New South Wales Crime Commission v Kamuta

The New South Wales Crime Commission brought an application seeking restraining orders in relation to the proceeds of crime allegedly derived from criminal activity undertaken by the respondent, Kamuta. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Commission sought restraining orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (NSW) over a bank account and three properties owned by the respondent. The application was brought as part of an ongoing investigation into the respondent's criminal activities.

The primary issue for the court was whether it was appropriate to make restraining orders over the assets in question. The court had to consider the likelihood of the assets being proceeds of crime, as well as the balance of convenience in favour of granting the orders. The respondent argued that there was no evidence to support the claim that the assets were proceeds of crime, and that the application should be dismissed. The respondent also argued that the granting of restraining orders would cause significant hardship and prejudice to his family.

The court found that there was a sufficient likelihood that the assets were proceeds of crime, and that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the orders. The court noted that the respondent's criminal activities were extensive, and that there was evidence to suggest that the assets in question were derived from those activities. The court also found that the granting of restraining orders would not cause significant hardship or prejudice to the respondent's family. The court therefore made restraining orders over the bank account and properties in question.

The court ordered that restraining orders be made over a bank account and three properties owned by the respondent, Kamuta, and that the orders remain in place until further order.