New South Wales Crime Commission v Meknas

The New South Wales Crime Commission brought proceedings against Meknas under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), seeking the restraint of assets believed to be proceeds of crime. The Commission applied for ex parte orders to restrain assets, including a property, and ancillary orders to maintain the status quo pending the final determination of the case. Meknas contested the application, arguing that the assets were not proceeds of crime and that the ex parte orders were unjust. The court had to determine whether the Commission had established a prima facie case that the assets were proceeds of crime and whether it was appropriate to grant the ex parte orders.

The court examined the evidence presented by the Commission and assessed whether it demonstrated a sufficient probability that the assets were proceeds of crime. The court also considered whether the ex parte orders were necessary to prevent the dissipation or disposal of the assets pending the outcome of the proceedings. The Commission had to show that the restraint of the assets was proportionate to the risk of loss and that there were no other means of securing the assets. The court balanced the interests of justice against the potential prejudice to the respondent if the orders were not granted.

The court found that the Commission had made out a prima facie case that the assets were proceeds of crime. The evidence provided was sufficient to establish a strong likelihood that the assets were derived from unlawful activities. The court concluded that the ex parte orders were necessary to prevent the dissipation of the assets and that the risk of loss outweighed any prejudice to Meknas. The court granted the orders to restrain the assets and issued ancillary orders to maintain the status quo. The court emphasised the importance of the Commission's role in recovering proceeds of crime and the need to act promptly to prevent the dissipation of assets.

The court made orders restraining the specified assets, including the property, and issued ancillary orders to maintain the status quo. The orders were made ex parte and were subject to the respondent's right to be heard at the final hearing. The court directed that notices of the orders be served on Meknas and provided directions for the management of the restrained assets pending the final determination of the proceedings.