New South Wales Crime Commission v Sribounheuang

Case •

[2015] NSWSC 901

•

03 July 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Sribounheuang [2015] NSWSC 901
Hearing dates:3 July 2015
Decision date: 03 July 2015
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Adamson J
Decision:

See paragraph 18

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – ex parte - application for criminal assets restraining order
Legislation Cited: Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), ss 4, 6, 7, 10A, 10B, 12, 27
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 1.26, 36.4
Cases Cited: George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; 170 CLR 104
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
Vinay Sribounheuang (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms R Katrib (solicitor) (Plaintiff)

    Solicitors:
New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):2015/198260

Judgment

  1. By summons filed on 3 July 2015, the plaintiff seeks various orders, including an order pursuant to s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) (the Act) restraining dealings with any interest in property, including certain property described in Schedule One to the summons; an order pursuant to s 12(1) of the Act that certain funds be transferred to an account held by the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian; an order pursuant to s 10B(2) of the Act that the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian take control of all interest of the defendant in the property specified in Schedule One; an order pursuant to s 12(1)(b)(i) of the Act authorising the examination of the defendant concerning his financial affairs; an order pursuant to s 12(1)(c1) of the Act requiring the defendant to furnish to the plaintiff, within 21 days, a statement verified on oath setting out full particulars of all his property; and a proceeds assessment order pursuant to s 27 of the Act that the defendant pay to the Treasurer an amount assessed by the Court as the value of the proceeds of the defendant’s illegal activities within the period of six years before the filing of the application.

  2. The orders sought in the summons, apart from the proceeds assessment order under s 27 of the Act referred to above, were sought ex parte on the day of filing the summons, 3 July 2015.

  3. In support of its application the plaintiff relied on the following documents:

  1. Affidavit of Jonathan Lee Spark sworn 3 July 2015; and

  2. Statement of Facts and Circumstances relied on in an application for a restraining order and a proceeds assessment order pursuant to r 1.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) dated 3 July 2015 (Statement of Facts and Circumstances).

  1. Section 10A of the Act relevantly provides:

“10A Proceedings for restraining orders

(1)   Application for order

The Commission may apply to the Supreme Court, ex parte, for a restraining order in respect of specified interests, a specified class of interests, or all the interests, in property of any person (including interests acquired after the making of the order).

…

(3)   The Commission may only apply for a restraining order that relates to interests in property derived from external serious crime related activity if the person who has the interests is domiciled in New South Wales or the property is situated in New South Wales.

(4)   Notice to affected person of application

Despite the application for a restraining order being made ex parte, the Supreme Court may, if it thinks fit, require the Commission to give notice of the application to a person who the Court has reason to believe has a sufficient interest in the application. A person who is required to be notified is entitled to appear and adduce evidence at the hearing of the application.

(5)   Determination of applications

The Supreme Court must make a restraining order if the application for the order is supported by an affidavit of an authorised officer stating that:

(a)   in the case of an application in respect of an interest referred to in subsection (1) - the authorised officer suspects that:

(i)   the person whose interest is the subject of the application has engaged in a serious crime related activity or serious crime related activities…

and stating the grounds on which that suspicion is based …

and the Court considers that, having regard to the matters contained in any such affidavit and any evidence adduced under subsection (4), there are reasonable grounds for any such suspicion.”

  1. The plaintiff’s application for an order under s 10A was made ex parte, as it is entitled to do under s 10A(1).

  2. The plaintiff’s application is supported by the affidavit of Jonathan Lee Spark sworn 3 July 2015. Mr Spark, who is an authorised officer of the plaintiff within the meaning of s 4(1) of the Act, deposes to his suspicion that the defendant has engaged in serious crime-related activity or crime-related activities, being: supplying a prohibited drug contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (DMTA). These are serious criminal offences within the meaning of s 6(2)(b) of the Act because s 6(3) provides that offences under s 25 of the DMTA are “drug trafficking offences”. The Facts Sheet records that the defendant was charged with the offences described therein on 2 July 2015 following the execution of search warrants at premises at Blair Athol, New South Wales.

  3. Mr Spark sets out the grounds for his suspicion in [4] of his affidavit. He deposed to a conversation he had with Detective Christopher Eisenhuth, who had prepared the Facts Sheet on the basis of information provided by investigating police officers. Detective Eisenhuth informed Mr Spark that the facts set out are, to the best of his knowledge and belief, true.

  4. Mr Spark also deposed in his affidavit to investigations he caused to be made into the defendant’s bank accounts.

  5. Section 10A(5) provides, in substance, that I am obliged to make the order sought if the application is supported by an affidavit of an authorised officer stating that the officer suspects that the defendant has engaged in a crime related activity and setting out the grounds for the suspicion and I consider that, having regard to the matters contained in the affidavit, there are reasonable grounds for any such suspicion.

  6. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that Mr Spark’s affidavit meets the requirements of s 10A(5) as to the matters which he suspects.

  7. I am also satisfied, having regard to Mr Spark’s affidavit, that there are reasonable grounds for his suspicion. I have been guided by what the High Court said in George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; 170 CLR 104 at [14].

  8. I do not consider that it would be appropriate to require the plaintiff to notify the defendant of the application under s 10A(4) in light of Mr Spark’s evidence. I accept Mr Spark’s evidence as to the speed with funds can be concealed or disposed of, which tends to have the effect of defeating the operation of the Act and restraining orders made under it.

  9. The defendant is domiciled in New South Wales. Accordingly, the Commission is entitled to make this application for a restraining order: s 10A(3).

  10. The orders, other than the restraining order, are designed to ensure that the plaintiff is apprised of the full extent of the defendant’s property interests. These orders are, accordingly, ancillary to the restraining order which, in terms, restrains dealing with any interest the defendant may have in property as defined by s 7 of the Act. The Statement of Facts and Circumstances states that the plaintiff also seeks, in its summons, a proceeds assessment order pursuant to s 27 of the Act.

  11. In all the circumstances, I consider it to be appropriate to make the orders.

  12. I note the undertaking given by the solicitor for the plaintiff, being the usual undertaking as to damages.

  13. On the basis of that undertaking I make orders in terms of paragraphs 1 to 8 of the draft minute of order provided to me by the plaintiff.

Orders

  1. Upon the Plaintiff giving the usual undertaking as to damages (the giving of which by its solicitor being noted) and;

Considering that, having had regard to the matters contained in the affidavit of Jonathan Lee Spark sworn 3 July 2015, there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion stated therein

The Court orders:

  1. Pursuant to section 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990, except as provided in Order 2 below, no person (other than any registered mortgagee dealing with its right to do so under the registered mortgage) is to dispose of, or attempt to dispose of, or otherwise deal with or attempt otherwise to deal with any interest in property (within the meaning of “interest in property” as defined in section 7 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990) of Vinay Sribounheuang, including his interest in the property specified in Schedule One hereto.

  2. Pursuant to section 12(1) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Vinay Sribounheuang transfer the funds held in the account specified in Schedule One hereto to the account held by the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian specified in Schedule Two hereto.

  3. Pursuant to subsection 10B(2) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian shall take control of all the interest of Vinay Sribounheuang in the property specified in Schedule One hereto.

  4. Pursuant to section 12(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Vinay Sribounheuang shall be examined on oath before a Registrar of the Court concerning his affairs, including the nature and location of any property in which he has an interest.

  5. Leave is granted to the Plaintiff to obtain from the Registry dates for the examination ordered in Order 4 above.

  6. Pursuant to section 12(1)(c1) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Vinay Sribounheuang shall furnish to the Plaintiff, within twenty one (21) days after service of a sealed copy of these orders on Vinay Sribounheuang, a statement verified by oath or affirmation of Vinay Sribounheuang setting out the particulars sought in Schedule Two hereto.

  7. Liberty is granted to the Plaintiff and Vinay Sribounheuang to apply on three (3) days’ notice.

  8. The costs of obtaining these orders shall be costs in the cause.

  9. Pursuant to Rule 36.4(1)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 these orders are to take effect as of the date hereof.

SCHEDULE ONE

Funds held in Phongsavanh Bank account numbered 160-0-00-00-0028 and held in the name of Vinay Sribounheuang.

SCHEDULE TWO

NSWTG Trustee Account with BSB number 032-001 Account number 112262, Westpac Banking Corporation, 275 Kent Street Sydney NSW 2000 with SWIFT BIC/Clearing code WPACAU2S.

SCHEDULE THREE

1. Provide full particulars of the nature and extent of all your interests in property (within the meaning of "interest in property" as defined in section 7 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990), including in relation to each item of property:

(a)   a full description of your interest in the property, including the nature of that interest and, where possible, the estimated value, or in the case of bank accounts or deposits - the estimated balance, of that interest;

(b)   the location of the interest;

(c)   the name of the person or institution in whose custody title documents in respect of the interest are believed to be;

(d)   the approximate date of acquisition of the interest;

(e)   the source of funds used to acquire the interest.

2.   Provide full particulars of your liabilities on both a capital and recurring basis, including, in relation to each liability:

(a)   a full description of the liability including the nature of that liability and the amount of that liability;

(b)   the name of the person or institution to which the liability is owed.

**********

Amendments

08 July 2015 - page numbers were omitted

Decision last updated: 08 July 2015

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

3

George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26