Commissioner of Police v Cox
[2025] NZHC 2186
•6 August 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2024-404-000744
[2025] NZHC 2186
UNDER The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Applicant
AND
IAN ORMOND COX
Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
E Rangamuwa and A Wilson for Applicant J Manera for Respondent
Date:
6 August 2025
JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J
This judgment was delivered by me on 6 August 2025 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
………………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v COX [2025] NZHC 2186 [6 August 2025]
[1] On 20 September 2024, Ian Cox was convicted and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for importing pseudoephedrine on four occasions between 15 October 2021 and 23 June 2022, and a charge for possessing methamphetamine for supply.
[2] The Commissioner of Police obtained restraining orders under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Act), in respect of property seized by them on the dates as summarised below:
(a)$41,780 cash seized by Police on 7 September 2022 at 36 Pine Street, Mount Eden, Auckland, and any interest accrued;
(b)$100,100 cash seized by Police on 14 September 2022 at Imperial Vault, 190 Stoddard Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland, and any interest accrued;
(c)approximately 148 kilograms and 1,387 ounces of silver bullion, and
5.6 ounces of gold, seized by Police on 14 September 2022 at Imperial Vault (Imperial Vault Collection);1
(d)20 ounces of silver bullion seized by Police on 14 September 2022 at Commonwealth Vaults, 6 Albert Street, Auckland;2
(e)approximately 46 kilograms and 1,950 ounces of silver bullion seized by Police on 16 September 2022 at New Zealand Mint, Level 1/48 Greys Avenue, Auckland (New Zealand Mint Collection);3 and
(f)an assortment of collector’s bank notes, coins and silver seized by Police on 7 September 2022 at 36 Pine Street.4
1 Valued at approximately $345,612.02.
2 Valued at approximately $1,044.08.
3 Valued at approximately $178,937.69.
4 Valued at approximately $39,500.
[3] The Commissioner has identified that two persons have interests in some of the above property (the “Interested Persons”). Specifically, Mr Cox’s ex-wife has an interest in the New Zealand Mint Collection. Mr Cox’s sister has an interest in the Imperial Vault Collection. The Commissioner has determined the extent of those interests, which the Commissioner does not seek to be forfeited.
[4] The Commissioner and Mr Cox have reached a settlement on the question of what forfeiture order is appropriately made in respect to the balance of the property.5 The Interested Persons have given their consent to the proposed settlement, under which the property they have an interest in is returned to them.
[5] The Commissioner and Mr Cox ask the Court to approve the settlement so that it becomes binding.6 The Court must approve the settlement if satisfied it is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice.7
The settlement
[6]In summary, the proposed settlement involves the following:
(a)recission of the restraining orders as it relates to the property to be returned to the Interested Persons;
(b)a type 1 assets forfeiture order under s 50(1) of the Act over the balance of the property with an estimated value of $608,861; and
(c)further terms by which there is an abandonment of claims to property forfeited, that the Commissioner will not pursue its proceeding for a profit forfeiture order and agreement that costs lie where they fall.
5 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 95(1).
6 Section 95(2).
7 Section 95(3).
The Commissioner’s case
[7] The Commissioner’s case is that Mr Cox unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity, involving the importation and supply of pseudoephedrine and the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine.
[8] I referred at the outset to Mr Cox’s five convictions. The Commissioner says Mr Cox’s offending extends beyond his convictions. He says the importation of pseudoephedrine on 15 October 2021 for which Mr Cox was convicted is indicative that he was, at the very least, importing pseudoephedrine in the 11-month period leading up to his arrest in September 2022.
[9] The Commissioner asserts that Mr Cox unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity to the value of $1,666,500. The Commissioner relies on Mr Cox’s convictions as conclusive proof of his involvement in importation. He estimates that Mr Cox dealt with at least 33.33 kilograms of pseudoephedrine between October 2021 and September 2022. This estimate takes into account the average quantity of pseudoephedrine Mr Cox imported per month based on quantities he imported in the two-month period between May and June 2022.8 The value of $1,666,500 is based on Mr Cox’s own pricing. Messages found on Mr Cox’s phone referred to pricing at
$50,000 per kilogram of pseudoephedrine.
[10] The Commissioner’s financial analysis of Mr Cox’s affairs identified a significant shortfall of $122,370 between Mr Cox’s expenditure from 2016 to 2023, and what would be expected from a “single person household” during that period, indicative of Mr Cox’s reliance on cash outside the banking system. In conjunction with the fact he was in possession of large sums of cash on arrest ($141,880), the Commissioner says it is evident Mr Cox lived a cash-rich lifestyle, funded by his pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine dealing.
8 It excludes the amount intercepted.
Threshold for approval of settlement
[11] The primary purpose of the Act as set out in s 3(1) is to establish a regime for the forfeiture of property that has been derived directly or indirectly from significant criminal activity or that represents the value of a person’s unlawfully derived income. Further purposes are to “eliminate the chance” for persons to profit from undertaking or being associated with significant criminal activity,9 and to “deter” significant criminal activity.10
[12] Under s 95(3) of the Act, the Court must approve the settlement if it is satisfied that it is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice. “Overall interests of justice” indicates that a broad enquiry is required.11
[13] The Court’s supervisory jurisdiction involves the Court ensuring the settlement achieves a satisfactory balance between the objectives of potential profit elimination (and deterrence) and a prompt, cost-effective resolution.12 In respect of the latter, there is a strong public interest in litigation under the Act being brought to a prompt conclusion, reflecting the likely costs and risks inherent in the determination of a contested application,13 and the desirability of proceedings under the Act being made on economic and pragmatic grounds reflective of common sense compromise.14
Assessment
[14] The estimated value of Mr Cox’s restrained property (excluding that to be returned to the Interested Persons) is $608,861. The Commissioner recognises that to be successful in his profit forfeiture order application, there will clearly be a shortfall from the $1,666,500 that the Commissioner claims is Mr Cox’s unlawful benefit from significant criminal activity. However, the Commissioner is not aware of any assets held by Mr Cox beyond the restrained property that could be disposed of to meet a
9 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, s 3(2)(a).
10 Section 3(2)(b).
11 Commissioner of Police v Zhang [2016] NZHC 930; Commissioner of Police v Kree [2013] NZHC 2972 at [11]; Commissioner of Police v Douglas [2015] NZHC 1293; and Commissioner of Police v Venn [2014] NZHC 361.
12 Commissioner of Police v Cavanagh [2023] NZHC 3311 at [9].
13 Commissioner of Police v Cotton [2017] NZHC 21 at [7].
14 Commissioner of Police v Douglas, above n 11, at [6].
profit forfeiture order (should one be made). I accept that this is a relevant factor in considering settlement.15
[15] Accordingly, the Commissioner is prepared to forgo seeking a profit forfeiture order against Mr Cox. This acknowledges the practical difficulties in otherwise pursuing a civil debt under ss 55(4) and 83(4) of the Act, given the reality that Mr Cox is serving a lengthy term of imprisonment.
[16] The Commissioner’s proposed agreement to abandon his profit forfeiture order application for settlement purposes is conditional on the entirety of the remaining property being forfeited by way of an asset forfeiture order. I accept that there is merit in the Commissioner’s case that this property is tainted: Mr Cox’s modest declared net income of $210,609.75 between 2016 and 2023 fails to account for how he acquired his restrained property, worth over $600,000, during the same period.
[17] The settlement acknowledges the legitimate interests of the Interested Persons in some of the restrained property. As outlined earlier, this is to be returned to them under the settlement. The evidence both Interested Persons have provided of the claims to this property are well-founded. There is no evidence to suggest that either of them unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity. Although the Interested Persons are unrepresented, I have assessed the enquiries made of them and their responses and am satisfied that the settlement as it relates to their interests is appropriate.16
[18] Mr Cox does not accept the Commissioner’s broader allegations as to the scale or value of the alleged offending beyond his convictions, but his position is that he recognises the practical realities of his current circumstances and the likely outcome if the matter proceeded to hearing. In light of this and without admission to the broader allegations, Mr Cox consents to the proposed settlement and to the making of the associated orders.
15 Commissioner of Police v Parkes [2019] NZHC 397 at [12].
16 Compare Commissioner of Police v Naҫagilevu [2024] NZHC 2180 at [25]–[31].
[19] A contested hearing has inherent risk for the Commissioner, particularly as to the value of pseudoephedrine the Commissioner claims is involved in Mr Cox’s significant criminal activity. On the other hand, an agreed settlement will allow the Commissioner to have certainty and control as to the outcome. There will be substantial savings of time and cost if the matter can be resolved by consent. A settlement will also obviate the need for Court time and resources in determining the Commissioner’s application.
[20] In my view, considering all the above matters, I am satisfied that the settlement is consistent with the Act’s purposes and the overall interests of justice.
Result
[21]The settlement is approved.
[22]I make the following orders, giving effect to the settlement:
(a)The restraining orders made by the Court are rescinded regarding the following items seized by Police on 16 September 2022 from New Zealand Mint, Level 1/48 Greys Avenue, Auckland, and the Official Assignee is directed to return these items to the relevant Interested Person as referred to in paragraph [3] above by making them available to her at a time and place in Auckland agreed by her with the Official Assignee:
(i)20 ten-ounce silver bars;
(ii)15 one-kilogram silver bars; and
(iii)500 one-ounce silver kangaroo coins.
(b)The restraining orders made by the Court are rescinded regarding the following items seized by Police on 14 September 2022 from Imperial Vault, 190 Stoddard Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland, and the Official Assignee is directed to return these items to the relevant
Interested Person as referred to in paragraph [3] above by making them available to her at a time and place in Auckland agreed by her with the Official Assignee:
(i)20 one-kilogram silver bars; and
(ii)56 one-ounce special edition silver coins from the Silver Shield Collection;
(c)the property listed in Schedule 1, excluding the Interested Persons’ respective property outlined at [22(a)(i)–(iii)] and [22(b)(i)–(ii)] above, vests in the Crown absolutely and is in the Official Assignee’s custody and control;
(d)costs lie where they fall in relation to all matters as between the Commissioner, Mr Cox, and the Interested Persons.
[23]I note that the parties have also agreed the following:
(a)Mr Cox and the Interested Persons abandon all claims they may have, under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 or otherwise, to any of the property to be forfeited under this settlement;
(b)the Commissioner will not pursue his application for a profit forfeiture order against Mr Cox, on the basis of the significant criminal activity evidenced in the affidavits filed in this proceeding to date; and
(c)the settlement is full and final in respect of the Commissioner’s proceeding against Mr Cox under the Act and the question of civil forfeiture of the restrained property, on the basis of the significant criminal activity evidenced in the affidavits filed in the proceeding to date.
Anderson J
SCHEDULE 1
Cash
1.$41,780 cash seized by Police on 7 September 2022 at 36 Pine Street, Mount Eden, Auckland, and any interest accrued.
2.$100,100 cash seized by Police on 14 September 2022 at Imperial Vault, 190 Stoddard Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland, and any interest accrued.
Gold and silver bullion
3.Approximately 148 kilograms and 1,387 ounces of silver bullion and
5.6 ounces of gold seized by Police on 14 September 2022 at Imperial Vault, valued at approximately $345,612.02, comprising:17
(a)146 one-kilogram silver bars (of various types);
(b)650 one-ounce silver Canadian coins;
(c)250 one-ounce silver Australian coins;
(d)40 one-ounce silver USA coins;
(e)two 100-ounce silver bars;
(f)14 10-ounce silver bars (of various types);
(g)three one-ounce red velvet silver coins;
(h)two one-kilogram silver koala coins;
(i)one 10-ounce silver “Ausi” coin;
(j)10 one-ounce silver bars;
(k)84 one-ounce assorted silver coins; and
(l)four 1.4-ounce gold coins.
4.20 ounces of silver bullion seized by Police on 14 September 2022 at Commonwealth Vaults, 6 Albert Street, Auckland, valued at approximately
$1,044.08, comprising two 10-ounce silver bars.
17 For the purposes of Schedule 1, ounces refer to troy ounces, being approximately 31.1 grams.
5.31 kilograms and 1,250 ounces of silver bullion seized by Police on 16 September 2022 at New Zealand Mint, Level 1/48 Greys Avenue, Auckland, valued at approximately $117,215.94, comprising the following:
(a)31 one-kilogram silver bars;
(b)500 one-ounce silver fern medallions;
(c)750 one-ounce silver kangaroo coins.
Miscellaneous property
6.Collector’s bank notes, coins and silver seized by Police on 7 September 2022 at 36 Pine Street, valued at approximately $39,500, comprising:
(a)an assortment of British banknotes and coin sets, valued at approximately $2,730;
(b)an assortment of Australian silver proof coins, valued at approximately
$550;
(c)an assortment of Australian banknote folders, valued at approximately
$10,885;
(d)an assortment of New Zealand and Australian coins, valued at approximately $104;
(e)an assortment of Australian coins and banknotes, valued at approximately $2,993;
(f)an assortment of silver bullion coins, valued at approximately $6,680;
(g)an Australian coin, valued at approximately $7; and
(h)an assortment of silver and platinum and gold bullion coins, valued at approximately $14,883.44.
0
5
1