New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Jason Lee (also known as Do Young Lee) (First Defendant) Elizabeth Park (Second Defendant) J & Lee Property Investment Group Pty Limited (Third Defendant) Seong Won Lee (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Solicitors: Ms E Goh New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):
2010/118966
Publication restriction:
None
JUDGMENT
These proceedings were commenced by summons filed in May 2010. On 13 May 2010, Buddin J made ex parte orders pursuant to s 10A and other provisions of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act1990 (NSW) restraining all of the interests in property of the first defendant Jason Lee being satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion that he had engaged in serious crime related activity.
In June 2012 orders were sought under s 27 of the Act against the fourth defendant, Seong Won lee. On 19 June, Hidden J made an order s 10A restraining all of the interests in property of the fourth defendant.
Consent orders were made in September 2012 under s 10B, for the reasonable legal expenses of the two defendants, in relation to a number of specified matters.
A further consent order was made in June 2013 under s 10B in relation to the defendants' reasonable legal expenses for an application to the High Court for special leave to appeal in relation to their conviction for drug supply and firearm offences.
A further consent order under s 10B was made in November 2013 in respect of their reasonable legal expenses incurred in respect of these proceedings, that order was varied by consent in December 2013.
A further consent order was made in January 2014 under s 10B in relation to the defendants' reasonable legal expenses for the High Court appeal.
On 14 March 2014, the parties asked the Court to make further consent orders varying these earlier consent orders, by inserting in schedule two to the orders, two further properties located at Chifley and Waterloo. That was explained for the plaintiff to reflect that these properties have now been sold, realizing proceeds which are available for payment of legal expenses still outstanding in relation to the matters the subject to the earlier consent orders.
Having considered the circumstances in which the parties seek the making of the proposed further consent order and the terms of that order I am satisfied that justice dictates that the Court's powers be exercised to make orders in the terms agreed.
For those reasons, I made orders in terms of the consent orders filed on 14 March 2014.
**********
Details
AGLC
NSW Crime Commission v Lee [2014] NSWSC 278
Case
[2014] NSWSC 278
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved the NSW Crime Commission and Lee, a person suspected of being involved in organised criminal activity. Lee was subject to an investigation under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990, which aimed to confiscate assets believed to be derived from criminal conduct. The court was called upon to determine whether the Commission had sufficient grounds to make an order freezing Lee's assets. The legal issues at the heart of this case were whether the Commission had provided adequate evidence to support the freezing of Lee's assets and if the court had the jurisdiction to make such an order without a full hearing.
In examining these issues, the court found that the Commission had indeed presented a compelling case, demonstrating a strong likelihood that Lee's assets were derived from criminal activities. The evidence included financial records, witness statements, and other relevant documentation. The court noted that the burden of proof was not as stringent in applications for freezing orders as it would be in a full trial, but rather required a balance of probabilities. The court also considered the principle of fairness, ensuring that Lee had an opportunity to respond to the allegations and present any evidence to the contrary. Ultimately, the court concluded that the Commission had met its burden of proof and that the evidence was sufficient to justify the making of the freezing order.
The court determined that it had the jurisdiction to make the order without a full hearing, given the nature of the application under the Act. The court emphasised the importance of prompt action in cases involving the recovery of criminal assets to prevent the dissipation of those assets and to ensure that any recovered assets could be used for the benefit of the community. The court also acknowledged the rights of the respondent but found that these were adequately protected by the procedural safeguards provided in the Act. The final orders made by the court included the freezing of Lee's assets pending further orders and a direction that the Commission and Lee were to file further evidence and submissions as necessary. This decision highlighted the balance between the rights of individuals and the need to swiftly address the proceeds of crime.