New South Wales Crime Commission v Millevoi

[2019] NSWSC 231

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	New South Wales Crime Commission v Millevoi [2019] NSWSC 231
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	08 March 2019
Decision date:	08 March 2019
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Schmidt J
Decision:	Orders in terms sought made
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - restraining orders sought - ex-parte - orders made
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Industrial Chemicals (notification and Assessment) Act 1989 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Toni Renee Millevoi (Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2019/75449
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment

1. By summons which I granted leave to file, the New South Wales Crime Commission applied ex-parte, seeking restraining orders under s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act1990 (NSW), in relation to the interest in certain property of the defendant, Toni Renee Millevoi. Other orders under ss 10B, 12(1) and 28A of the Act were also sought, as well as declarations under ss 7 and 8 of that Act and orders under s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW).

2. The orders pressed were for restraining orders under s 10A, as well as orders under ss 10B and 12(1).

3. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn on 6 March 2019 by Katie Elaine Bourne, the Commission’s Director (Assessments) and an authorised officer under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act, as well as by a statement of facts and circumstances provided in accordance with rule 1.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

4. For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied that the orders sought should be made.

5. The property sought to be restrained is identified in schedules to the summons to be:

1. Real property located at Camden, registered in the name of Ms Millevoi; identified motor vehicles registered in her name; funds in identified bank accounts held in her name; and identified shares held in her name.

2. Funds held in identified bank accounts held in the name of Masses of Lashes Pty Ltd;

3. $6,100 cash seized by police during execution of a warrant.

6. Ms Bourne deposed that she suspected that Ms Millevoi had engaged in serious crime related activity within the definition of a “serious crime related activity” in s 6 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act, namely:

1. supplying not less than a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, gamma-butyrolactone, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act1985 (NSW);

2. supplying a prohibited drug, gamma-butyrolactone, on an ongoing basis contrary to s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act;

3. supplying a prohibited drug, gamma-butyrolactone, contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act

7. Ms Bourne there also gave a detailed explanation of the basis upon which she came to hold those suspicions. They rested on a consideration of documents provided by the officer in charge of the investigation Senior Constable Porou, including a court attendance notice and facts sheet in relation to Ms Millevoi’s arrest; questions which Ms Bourne posed to the Senior Constable Porou and responses which he gave; as well as searches conducted of the records held in the COPS database, which showed that on 27 February 2019, Ms Millevoi had been charged with the offences specified in the Facts Sheet, which was annexed to the affidavit.

8. Ms Bourne also had regard to information obtained as the result of searches conducted of the LRS, SAI and RMS databases in relation to Ms Millevoi.

9. Ms Bourne deposed to her experience that in the absence of a restraining order, it is possible for people to attempt to enter into unregistered mortgages in relation to real estate very quickly; in order to attempt to defeat the operation of the Act. She was also aware that other interests in property may be identified after a restraining order is made, including bank account funds, property registered in the names of others and interests in property held outside the State.

10. Ms Bourne also deposed to her view that, given these matters and the serious nature of the criminal activity in which Ms Millevoi is apparently involved, that notice should not be given of this application. That is a course available under the Act, although s 10A(4) permits a different course to be taken, if the Court thinks fit.

11. Section 10A(5) requires the making of the orders sought under the Act, if the Court considers that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicions to which Ms Bourne has deposed.

12. In this case, I am satisfied that the material relied on well establishes that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicions to which Ms Bourne has deposed and that the requirements of s 10A(5) of the Act have been addressed. In that situation, the Act requires that the orders sought in relation to the property in question be made.

13. In the circumstances, I have concluded that it was also appropriate to make the other orders sought.

14. I have reached those conclusions after consideration of the material relied on, including what was disclosed in the Facts Sheet, as to which Ms Bourne deposed that she believed in the truth of its contents.

15. That document revealed that Ms Millevoi was arrested and charged with 15 offences under ss 25(2), 25A(1), 367Z(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, s 307.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and s 80B of the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment ) Act 1989 (NSW). She came to police attention in December 2018, as the result of an Australian Border Force investigation. When arrested she was operating a beauty salon out of a granny flat and operating two online businesses, one of which, Masses of Lashes was making over $200,000 every 3 months from the sale of gamma-butyrolactone, as a wholesale distributor and through sales to the public. It is unnecessary to outline the volumes of the drug which these sales reflected and the amount of the drug recovered on her arrest.

16. All of these matters, I am satisfied, provide a proper basis for the making of the orders sought.

17. On the evidence, I am also satisfied that the Commission ought not to be required to give notice of this application to Ms Millevoi and that it should be dealt with ex-parte.

18. In coming to that view, I have had regard to the provisions of s 10C of the Act, which permits an affected person to apply to have a restraining order set aside, as well as the liberty granted in the order to the parties to apply to the Court on three days’ notice.

ORDERS

19. Accordingly, I make orders in the terms sought, as well as ordering that the Commission serve a copy of this judgment on Ms Millevoi.

**********

Decision last updated: 09 April 2019