Commissioner of Police v Karetu

[2025] NZHC 1428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2024-441-21

[2025] NZHC 1428

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

MATHEW PHILIP KARETU

Respondent

AND

VELMA CLAUDETTE WESCHE

First Interested Party

AND

SHAVAUGHN KARETU

Second Interested Party

AND

THE ESTATE OF PAUL ANTHONY

KIWARD (Deceased) Third Interested Party

AND

ANZ BANK LIMITED

Fourth Interested Party

AND

RICHARD SNOWDEN HIRA

Fifth Interested Party

AND

TANGAROA PANETA HOME

Sixth Interested Party

On the papers

Counsel:

F E Cleary for Applicant J Rhodes for Respondent

K Hogan for First Interested Party

Judgment:

3 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Proceeds of crime early sale order]

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v KARETU [2025] NZHC 1428 [3 June 2025]

Introduction

[1]    Having obtained a without notice restraining order under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 on 15 March 2025, the Commissioner sought and subsequently obtained on notice orders restraining, amongst other property:

(a)a black 2016 Mazda BT-50, registration number QCN343, registered in the name of the first interested party;

(b)a 2019 Harley Davidson motorcycle, bearing licence registration  plate B4UNQ, registered in the name of the firth interested party.1

[2]    The Commissioner now applies for an early sale order concerning the vehicles. In support of the application I have a memorandum of counsel for the Commissioner of 28 May 2025 and the affidavit of Julie Vernon of 10 December 2024.

Applicable law

[3]    Under s 35(e)(v) of the Act, an applicant—which may include a person with an interest in restrained property—may apply for an order of the Court directing the Official Assignee to sell restrained property “in order to preserve the value of the restrained property”.

[4]    The relevant considerations informing the Court’s discretion are not limited. The overarching requirement is that an order is necessary to preserve the value of the restrained property on behalf of not only the Commissioner but also those claiming a legal interest in it.2

Background

[5]    Ms Vernon’s affidavit confirms that the Mazda motor vehicle and the motorcycle are lawfully in the possession and control of the Official Assignee pursuant to the first retraining order granted in this proceeding. On 12 March 2024, both

1      Commissioner of Police v Karetu [2024] NZHC 3022 at [1](i) and (j) and [8].

2      Commissioner of Police v Parker [2019] NZHC 1506 at [46]–[54].

vehicles were seized from 918 Kiwi Street, Hastings, being the home of the respondent and his partner, the first interested party.

[6]    The Mazda is registered in the name of the first interested party. Neither the respondent nor the first interested party oppose the application for early sale orders concerning the Mazda.

[7]    On 26 April 2019 the respondent purchased the motorcycle and registered it in his name. Two weeks later, on 14 May 2019, the motorcycle was transferred into the name of the fifth interested party, Mr Richard Hira. When Mr Hira was spoken to by Police he advised that the vehicle had been registered in his name “for a while but it’s not my bike. It’s in my name but that’s all I am going to say”.

[8]    The evidence also establishes that the motorcycle was in the effective control of the respondent at all material times. Mr Hira has never held a motorcycle licence. The bike was purchased with cash and there were no cash withdrawals or deposits in the accounts of either the respondent or fifth interested party at the time of the transfer of ownership to Mr Hira. As I have already observed, the motorcycle was also located at the respondent’s home address at the time it was seized.

[9]    At the time the vehicles were seized, the Mazda was valued at $14,000, and the Harley Davidson was valued at $26,000. Annual depreciation of both items is identified as $2,940 and $5,460 respectively.

Consideration and conclusion

[10]I am satisfied it is appropriate to make an early sale order for five reasons:

(a)first, there is no opposition to the application;

(b)second, the property consists of depreciating assets;

(c)third, while subject to the restraint orders the respondent and interested parties cannot use or enjoy the property;

(d)fourth, the proceeding is at an early stage and there is a significant prospect of further loss of value in the property before the proceeding is resolved;

(e)finally, early sale will benefit the applicant, respondent and interested parties by maximising the value of the property pending resolution of the case.

Isac J

Solicitors:
Elvidges, Napier for Applicant