Re Application by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
[2022] VCC 2158
•9 December 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised NOT Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| Confiscation List |
Case No. CI-22-05162
| IN THE MATTER OF the Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 (Cth) |
| and |
| IN THE MATTER OF the suspect “NH” |
| and |
| IN THE MATTER OF an application by the COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HINCHEY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 5 December 2022 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 9 December 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Application by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 2158 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Subject:Proceeds of Crime
Catchwords: Procedure – confiscation of proceeds of crime – application for restraining order, examination orders, custody and control orders and ancillary orders – application for orders to be made ex parte – risk of disposal of property sought to be restrained – appropriateness of proceeding ex parte with respect to examination orders – restraining orders, examination orders and ancillary orders heard and determined ex parte
Opens Court Act – application for proceeding suppression order – application for closed court – applications granted
Legislation Cited: Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 (Cth), s18, s26, s33, s38, s39, s180, s182, s338; Opens Courts Act 2013 (Vic), s10, s17, s30; Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)1995, s142, s400
Cases Cited: Ex parteapplication of Commissioner of Australian Federal Police [2014] NSWSC 130; Re Application by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2015] VSC 774; International Finance Trust Company Limited & Anor v New South Wales Crime Commission & Ors (2009) 240 CLR 319; Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v HWCJ GLB Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1574; Ng v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2022] WASCA 48
Judgment: Applications granted.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Ms R Burton | Australian Federal Police Criminal Assets Litigation |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
1By way of applications made under the Open Courts Act 2012 (Vic) (“the OCA”) and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) (“the Act”), the applicant applied, relevantly, for the following orders against the suspect, NH (“the suspect”):
(a) a proceeding suppression order under s17 of the OCA;
(b) a closed court order under s30 of the OCA;
(c) a restraining order under s18 of the Act;
(d) ancillary orders under s39 of the Act;
(e) examination orders under s180 of the Act;
(f) orders pursuant to s26(4), s39(3A) and s182(2) of the Act respectively, that the applications for a restraining order, ancillary orders and examination orders be heard ex parte;
(g) a custody and control order under s38 of the Act; and
(h) an order under s33(3) of the Act that the Commissioner delay giving the notice otherwise required under s33 of the Act.
2The application under the Act asserts that the Court has jurisdiction to make the orders sought on the basis of the following:
(a) the Court has “proceeds jurisdiction” as defined by, and for the purposes of, the Act;
(b) the applicant is a “proceeds of crime authority” and the “responsible authority” within the meaning of the Act; and
(c) an authorised officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the suspect has committed one or more “serious offences”, within the meaning of s338 of the Act, within the State of Victoria.
3The property sought to be restrained includes wallets containing bitcoins or the funds and/or goods derived from the suspect or another person or persons, dealing with the bitcoins.
4The grounds upon which the applicant relies in seeking the orders are as follows:
(a) the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (“the Commissioner”), a proceeds of crime authority within the meaning of the Act, applies for the orders;
(b) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the suspect has committed one or more indictable and/or serious offences within the meaning of the Act;
(c) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the property sought to be restrained is:
(i)property of the suspect;
(ii)specified property of another known person that is subject to the effective control of the suspect; and/or
(iii)specified property of another person, that is suspected to be proceeds of indictable offences and/or an instrument of serious offences as defined in the Act;
(d) the application is supported by an affidavit of an authorised officer which addresses the requirements of s18(3) of the Act;
(e) the Court may be satisfied that the authorised officer who made the affidavit in support of the application for the restraining order, holds the suspicions stated in the affidavit on reasonable grounds;
(f) the Court may be satisfied that a proceeding suppression order is necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means;
(g) the Court may be satisfied that an order to hear the whole or any part of the proceeding in closed court is necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means;
(h) the Court may be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the application for a restraining order, the application for examination orders and/or the application for ancillary orders, to be heard and determined on an ex parte basis;
(i) the responsible authority requests that the Court make an order, delaying the giving of notice (and the documents included in the notice), and the Court may be satisfied that this is appropriate in order to protect the integrity of any investigation or prosecution; and
(j) the Court may be satisfied that a custody and control order is required.
Application for a Restraining Order – Section 18 of the Act
5The Court is required to make a restraining order in the circumstances set out in s18 of the Act, as follows:
(a) with respect to people suspected of committing serious offences, s18(1) provides:
“(1) A court with *proceeds jurisdiction must order that:
(a) property must not be disposed of or otherwise dealt with by any person; or
(b) property must not be disposed of or otherwise dealt with by any person except in the manner and circumstances specified in the order;
if:
(c) a *proceeds of crime authority applies for the order; and
(d) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed a *serious offence; and
(e) any affidavit requirements in subsection (3) for the application have been met; and
(f) the court is satisfied that the *authorised officer who made the affidavit holds the suspicion or suspicions stated in the affidavit on reasonable grounds.”
Evidence contained in the supporting affidavit material
6In accordance with s18(3) of the Act, the applicant filed an affidavit of Detective Senior Constable Andrew Hiscoe (“Hiscoe” and “the Hiscoe affidavit”) in support of the application for a restraining order. The Hiscoe affidavit deposes to the following matters:
(a) the suspect is an AFP employee. That person works in the AFP Cyber Crime Team within AFP Southern Command based in Melbourne, Victoria;
(b) they are the main suspect in the theft of cryptocurrency, in the form of 81.6167759 bitcoins (“the bitcoins”). At the time of the alleged theft, the bitcoins were worth $425,000 (and are possibly worth several million dollars at current values);
(c) the alleged theft is believed to have occurred on 29 January 2019, while the cryptocurrency was in the custody of Victoria Police;
(d) tracing of the theft conducted so far, reveals the following:
(i)81.6167759 bitcoins were transferred out of the seized wallet into a temporary wallet;
(ii)after the removal of presumed network/transfer fees, the remaining amount of 81.616307 bitcoins was transferred to a further cryptocurrency wallet (referred to in the Hiscoe affidavit as the “Intermediary Wallet”);
(iii)from the Intermediary Wallet, 4.0 bitcoins can be traced into a further cryptocurrency wallet address held with the Binance Cryptocurrency Exchange (referred to in the Hiscoe affidavit as the “Binance Wallet”);
(iv)the Binance Wallet ultimately received 47 bitcoins in the period 29 January 2019 to 4 March 2019. The precise means by which the additional 43 bitcoins were transferred is unknown;
(v)also from the Intermediary Wallet, 34.6 bitcoins can be traced in three tranches to further cryptocurrency wallet addresses associated with exchanges in the United States, Russia and Cyprus, during March and April 2019. These 34.6 bitcoins are still the subject of investigation, and the tracing of these bitcoins is not complete;
(vi)the 47 bitcoins ultimately transferred into the Binance Wallet appear to have been converted between 29 January and 4 March 2019 (“the relevant period”) into 3,671.501 Monero cryptocurrency;
(vii)the Monero cryptocurrency (less presumed network fees) was transferred in twenty-five transactions into a further cryptocurrency wallet address (referred to in the Hiscoe affidavit as the “Monero Wallet”);
(viii)Monero cryptocurrency involves privacy-enhancing technologies that provide anonymity, rendering tracing Monero cryptocurrency transactions particularly difficult;
(e) there are a number of factors making it reasonable to suspect that the suspect and an associate (“the suspect’s associate”), are associated with the above chain of transfers;
(f) there appears to be an unauthorised access from an AFP address to the Binance Wallet in the relevant period;
(g) there are compelling indications that the suspect has received otherwise unexplained monies, suspected to be proceeds of the allegedly stolen bitcoins. In particular, there is no available evidence in respect of the suspect’s known sources of legitimate income, nor any business activity or other assets, sufficient to explain the high value of deposits and withdrawals into a crytopcurrency wallet and a bank account operated by the suspect;
(h) the timing of all but one of the significant transactions into and out of the suspect’s cryptocurrency wallet and bank account, commence after 29 January 2019;
(i) on the basis of the foregoing, it is suspected that the suspect has committed the following “serious offences” as that term is defined in s338 of the Act:
(i)an offence under s142.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (“the Criminal Code”) – a Commonwealth public official engaging in conduct, or using any information obtained, in the exercise of his or her duties or capacity, with the intention of dishonestly obtaining a benefit for themselves or for someone else, or causing a detriment to someone (“Public Office Offence”);
(ii)in contravention of s400.4 of the Criminal Code – a person dealing with money or property worth $100,000 or more that is, and the person believes it to be, the proceeds of indictable crime or that the person intends will become an instrument of crime (“Money Laundering Offence”); and
(iii)in contravention of s400.9 of the Criminal Code – a person dealing with money or property worth $100,000 or more that it is reasonable to suspect is proceeds of an indictable offence (“Disproportionate Wealth Offence”).
Need to proceed ex parte and in a closed court
7It was submitted that if the Commissioner’s application for orders is not heard ex parte and in a closed court:
(a) it is apprehended that the suspect, employed by the AFP Cyber Crime Team within AFP Southern Command, has the necessary knowledge either to deal with the property, in particular bitcoins or other cryptocurrency, or to destroy and/or conceal necessary electronic or other evidence, if they are made aware of the operation investigating the theft of the bitcoins (“the operation”), before it enters the overt investigation phase;
(b) as a result, the administration of justice may be impaired, in that there is a risk that the suspect and/or their associates or other persons unknown, will become aware of the Commissioner’s application and will take steps to dispose of property that is the subject of the Commissioner’s application, thereby seeking to defeat the utility of the Commissioner’s application and the operation of the Act;
(c) further, the integrity of the operation may be compromised by the suspect and/or their associates, or other persons unknown, becoming aware of ongoing covert enquiries, which could result in evidence being hidden or destroyed; and
(d) it is apprehended that if the proceeding is not suppressed until the operation enters the overt investigation phase, then the integrity of that operation and planned execution of search warrants, may be detrimentally affected.
8It was noted that the notice required by s10 of the OCA had not been given in this matter. It was submitted that by reason of the matters set out above, the Court ought be satisfied that:
(a) there is a good reason for the notice not being given; and
(b) it is in the interests of justice that the application be heard without the giving of notice.
9It was also submitted that each of the examination and ancillary orders sought are additional aids to the conduct of the AFP investigation and the operation, and ought be heard and determined ex parte, for all of the reasons set out above.
Custody and control order under Section 38 of the Act (and ancillary orders under Section 39(1)(e)(i) and (iii) of the Act)
10It was submitted that a custody and control order under s38 of the Act is required in this case, since unlike cases where an interest in real property is sought to be restrained:
(a) any cryptocurrency still in the suspect’s possession or under their control;
(b) any funds in other bank accounts belonging to or under the control of the suspect; and
(c) any high value items of property which fall within the terms of the restraining order
are easily capable of being concealed or transferred (or where applicable, harmed) if they remain within the possession of, or subject to, the control of the suspect, even if covered by the terms of a restraining order.
11It was further submitted that the difficulty in tracing cryptocurrency, particularly Monero cryptocurrency, gives rise to an especially high risk of dissipation. No potential breach of any restraining order made in these circumstances, is likely to come to the attention of the Court.
12It was also submitted that if a custody and control order is made, then ancillary orders under s39(1)(e)(i) and (iii) of the Act ought be made, allowing the trustee to exercise discretion as to the manner in which the custody and control order is executed, and directing the suspect to do anything necessary or convenient to enable the trustee to take control of the property.
Application to delay giving notice under Section 33 of the Act
13As set out above, an order is sought under s33(3) of the Act, that the Commissioner delay giving the notice otherwise required under s33 of the Act, while the operation remains in the covert phase.
14It was submitted that it is appropriate to make this order, by reason of the likelihood that in the absence of such an order, the suspect or their associates may become aware of the AFP investigation and the operation before it enters the overt phase and take steps to deal with, or dispose of, the property covered by the restraining order, or to compromise the integrity of the operation by destroying or hiding evidence.
Ancillary orders sought under Section 39(1)(ca) and Section 39(1)(g) of the Act
15It was submitted that the difficulty in identifying property of the suspect (due to the difficulty of tracing cryptocurrency and the expense of resources required to trace expenditure out of the suspect’s bank account), would be ameliorated by making an order under s39(1)(ca) of the Act, directing the suspect to provide the sworn statement sought in the orders.
16Likewise, s39(1)(g) of the Act contemplates ancillary orders requiring a person whose property is covered by a restraining order, to do anything necessary or convenient to bring it within the jurisdiction. It was submitted that it is appropriate to make such orders in this case, where the alleged theft of bitcoins can be traced in part to cryptocurrency assets held in foreign cryptocurrency exchanges.
Examination orders under Section 180 of the Act
17Orders for the examination of the suspect and the suspect’s associate as to their own and each other’s affairs, are sought as part of the investigative phase of the operation.
18It was submitted that there is a genuine forensic basis upon which the examination orders may be made. In particular, there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect and the suspect’s associate may have knowledge of the alleged theft of the bitcoins and/or the whereabouts of the untraced 34.6 bitcoins. In addition, the examinations may reveal information which will fill in the gaps which presently exist in the tracing of the 47 bitcoins that were deposited into the Binance wallet.
19In particular, the making of examination orders in respect of the suspect and the suspect’s associate in respect of their affairs, and each other’s affairs, is sought to be heard and determined on an ex parte basis, because:
(a) upon the basis of the matters set out above, it is reasonable to suspect that they may have knowledge of the whereabouts of the unaccounted for bitcoins;
(b) it is suspected that the suspect has used the proceeds of the sale of the bitcoins to purchase a large number of items that are currently unknown to the Commissioner, so that an examination of the suspect would facilitate the identification of the items purchased with the proceeds of those dealings;
(c) it is believed that the examination of the suspect could facilitate the identification of any other cryptocurrency holdings which the suspect may have, or have access to, which the Commissioner would otherwise have difficulty locating;
(d) it is believed that there is a risk of dissipation of cryptocurrency. Having regard to the rapidity with which cryptocurrency can be moved and the difficulty in tracing cryptocurrency, in particular, Monero cryptocurrency, examination orders should be made as soon as possible and on an ex parte basis, to prevent or reduce the risk of the suspect, the suspect’s associate, or other persons unknown, having time to interfere with the integrity of the operation.
20In an affidavit sworn on 5 December 2022, Mr Sergey Erokhin, a lawyer employed by the Commissioner, deposed to the following relevant matters (“the Erokhin affidavit”):
(a) a date for conducting the proposed examinations of the suspect and the suspect’s associate by an approved examiner, is tentatively booked for 14 December 2022;
(b) it is anticipated that the Commissioner will seek production of documents from the examinees. Documents which are requested to be produced are set out in an examination notice issued by an approved examiner under s183 of the Act. It is necessary for the Commissioner to give the examinees a reasonable amount of time to comply with the examination notice;
(c) dates available to list examinations are limited; and
(d) if the tentative date which has been booked is not utilised, it is likely that an examination of the suspect and the suspect’s associate could not occur at the earliest (subject to the availability of the AAT), until February 2023.
Restraining Order and Orders under Sections 33, 38 and 39 of the Act
21After considering each of the matters contained in the Hiscoe affidavit, together with the written and oral submissions made on behalf of the Commissioner for the AFP, I am satisfied that:
(a) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the suspect has committed one or more indictable or serious offences within the meaning of the Act;
(b) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the property sought to be restrained is:
(i)property of the suspect;
(ii)specified property of another known person that is subject to the effective control of the suspect; and/or
(iii)specified property of another person that is suspected to be proceeds of indictable offences and/or an instrument of serious offences as defined in the Act;
(c) the application is supported by an affidavit of an authorised officer which addresses the requirements of s18(3) of the Act;
(d) the authorised officer who made the affidavit in support of the application for the restraining order, holds the suspicions stated in the affidavit on reasonable grounds;
(e) given the above, pursuant to s18 of the Act, I must make a restraining order in the terms sought. I am further satisfied that pursuant to s26(4) of the Act, it is necessary to hear and determine that application on an ex parte basis, given the risk of dissipation or destruction of the property or other evidence as set out above;
(f) it is appropriate to make an order pursuant to s33(3) of the Act, that the responsible authority delay giving notice under s33 of the Act on specified terms;
(g) an order pursuant to s38 of the Act that the trustee take custody and control of specified property, is required. I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to make the ancillary order sought under s39(1)(e)(i) and (iii) of the Act, for the purposes referred to above;
(h) it is appropriate to make ancillary orders pursuant to s39(1)(ca) and s39(1)(g) of the Act, for the purposes referred to above. Pursuant to s39(3A) of the Act, I am further satisfied that it is necessary to hear and determine each of the applications for ancillary orders on an ex parte basis, given the risk of dissipation or destruction of the property or other evidence, as set out above;
(i) pursuant to s17 of the OCA, a proceeding suppression order is necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, that cannot be prevented by any other reasonably available means. The risk is constituted by the likelihood that in the absence of such an order, the suspect or their associates may become aware of the AFP investigation and the operation before it enters the overt phase and take steps:
(i)to deal with the property, in particular bitcoins or other cryptocurrency, or to destroy and/or conceal necessary electronic or other evidence;
(ii)to dispose of property that is the subject of the Commissioner’s application, thereby seeking to defeat the utility of the Commissioner’s application and the operation of the Act;
(iii)to compromise the integrity of the operation by destroying or hiding evidence; and/or
(iv)otherwise to affect in a detrimental way, the planned execution of search warrants;
(j) pursuant to s30 of the OCA, an order to hear the whole of the proceeding in closed court is necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by any other reasonably available means. The risk is the same as that set out above;
(k) in relation to the fact that the applications under the OCA were made without notice:
(i)there is a good reason for the notice not being given; and
(ii)it is in the interests of justice that the application be heard without the giving of notice; and
(l) in those circumstances, it is necessary to hear and determine the applications under the OCA, despite the failure to give notice.
The application for Examination Orders
22In addition to the orders set out above, the applicant also seeks, pursuant to s180 of the Act, orders that the suspect and the suspect’s associate be examined about their own and each other’s affairs.
23The evidence in support of the application for examination orders is contained in the Hiscoe and Erokhin affidavits and has been referred to above.
24Counsel for the Commissioner drew my attention to the fact that there are numerous decisions concerning applications for orders for examination, sought to be made on an ex parte basis. It is clear that the weight of these decisions is that, unless it is “soundly necessary to do so”, then a court should be loath to make such orders without hearing from the affected persons.[1] In refusing to proceed to determine an application for examination orders ex parte, in Ex parte application of Commissioner of Australian Federal Police,[2] Button J noted that in that instance, the solicitor for the applicant had accepted that there was “no great urgency” to the making of the orders.
[1]See for example Ex parte application of Commissioner of Australian Federal Police [2014] NSWSC 130 at paragraph [39], per Button J;. See also ReApplication by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2015] VSC 774 at paragraph [11] per Riordan J
[2][2014] NSWSC 130
25In Re Application by the Commission of the Australian Federal Police,[3] Riordan J set out matters which, in that application, persuaded him that it was not “soundly necessary” to make an order for examination of the suspect ex parte including, critically, the fact that the applicant Commissioner was unable to point to any prejudice resulting from the adjournment of the application for orders for examination, pending the giving of notice to the respondents.[4] His Honour thought, in that case, that –
“The fact that the respondents are entitled to make application to set aside the order for examination … places the burden unfairly on the respondents and does not overcome the Court’s natural reluctance to make significant orders ex parte unless it is necessary to do so.”[5]
[3][2015] VSC 774
[4](Ibid) at paragraph [11](f)
[5](Ibid) at paragraph [11](e). In making this comment, his Honour also referred to International Finance Trust Company Limited & Anor v New South Wales Crime Commission & Ors (2009) 240 CLR 319
26Counsel for the Commissioner submitted that while the circumstances may be limited, there clearly are occasions when it may be appropriate to make an examination order without the giving of notice to those affected. It was noted that s182(2) of the Act specifically contemplates the Court hearing an application for such orders without notice.
27The Commissioner acknowledged that orders sought without notice to persons affected by them, are only to be made in “exceptional or special cases”.[6] However, it was submitted that such cases do exist, for example:
“… where there is some extraordinary hazard or compelling urgency. A risk that property may be dissipated so as to frustrate the objects of the law will usually be an exceptional or special case.”[7]
[6]Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v HWCJ GLB Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1574 at paragraph [9] (“HWCG GLB”)
[7]Ng v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2022] WASCA 48 at paragraph [130]. See International Finance Trust Company Limited & Anor v New South Wales Crime Commission & Ors (supra) at paragraph [156]
28It was submitted in Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v HWCJ GLB Pty Ltd [8] that there was a pragmatic urgency which was acknowledged by the Court, which is also present in this case. It was further submitted that in weighing the rights of the suspect and the suspect’s associate to be heard in relation to the applications, against the likelihood of irreparable prejudice to the Commissioner in this case, if notice of the applications is given and property is dissipated or evidence destroyed so as to frustrate the objects of the law, the Court ought to conclude that the balance lies in favour of hearing and determining the applications without notice.
[8] Supra
29Having considered the submissions made, the relevant case law and the matters deposed to in the Hiscoe and Erokhin affidavits, including the following:
(a) the ease with which bitcoins may be dealt with or disposed of;
(b) the particular skill and knowledge which the suspect possesses which may enable the taking of steps which would frustrate the purpose and utility of the restraining order;
(c) the need to obtain information which will lead to an ability to identify property which is the subject of the restraining order in as short a timeframe as possible, such information being within the particular knowledge of the suspect and the suspect’s associate; and
(d) the procedure which must be employed for the purposes of conducting an examination, namely, making sure that an authorised examiner and the particular tribunal are available to conduct such an investigation, and the fact that an early date for conducting an examination is presently available
I am satisfied that the Commissioner’s position in seeking to enforce the terms of the restraining order and the utility of the operation itself, may be severely and irreparably prejudiced if the application for orders for examination is not heard and determined on an ex parte basis.
30In those circumstances, by reason of the unique features of this case, pursuant to s182(2) of the Act, I have concluded that this is an “exceptional or special case”, in which it is “soundly necessary” on an ex parte basis, to make orders for the examination of the suspect and their associate.
Conclusion and Orders
31Accordingly, on the basis of the usual undertaking as to damages by the applicant, I have ordered as follows (omitting details that would otherwise identify the suspect, the suspect’s associate, the address at which search warrants are to be executed and the items in the Schedules to the orders):
(1) Pursuant to s17 of the OCA, disclosure by publication or otherwise of any part of these proceedings or any information derived from these proceedings is prohibited in Australia until after the earlier of the following dates:
(a)upon the commencement of search warrants by the Australian Federal Police at [address withheld]; or
(b)two (2) weeks from the date of these Orders.
(2)Pursuant to s30 of the OCA, this application be heard in closed court.
(3) Pursuant to s26(4) of the Act, the application for restraining orders be heard and determined without notice and ex parte.
(4) Pursuant to s182(2) of the Act, the application for examination orders be heard and determined without notice and ex parte.
(5) Pursuant to s39(3A) of the Act, the application for ancillary orders be heard and determined without notice and ex parte.
(6) Pursuant to s18 of the Act (including s18(6) of the Act), the property specified in Schedule 1 to these Orders not be disposed of or otherwise dealt with by any person, except as provided for in this Order, until further order.
(7) Pursuant to s39(1)(ca) of the Act, the suspect make and give a declaration of property interests to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police in response to the matters at Schedule 2 to these Orders no later than four (4) business days after being served with these Orders by emailing the declaration to [email protected].
(8) Pursuant to s39(1)(g) of the Act, the suspect is directed to do all things necessary or convenient to bring all their property, other than the property at Part A to Schedule 1 to these Orders, within the jurisdiction.
(9) Pursuant to s180(1) of the Act, the suspect be examined about:
(a)their affairs; and
(b)the affairs of the suspect’s associate.
(10) Pursuant to s180(1) of the Act, the suspect’s associate be examined about:
(a)their affairs; and
(b)the affairs of the suspect.
(11) Pursuant to s33(3) of the Act, the responsible authority delay giving notice under s33 of the Act until after the earlier of the following dates:
(a)upon the commencement of search warrants by the Australian Federal Police at [address withheld]; or
(b)two (2) weeks from the date of these Orders.
(12) Pursuant to s38 of the Act, the Official Trustee take custody and control of the property listed in Part A of Schedule 1 to these Orders.
(13) Pursuant to s38 of the Act, the Official Trustee take custody and control of the property at Part B to Schedule 1 to these Orders, save that any person authorised to do so may retain the property in accordance with the provisions of the Crimes Act 2014 (Cth) or the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
(14) Pursuant to s39(1)(e)(i), where the Official Trustee is required to take custody and control of property under Order 13 above, the Official Trustee may elect to not take custody and control of any property the Official Trustee considers to be:
(a)property that is unsaleable or is not readily saleable; or
(b)property where it is reasonable to expect that the costs, charges and expenses that would be incurred in realising the property would exceed the proceeds of realising the property.
(15) Pursuant to s39(1)(e)(i), the Official Trustee may take custody and control of the property under Order 13 above at any time whilst the Restraining Order at Order 6 is in force, including in respect of any property that the Official Trustee has previously elected at any time not to take into custody and control.
(16) Pursuant to s39(1)(e)(iii), the suspect is directed to do anything necessary or convenient to enable the Official Trustee to take custody and control of the property under Orders 12 and 13 above.
(17) For the avoidance of any doubt, property which the Official Trustee has elected not to take into custody and control remains restrained whilst the Restraining Order at Order 6 is in force.
- - -
0
5
0