NSW Crime Commission v Christopher Mihelic

The matter before the court involved the New South Wales Crime Commission, which sought to confiscate proceeds of crime from Christopher Mihelic. The nature of the dispute centred around whether the commission had established a reasonable suspicion that Mihelic was involved in criminal activities, which would justify the restraint of his assets. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues the court needed to address were whether the Crime Commission had demonstrated a reasonable suspicion that Mihelic's assets were proceeds of crime, and whether the ex parte restraining orders issued were justified.

The court considered the evidence presented by the Crime Commission, which included statements from informants and financial records. The court examined whether the information provided was sufficient to establish a reasonable suspicion that Mihelic was involved in criminal activities. The court found that while the evidence suggested potential criminal activity, it was not conclusive. The court also examined the criteria for issuing ex parte restraining orders, noting that such orders should only be granted when there is an immediate need to prevent the dissipation of assets. The court concluded that the Crime Commission had not demonstrated a reasonable suspicion to the required standard, and the ex parte orders were therefore unjustified.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the orders restraining Mihelic's assets were set aside. The court emphasised the importance of meeting the threshold of reasonable suspicion and the need for proper evidence when seeking to confiscate proceeds of crime. The court ordered that Mihelic's assets be returned to him, and that the Crime Commission reconsider its evidence and approach in light of the court's findings.