Commissioner of Police v Golding

[2019] NZHC 2895

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-1990

[2019] NZHC 2895

UNDER

The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

STEVEN JOHN GOLDING

Respondent

Hearing:

6 November 2019

Counsel:

C Stubbington for Plaintiff

No appearance for Respondent

Judgment:

6 November 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Solicitors:           Pollett Legal Limited, Tauranga

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v GOLDING [2019] NZHC 2895 [6 November 2019]

[1]                 This is an application for an assets forfeiture order in relation to an amount of cash found by police during a search warrant that was executed at the respondent’s property in April 2015. The respondent has been served with both the application for asset forfeiture and the affidavit in support. The respondent has also been examined in relation to the money seized that is subject to the forfeiture order. He admitted he lied about the source of cash when the money was first seized, stating:

“Well I, I gave the Police a story. I told them that um that I’d, it was savings and you know I didn’t use a bank and that ah I, I think I gave them a like, it was still part of my RTW money um, yeah, but that, that’d be on record I’d say with them. But of course I lied about where you know it came from but yeah it had, that’s part and parcel of the course so I’m not lying about it now but back then I did..................................................................................................... ”

[2]                 He also confirmed that he had no assets besides the money seized by the police and that he was living a cash lifestyle while involved in the drug scene.

[3]                 The further background is that Mr Golding was part of a methamphetamine operation and there is substantial evidence linking him to that methamphetamine operation, as set out in the affidavit of Ya Tsui. It is further noted in the affidavit in support that the respondent confirmed the $15,845 cash seized by police came from his involvement in the drug scene and the money was as a result of his involvement in criminal activities, including manufacturing and supplying methamphetamine.

[4]                 Given this and the fact the respondent does not oppose the application, the assets forfeiture order is granted on the terms sought. In summary, there shall be an assets forfeiture order in respect of the sum of $15,845 seized by police from the respondent on 20 April 2015.