New South Wales Crime Commission v Keen

The New South Wales Crime Commission sought an exclusion order against Mr. Keen in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from the application of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act to seize assets associated with criminal activities. A restraining order and a forfeiture order had already been made against Mr. Keen, and consent orders had been entered into, forfeiting property belonging to him. The case centred around the standing of Mr. Masri, who had lent $64,000 to Mr. Keen, to seek an exclusion order, and the scope of ancillary orders that could be made under section 12 of the Act.

The court was required to determine if Mr. Masri had the standing to seek an exclusion order despite not being directly affected by the criminal activities in question. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the ancillary orders sought were incidental and subordinate to the restraining order and whether the statutory scheme was limited to specified interests in property. The court had to balance the rights of the Crime Commission to pursue assets linked to criminal activities against the rights of third parties who might have legitimate interests in those assets.

The court found that Mr. Masri did not have standing to seek an exclusion order because he was not directly affected by the criminal activities. The court also determined that the ancillary orders sought were not incidental and subordinate to the restraining order and that they exceeded the scope of the statutory scheme, which was intended to target specified interests in property. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendant on the issue of standing and rejected the ancillary orders sought by the Crime Commission.

As a result, the court dismissed Mr. Masri's application for an exclusion order and refused the ancillary orders sought by the Crime Commission. The court emphasised that the statutory scheme was narrowly focused on specified interests in property and that ancillary orders must not be used to circumvent this limitation. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory framework and respecting the rights of third parties with legitimate interests in assets subject to forfeiture.