Wong v Commissioner, Australian Federal Police

The applicant, Wong Chang Song, sought to set aside a warrant issued by a Magistrate and the return of all items seized under the warrant. The warrant authorised Federal Agent Rix, as the executing officer, to enter, search and seize items at the applicant's premises and was issued upon the issuing magistrate being satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that there was, or would be within the next 72 hours of the issue of the warrant, at those premises, evidential material which satisfied three conditions. The first condition described the things thought to be at the premises in question such as, for example, accounts, correspondence, records and other documents. The second condition identified who or what those things related to. The third condition identified the indictable offences in respect of which the things were suspected to afford evidence of having been committed, namely: party to multiple non-reportable deposits, and dealing with money or other property which was reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime. The applicant contended that the information in the Warrant Affidavit did not provide sufficient to permit the Magistrate to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that there was any materials at his premises which would afford evidence as to the commission by him of the indictable offences specified in the warrant. The applicant contended that the Warrant Affidavit only betrayed that an amount of money had been deposited into an account opened by a third person by means of transactions that were, allegedly, structured. The applicant contended that this was the only allegation of illegality identified in the information in the Warrant Affidavit and that the allegation was not one which tainted him in the sense that it might provide any reason for suspecting that he had been involved in criminality. The court found that the Warrant Affidavit contained sufficient information to found a reasonable suspicion that the applicant was a party to non-reportable transactions or of dealing with money that was the proceeds of crime. The information in the Warrant Affidavit linked the applicant with the Reverend Mah’s accounts, and there was plainly information capable of raising a suspicion that the applicant’s NAB account was being used by the applicant for unlawful structuring activity. The issuing Magistrate was also told in the Warrant Affidavit that the NAB had informed the Australian Federal Police on 23 September 2013 that the applicant’s account had been terminated due to "structuring activity" on the applicant's account. The applicant's claim that the warrant had been obtained for an improper purpose was rejected by the court. The court found that the onus of establishing improper purpose falls upon the party alleging it and is not to be inferred lightly. The warrant had been obtained on the basis of an affidavit sworn by Federal Agent Rix on oath that she had the suspicions stated in her affidavit. The warrant itself was directed to documents of a kind which bore upon the offences identified in the warrant, and was sought in the context of a pre-existing, and continuing, investigation of which the restraining order was a part. The fact that the Warrant Affidavit could have contained stronger and more direct information did not permit any inference to be drawn of an improper purpose. The proceeding was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs on a party and party basis.