Zheng & Anor v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Anor

In *Zheng & Anor v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Anor*, the applicants, Mr. Zheng and Ms. Li, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Minister for Home Affairs concerning the forfeiture of property under the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the AFP and the Minister had acted lawfully in initiating and maintaining forfeiture proceedings against assets allegedly derived from criminal activity. The matter was heard by Bell and Gageler JJ of the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the AFP and the Minister had properly exercised their powers under the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* (Cth) in relation to the forfeiture of the applicants' property. Specifically, the court was required to consider the scope of the Commissioner's and Minister's discretions, the procedural fairness owed to the applicants, and the interpretation of certain provisions of the Act concerning the identification and forfeiture of unlawfully obtained property. The applicants contended that the decisions to forfeit their assets were vitiated by errors of law.

Bell and Gageler JJ analysed the relevant provisions of the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* (Cth), including those relating to unexplained wealth and the powers of the AFP and the Minister. Their Honours considered the principles of administrative law, particularly concerning the exercise of statutory discretions and the requirements of procedural fairness. The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and applied established legal principles to determine whether the AFP and the Minister had acted within their statutory authority and in accordance with the law. The reasoning focused on the statutory framework governing forfeiture proceedings and the obligations imposed on Commonwealth agencies when dealing with such matters.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the AFP and the Minister had acted lawfully in their decisions concerning the forfeiture of the applicants' property. The court concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated any error of law in the exercise of the powers by the Commissioner or the Minister.