NSW Crime Commission v Stepanyan

[2019] NSWSC 749

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	NSW Crime Commission v Stepanyan [2019] NSWSC 749
Hearing dates:	14 June 2019
Date of orders:	14 June 2019
Decision date:	14 June 2019
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Lonergan J
Decision:	Orders 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)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Dominic Stepanyan (Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2019/185227
Publication restriction:	Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. HER HONOUR: The plaintiff, the New South Wales Crime Commission, seeks a restraining order pursuant to s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), as well as ancillary orders associated with that restraining order.

2. I am prepared to make the orders sought by the New South Wales Crime Commission and these are my reasons for making those orders.

3. Section 10A(1) provides that the Commission may make an application ex-parte, that is without notice to, and in the absence of, the opposing party for a restraining order. Section 10A(4) confers a discretion on the Court to 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.

4. The evidence put before me by the Commission persuades me that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to require the Commission to give notice of the application to the defendant or to any other person. In particular, I've had regard to the nature of the criminal activity for which the defendant has been charged, and the risk of dissipation or disposal of assets sought to be restrained if notice was given or published.

5. Section 10A(5) of the Act is highly prescriptive as to the determination of applications for restraining orders. This section provides that the Court must make a restraining order if the application is supported by an affidavit of an authorised officer stating certain matters.

6. The first is that the authorised officer suspects that the person whose interest is the subject of the application has engaged in serious crime-related activity. The present application is supported by an affidavit of Katie Elaine Bourne an authorised officer within the meaning of the Act who has stated her suspicion to that effect. The second requirement is that the affidavit must state the grounds on which the suspicion is based.

7. The defendant to the present application has been charged with a series of offences that involve the supply of large quantities of a variety of illegal drugs as well as a charge pursuit to s 193C(1) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW) and s 193B(2), knowingly deal with proceeds of crime.

8. Annexed to the affidavit of Ms Bourne is a police facts sheet which describes the basis of the charges levelled against the defendant and the nature and extent of the criminal activity associated with those charges. It appears to me that this forms a strong basis upon which Ms Bourne has formed the relevant suspicion, and that together with an email from a New South Wales police officer dated 31 May 2019 confirming those agreed facts, supports that position.

9. The final requirement is having regard to the matters contained in the affidavit of the authorised officer, the Court considers there are reasonable grounds for the suspicions held by that officer. Having read the facts sheet I am of the view that there is a proper basis and reasonable grounds for the suspicion held by Ms Bourne, and I am so satisfied. For those reasons I make the orders sought by the Crime Commission.

**********

Decision last updated: 19 June 2019