New South Wales Crime Commission v Lahood
[2019] NSWSC 1037
•31 July 2019
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Lahood [2019] NSWSC 1037 Hearing dates: 31 July 2019 Date of orders: 31 July 2019 Decision date: 31 July 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Ierace J Decision: Orders made as sought.
Catchwords: CRIME – confiscations – restraining order – serious crime derived property Legislation Cited: Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), s 10A Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
Joseph Anthony Lahood (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
R Katrib (Solicitor) (Plaintiff)
New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
File Number(s): 2019/237008
Judgment
-
HIS HONOUR: The New South Wales Crime Commission (“the plaintiff”) seeks a restraining order on an ex parte basis pursuant to s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) (“the Act”) in respect of property set out in schedules to the summons. The defendant in this matter is Joseph Anthony Lahood (“the defendant”). The summons, which is dated 26 July 2019, is supported by an affidavit sworn on the same date by Katie Elaine Bourne who is an authorised officer of the plaintiff for the purposes of the Act.
-
Section 10A(5) of the Act requires this Court to make the restraining order if the application is supported by an affidavit of an authorised officer stating that he or she suspects that one of the statutory requirements set out in s 10A(5)(a) are satisfied and the grounds on which that suspicion is based. As well, the Court must consider that, having regard to the matters contained in the affidavit and any evidence adduced, there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion.
-
The authorised officer, Ms Bourne, deposes to suspicions that the defendant has engaged in serious crime-related activities within the meaning of that term as defined in s 6 of the Act. In particular, she deposes to her suspicion that the defendant has dishonestly obtained a financial advantage contrary to s 192E of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). As an offence punishable by 5 years imprisonment which involves fraud, this falls within the definition of “serious criminal offence” pursuant to s 6(2)(d) of the Act. As well, Ms Bourne deposes to her suspicion that the defendant participated in a criminal group contrary to s 93T of the Crimes Act which also falls within that definition pursuant to s 6(2)(g)(i) of the Act. Finally, she deposes to a suspicion that the defendant knowingly dealt with the proceeds of crime contrary to s 193B(2) of the Crimes Act, which, as an offence punishable by 5 years imprisonment that involves money laundering, also comes within that definition pursuant to s 6(2)(d) of the Act. Those matters also relate to s 10A(5)(a)(i) of the Act.
-
The suspicions deposed to by Ms Bourne are based on the content of certain emails which are set out at par 4 of her affidavit. I have read the emails annexed to her affidavit and I am satisfied that her suspicions are based on reasonable grounds. Accordingly, I find that the onus borne by the plaintiff has been satisfied and it is appropriate to make the orders in the terms sought.
**********
Decision last updated: 15 August 2019
0
0
1