section 10A of the Act enables an application to be made ex parte for a restraining order. Section 10B(2) of the Act enables this Court when making a restraining order, if it considers that the circumstances so require, order the NSW Trustee and Guardian to take control of some or all of the interests in property that are interests to which the restraining order applies.

4. The relief claimed appears under the heading "Relief Claimed" in the summons, which corresponds to the draft orders provided to the Court in support of the application. As earlier noted, the application is supported by the affidavit of Ms Katie Elaine Bourne, sworn 20 April 2021. The application is also supported by a statement of facts and circumstances, as required on an application for a restraining order, pursuant to r 1.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

5. Pursuant to s 10A of the Act, the NSW Crime Commission may apply for a restraining order in respect of the interests in question, in this case interest in property of Wais Hakimi. The affidavit of Ms Bourne discloses that she is an authorised officer for the purposes of the Act and suspects Mr Hakimi of having engaged in serious crime related activity, namely, deal with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime contrary to section 193C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) being an offence punishable by imprisonment for 5 years, involving money laundering and thus falling within the definition of "serious criminal offence" pursuant to paragraph 6(2)(d) of the Act.

6. I note, further, that Ms Bourne gives the grounds upon which the suspicion is held, that is a suspicion of Mr Hakimi having engaged in serious crime related activity. In that respect, I further observe that Ms Bourne was provided with and accepted a police facts statement that describes the suspected serious criminal activity in which Ms Bourne suspects Mr Hakimi to have engaged in.

7. It was also noted in the fact sheet that Ms Bourne has ascertained that Mr Hakimi has been charged with the offences described in the fact sheet.

8. In my view, there are reasonable grounds for Ms Bourne's suspicion that Mr Hakimi has engaged in serious crime related activity.

9. As earlier mentioned, by s 10B(2) of the Act , the Court may, when making a restraining order, if it considers that the circumstances so require, order the NSW Trustee and Guardian to take control of some or all of the interests in property that are interests to which the restraining order applies. Ms Bourne deposed that the circumstances so require and supported this belief with regard to the police facts sheet, and the circumstances surrounding the seizure of cash by police. She also noted, the seized cash is presently being held by the police.

10. Finally, before disposing of the matter in its entirety, I should note that in my view, upon the circumstances outlined in the affidavit of Ms Bourne as to this particular matter, there was a proper basis upon which the matter may have proceeded as it has ex parte.

11. On the evidence before the Court, the Commission has established that the restraining orders should be made under s 10A and the ancillary orders should be made under s 12 of the Act.

12. In all the circumstances, I make the relevant orders provided with the summons for relief.

**********

Decision last updated: 30 June 2021