The Commissioner of Federal Police v Mazzco Investments Pty Ltd

[2018] NSWSC 1131

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	The Commissioner of Federal Police v Mazzco Investments Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 1131
Hearing dates:	19 July 2018
Date of orders:	20 July 2018
Decision date:	20 July 2018
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Schmidt J
Decision:	Orders sought made.
Catchwords:	PROCEEDS OF CRIME – ex parte application – restraining orders – orders made
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff) Mazzco Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 164 617 654) (First Defendant) The Late Dimitrios (Jim) Mavris (Second Defendant) Administrator of the Estate of the Late Dimitrios (Jim) Mavris (Third Defendant) Despina Katherine Mavris (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors: Criminal Assets Litigation, Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2018/222509
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment

1. By summons filed on 19 July 2018, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, a proceeds of crime authority under s 338 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), applied ex-parte, seeking restraining orders under ss 18 and 19 of the Act in relation real property of Despina Katherine Mavris and of Mazzco Investments Pty Ltd. The application proceeded ex parte, that having been sought by the Commissioner: s 26(4).

2. The application was supported by an extensive affidavit sworn on 19 July 2018 by Alexander Lachlan Drummond, a member of the Australian Federal Police and an authorised officer under the Act. The application sought urgent relief in circumstances where some of the properties the subject of the application are the subject of a binding contract of sale or transfer of security, with settlements due to occur on the afternoon of 20 July.

3. Why a more timely application was not made, is not apparent.

4. Having now considered the case advanced, however, I am satisfied that the orders pressed should be made in the terms sought.

5. This Court is a court with "proceeds jurisdiction", empowering it to make the orders sought, the alleged offences having occurred in this State and the property the subject of the orders being located here: s 335. The restraining must be made upon satisfaction that an authorised officer who provides an affidavit supporting the application holds suspicions of the kind specified, on reasonable grounds: s 18(1)(f) and s 19(1)(f).

6. The requirments of these provisions must be approached in light of the definitions of “proceeds” of an offence and “instrument” of an offence, appearing in s 329 of the Act, as well as the meaning of “effective control” appearing in s 337 of the Act and “interest” appearing in s 338.

7. On Mr Drummond’s affidavit I am satisfied that he not only holds the suspicions which he explained, but that the affidavit establishes the existence of reasonable grounds for his suspicions.

8. Mr Drummond’s suspicions included firstly, that the late Mr Dimitrios (Jim) Mavris, at the time of his death married to Mrs Mavris and Mazzco Investments, had both committed “serious offences” as defined in the Act, of dealing in money or property worth more than $AUD100,000 reasonably specified to be the proceeds of crime, contrary to s 400.9(1) of the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and importing a commercial quantity of cocaine, a border controlled drug, contrary to s 307.1 of the Criminal Code.

9. Mr Drummond also suspects that the properties Mrs Mavris owns were either property of Mr Mavris, or under his effective control, given that the proceeds of the sale of the former family home which Mr and Mrs Mavris owned as joint tenants were used to acquire those properties; what Mrs Mavris told police about the reasons for the properties being purchased in only her name; the circumstances and means by which the purchase of the properties were otherwise funded; Mr Mavris’ involvement in their acquisition; and the use which he later sought to make of them.

10. Mr Drummond further suspects that Mr Mavris either had a beneficial interest in, or effective control over the properties owned by Mazzco Investments which are the subject of the application.

11. Mr Drummond also suspects that the acquisition of the properties of both Mrs Mavris and Mazzco Investments was funded by the proceeds and/or instruments of crime.

12. In summary the affidavit revealed that these suspicions rested on the circumstances in which Mr Mavris came to be charged; those in which the properties the subject of the application were acquired; and that the funds used to acquire them were grossly disproportionate to the declared income of Mr Mavris, Mrs Mavris and Mazzco Investments.

13. The affidavit disclosed that Mr Mavris was arrested at Sydney airport and charged, but died in a cell while on remand on 25 May 2018, of an apparent suicide. He was then the sole director shareholder and secretary of Mazzco Investments, which is the trustee of the Mazzco Investment Trust and of Level 12 Holdings Pty Ltd, the trustee of the Mavis Family Trust, of which he was a beneficiary.

14. Court attendance notices evidenced the charges laid against Mr Mavris after his arrest and the Statement of Facts relating to those charges, prepared by the case officer, Federal Agent Dunbar, the circumstances in which he came to be charged.

15. Lawfully intercepted telephone recordings of conversions in which Mr and Mrs Mavris were involved with other identified people, as well as other information obtained during the course of the police investigation, revealed Mr Mavris’ involvement in the importation of at least 12 shipping containers from Columbia and Peru in 2012, 2013, 2017 and 2018. Border controlled drugs, cocaine, were discovered in the last shipment.

16. An analysis of reports regarding money remittances, their connection with these importations, as well as the purchases of properties in the names of Mr and Mrs Mavris in 2012 and 2013 and related loans and discharges of mortgages, supported the inference that the funds used to acquire them included the proceeds of drug importations, rather than legally acquired funds.

17. An analysis of shipping records and costs, as well as intercepted conversations supported the inference that in 2017, Mr Mavris conducted another importation as a “dry run” to establish an import history and to test the capabilities of Australia’s border protection authorities.

18. In March 2018 intercepted containers were discovered to contain silver packages containing some 59kg cocaine valued at between $AUD11,800,000 and $AUD12,980,00. On delivery the containers were entered by Mr Mavris. Later attempts were made to access the place of concealment of the drugs and during intercepted discussions, conversations apparently connected with the drug importation were recorded. The investigation also established that Mr Mavis subsequently travelled to Bogota, apparently in connection with this importation.

19. An analysis of declared income for tax purposes, as well as disclosed business earnings of Mr and Mrs Mavris and their companies and trusts, showed that their income was grossly disproportionate to the properties they acquired and/or controlled. This supported the inference that those acquisitions were the proceeds/and or instruments of money laundering offences. As did the fact that Mrs Mavris, who had previously worked as a pharmacist, was not working due to her health.

20. The times and circumstances in which the various properties were acquired and sold; the circumstances in which loans were obtained and when payments were made, were also analysed. They also supported the inference that these acquisitions were the proceeds/and or instruments of money laundering offences, as did certain answers given by Ms Mavris, when questioned by police in May 2018 and other intercepted conversation in which Mr Mavris had been involved, prior to his death.

21. A basis for the suspicion that Mr Mavris, if not the owner of all of these properties, had at least effective control of them, was thereby established, as was the suspicion that the purchase of the properties was grossly disproportionate to legitimate income which could have been used to acquire them and that those funds were in fact the proceeds and/or instruments of crime.

22. In the result, on the basis of Mr Drummond’s affidavit, the orders sought must be made, as ss 18 and 19 requires. I am also satisfied that the other orders pressed should be made in the circumstances, being satisfied that he does hold the suspicions to which he deposed and that they are held on reasonable grounds.

Orders

23. For these reasons, I make orders in the terms sought.

**********

Decision last updated: 23 July 2018