The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Memon (No 4)

The matter before the court involved the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police seeking declarations that certain funds restrained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) were proceeds of crime and that two of the offender's children, who claimed beneficial interest in the restrained property, were not entitled to any interest in the funds. The children, who were not parties to the proceedings, argued that the Commissioner's failure to comply with certain procedural requirements invalidated the notice served under section 92 of the Act and that section 92A required personal service of notice. The court was tasked with deciding these legal issues to determine the validity of the Commissioner's claim and the entitlement of the children to any interest in the restrained property.

The legal issues before the court included whether the failure to comply with the requirements of section 92A would invalidate a notice served under section 92 of the Act, whether section 92A mandated personal service of notice, and whether the Commissioner had complied with the requirements of section 92A. The court had to consider the interplay between these sections and their implications for the procedural validity of the Commissioner's claim and the children's entitlement to any interest in the restrained property.

In its judgment, the court found that the failure to comply with section 92A did not invalidate the notice served under section 92, as section 92A was not intended to be a jurisdictional bar. The court also determined that section 92A did not require personal service of notice, and the Commissioner had substantially complied with the requirements of section 92A by serving notice on the children. The court concluded that the children were not entitled to any interest in the restrained property, and the Commissioner's declarations were made in their favour.

The final orders of the court declared that the specified funds were proceeds of crime, that the children had no beneficial interest in the restrained property, and that the Commissioner was entitled to the restrained property. The court's decision provided clarity on the interplay between sections 92 and 92A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) and the requirements for serving notice on individuals claiming an interest in restrained property.