New South Wales Crimes Commission v Maleki

The New South Wales Crimes Commission sought interim orders to freeze assets and prevent any dealings with them, as part of an investigation into alleged organised crime activities. The defendants, Maleki, contested the application, arguing that the Commission had not satisfied the jurisdictional gateway to make such orders. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court were whether the Commission had established the jurisdictional gateway required for the making of such orders, and if so, whether the orders should be made in the circumstances of this case. The jurisdictional gateway in question required the court to be satisfied that the assets in question were connected with a serious criminal offence, that the assets were the proceeds of crime, and that the orders were necessary to prevent dissipation of those assets.

The court found that the jurisdictional gateway had been satisfied. The evidence showed that the assets were connected with serious criminal offences, and that they were likely the proceeds of crime. The court noted that the defendants had a history of involvement in criminal activities, and that the assets in question were substantial and appeared to have been acquired through illicit means. The court also considered the risk of dissipation of the assets, and found that there was a significant risk that the defendants would attempt to hide, transfer, or otherwise dissipate the assets if the orders were not made. The court concluded that the making of the orders was necessary to prevent the dissipation of the assets and to ensure that the defendants could not interfere with the investigation. The court made the orders sought by the Commission, freezing the assets and preventing any dealings with them.

The court ordered that the assets of the defendants be frozen and that no dealings with the assets be permitted. The orders were to remain in place until the conclusion of the investigation or until further order of the court. The court also ordered that the defendants provide full disclosure of all information relating to the assets, including their location, ownership, and any transactions associated with them. The court emphasised the seriousness of the allegations and the need to ensure that the defendants could not interfere with the investigation in any way. The orders were intended to preserve the assets pending the outcome of the investigation, and to ensure that any proceeds of crime could be recovered and returned to the victims of the alleged offences.