New South Wales Crime Commission v Hung
Case
•
[2018] NSWSC 955
•22 June 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
New South Wales Crime Commission v Hung [2018] NSWSC 955
[2018] NSWSC 955
22 June 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of New South Wales Crime Commission v Hung was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Crime Commission sought to have property owned by Hung restrained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (NSW). Hung contested the application on the basis that the property was not subject to the Act as it had not been used in, or derived from, a criminal offence. The court was required to determine whether the property was subject to a restraining order under the Act, and if so, whether the grounds for the application were sufficient.
The court considered whether the property in question was derived from criminal activity, and if the grounds for the application were sufficient. The court held that the property was indeed derived from criminal activity, and that the grounds for the application were sufficient. The court found that the property was subject to a restraining order under the Act, and that the application should be granted. The court relied on the definition of "proceeds of crime" in the Act, which includes any property that is derived from a criminal offence, as well as any property that is used in, or intended to be used in, a criminal offence.
The court also considered the nature of the criminal activity that led to the acquisition of the property, and the extent to which the property was derived from that activity. The court found that the criminal activity was sufficiently serious to warrant the restraint of the property under the Act, and that the property was sufficiently derived from that activity to be subject to a restraining order. The court held that the application should be granted, and that the property should be restrained under the Act.
The court ordered that the property be restrained under the Act, and that it be subject to a freezing order. The court also ordered that the property be held in trust for the Commonwealth until such time as it was determined that the property was not subject to the Act. The court further ordered that Hung pay the costs of the application.
The court considered whether the property in question was derived from criminal activity, and if the grounds for the application were sufficient. The court held that the property was indeed derived from criminal activity, and that the grounds for the application were sufficient. The court found that the property was subject to a restraining order under the Act, and that the application should be granted. The court relied on the definition of "proceeds of crime" in the Act, which includes any property that is derived from a criminal offence, as well as any property that is used in, or intended to be used in, a criminal offence.
The court also considered the nature of the criminal activity that led to the acquisition of the property, and the extent to which the property was derived from that activity. The court found that the criminal activity was sufficiently serious to warrant the restraint of the property under the Act, and that the property was sufficiently derived from that activity to be subject to a restraining order. The court held that the application should be granted, and that the property should be restrained under the Act.
The court ordered that the property be restrained under the Act, and that it be subject to a freezing order. The court also ordered that the property be held in trust for the Commonwealth until such time as it was determined that the property was not subject to the Act. The court further ordered that Hung pay the costs of the application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Proceeds of Crime
-
Restraining Orders
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
4