Tange v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Tange against a decision of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP). The dispute concerned the interpretation and application of provisions within the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* (Cth) relating to the forfeiture of assets.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the CDPP had correctly applied the statutory test for obtaining a forfeiture order over property that was alleged to be the proceeds of, or derived from, unlawful activity. Specifically, the Court had to determine the scope of the phrase "unlawful activity" as defined in the Act and whether the evidence presented by the CDPP satisfied the requisite standard for forfeiture.

The High Court analysed the legislative intent behind the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* and the principles of statutory interpretation. It examined the nature of the alleged unlawful activity and the connection between that activity and the property in question. The Court affirmed that the Act requires a clear demonstration that the property is indeed the proceeds of, or derived from, unlawful activity as defined by the statute, and that mere suspicion or inference is insufficient to justify forfeiture. The Court also considered the evidentiary burden placed upon the CDPP in such proceedings.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the CDPP had not discharged its evidentiary burden to the required standard. Consequently, the forfeiture order was set aside.