Commissioner of Police v Im
[2025] NZHC 1912
•15 July 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2022-404-002410
[2025] NZHC 1912
UNDER Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Applicant
AND
HUN MIN IM
Respondent
Hearing: On the papers at Auckland Judgment:
15 July 2025
JUDGMENT OF POWELL J
[Approval of Settlement]
This judgment was delivered by me on 15 July 2025 at 4.00 pm.
Pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v HUN MIN IM [2025] NZHC 1912 [15 July 2025]
[1] On 22 December 2022, the Commissioner of Police (Commissioner) sought and obtained restraining orders under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) against various assets belonging to the respondent, Hun Min Im, specifically a property at 16J/6 Saint Martins Lane, Auckland (St Martins Lane) and a 2015 BMW 6 series 650i, registration 1IMI1 (the BMW). Further orders were subsequently made against Mr Im on 1 February 2023 (permitting the sale of the BMW), on 19 December 2023 (extending the restraining order over the remaining property) and 31 October 2024 (extending the restraint again).
[2] Although the assets were restrained, no formal application for forfeiture has, to date, been made by the Commissioner. However, the parties have now nonetheless reached agreement on how the remaining assets should be disposed of, which has been confirmed in a settlement agreement dated 8 July 2025. By way of a memorandum on behalf of the Commissioner dated 3 July 2025, the parties have now sought approval of that settlement pursuant to s 95 of the Act (proposed settlement).1 While the memorandum has been filed solely by counsel for the Commissioner, two affidavits filed by Detective Sergeant Luke Singleton set out details of Mr Im’s involvement in the settlement negotiations, his consent to the proposed settlement and subsequent execution of the document. Detective Sergeant Singleton has also provided information that confirms an interested person, Mr Im’s wife, Soyoung Lee, also consents to the settlement although she is not a party to the proceedings.
Background
[3] Both the memorandum and Detective Sergeant Singleton’s affidavit confirm that Mr Im is currently in custody awaiting sentence for 13 charges of obtaining by deception and 29 charges of dishonest use of a document in respect of claims made by Mr Im under the COVID-19 Wage Subsidy Scheme (WSS) between 31 March 2020 and 31 August 2021. Ultimately Mr Im obtained a total of $602.202.40 which was
1 Approval was initially sought notwithstanding it had not been executed by both parties, with execution ultimately completed on 8 July 2025. The terms of the settlement agreement dated 8 July 2025 are slightly different to the terms set out in the memorandum filed on behalf of the Commissioner, which as noted predated the signing. For avoidance of doubt this judgment refers to the signed agreement throughout.
soon used to purchase St Martins Lane and the BMW, as well as to fund the living expenses of Mr Im and Ms Lee.
[4] The proposed settlement records Mr Im has been given the opportunity to take legal advice and he has sought legal advice on certain aspects of the settlement “but otherwise wishes to conclude these proceedings without formal legal representation”. The proposed settlement then provides:
(a)an assets forfeiture order [pursuant to s 50 of the Act] is made by consent over [Saint Martins Lane], excluding the interest of Pioneer Finance Ltd as at the date of this agreement;2
(b)Mr Im abandons all claims he may have under the Act or otherwise, to Saint Martins Lane;
(c)the Commissioner will not bring an application for a profit forfeiture order against Mr Im in respect of the significant criminal activity evidenced in these proceedings to date;
(d)the settlement is entered into by Mr Im expressly on the basis of no admission of liability; and
(e)the Commissioner will not make any public statements which indicate that:
(i)Mr Im accepts criminal guilt solely because of his agreement to settle these proceedings;
(ii)Mr Im accepts liability solely because of his agreement to settle these proceedings;
(iii)Mr Im entered into the settlement involuntarily.
[5] The Commissioner has also confirmed in the memorandum in support that the intention is that costs are to lie where they fall.
[6] Having considered the proposed settlement, the memorandum in support and the affidavits of Detective Sergeant Singleton, I am satisfied that the proposed settlement is appropriate in terms of s 95(3) of the Act, being consistent with both the purposes of the Act and the interests of justice.
2 Criminal Proceed Act 2009, s 50(f). Pioneer Finance Ltd holds an unregulated mortgage protected by a caveat regulated on the title.
[7] In particular I note that there is strong public interest in litigation of this nature being brought to a prompt conclusion provided that the settlement reflects the likely costs and risks inherent in the determination of a contested application. In this case the Commissioner contends that Mr Im has benefitted from significant criminal activity for which he has been convicted in the sum of at least $602,202.40, being the value of the WSS subsidies obtained, while the value of St Martins Lane has an estimated value of approximately $460,000.3 It is likewise noted there are no other assets, there having been no surplus funds obtained when the BMW was sold.
[8] It is clear that the proposed settlement not only provides a saving in time and cost by obviating the need for a civil forfeiture hearing, but gives certainty and control to the parties, and in particular means that Mr Im is not left with a civil debt following the imposition of his sentence.
Decision
[9] The proposed settlement set out in the settlement agreement dated 8 July 2025 is approved pursuant to s 95(3) of the Act.
[10]There is no issue as to costs.
Powell J
3 I note that Mr Im considered it to be higher, but his calculation appears to include a double counting of the land valuation.
0
0
0