The Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia v Mansfield

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for Western Australia brought proceedings against Nigel Mansfield, Rosalind Mansfield, and the State of Western Australia, seeking a criminal benefits declaration under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA). The DPP alleged that Nigel Mansfield committed multiple insider trading offences by selling shares in My Casino Ltd while in possession of non-public adverse information, and that the proceeds from these sales constituted criminal benefits. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the criminal benefits were the total proceeds of the sales or the difference between the sale proceeds and the true value of the shares had the market been informed. The court held that the criminal benefits were the latter, being the gain acquired by way of avoiding a loss on sale.

In reaching this decision, the court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law. It noted that the definition of "criminal benefits" in the Act referred to property acquired as a result of involvement in a confiscation offence, and that the value of such benefits should be assessed based on their value at the time of acquisition or the time the declaration application was made. The court found that the DPP's interpretation, which considered the total sale proceeds as criminal benefits, was inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the Act, which was to deprive criminals of their ill-gotten gains. The court concluded that the proper measure of criminal benefits in this case was the difference between the sale proceeds and the true value of the shares, as this was the amount that Nigel Mansfield acquired "as a result of" his alleged involvement in the confiscation offences. The court also found that the DPP's statement of claim needed to be amended to properly allege the facts supporting the claim that Nigel Mansfield ought to have known that the non-public information might materially affect the share price. The application for leave to amend the statement of claim was thus refused, and the matter was adjourned to allow the DPP and Nigel Mansfield to make further submissions.