Commissioner of Police v Karetu

[2025] NZHC 813

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2024-441-21

[2025] NZHC 813

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER

of an application under ss 21, 24 and 25

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

MATHEW PHILIP KARETU

Respondent

VELMA CLAUDETTE WESCHE
First Interested Party

SHAVAUGN KARETU

Second Interested Party

THE ESTATE OF PAUL ANTHONY

KIWARA (Deceased) Third Interested Party

ANZ BANK LIMITED
Fourth Interested Party

RICHARD SNOWDEN HIRA
Fifth Interested Party

TANGAROA PANETA HONE

Sixth Interested Party

Hearing:

On the Papers

Counsel

F E Cleary for Applicant

J J Rhodes for Respondent

Judgment:

7 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v KARETU [2025] NZHC 813 [7 April 2025]

[1]    A without notice restraining order was granted by Radich J on 11 March 2024 and a subsequent on-notice restraining order by Grau J on 16 October 2024. The Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) then filed a further on-notice restraining order application dated 18 December 2024 and an affidavit of Julie Vernon in support of that application also dated 18 December 2024. The Commissioner also relies on two affidavits filed earlier by Ms Vernon dated 11 March 2024 and 15 March 2024.

[2]The additional property sought to be restrained is:

(a)$75,100 in cash, along with any interest accrued, seized from under a set of drawers in the respondent’s bedroom at the Grace Foundation Facility at 11 Hollinbrigg Place, Manurewa, Auckland on 22 October 2024;1 and

(b)$1,600 in cash, along with any interest accrued, seized from a satchel in the respondent’s bedroom at  the  Grace  Foundation  Facility  at  11 Hollinbrigg Place, Manurewa, Auckland on 22 October 2024.

[3]    By minute dated 4 February 2025, La Hood J directed the Commissioner to file a brief memorandum setting out the legal and evidential basis on which the restraining order could be made, on receipt of which the application would be placed before the Duty Judge for determination on the papers.

[4]    The Commissioner records that at the first call of the application on 4 February 2025, counsel for each of the respondent and the first interested party indicated they do not oppose the application. The Commissioner also records that the only other person with an interest in the property subject to the further restraint application is the sixth interested party. An affidavit of service from Ms Vernon dated 28 January 2025 confirms the sixth interested party has been served with the relevant documents.

1      I note that the Commissioner’s application dated 18 December 2024 contains a typographical error and states $75,1000 in cash was seized.

[5]    The Commissioner indicates the intention to make a forfeiture application this year and seeks the restraining order be granted for a period of twelve months.

[6]Accordingly, I proceed to determine the application.

Background to the application

[7]    Justice Grau helpfully set out the background to this matter in her judgment of 16 October 2024 granting the on-notice restraining order and I repeat it here:2

[4]        On 12 March 2024, Police executed search warrants at several addresses linked to Mr Karetu and his partner, Ms Wesche, the first interested party. Mr Karetu was located and arrested several days later. He was charged with possession of methamphetamine for supply, supplying methamphetamine, participation in an organised criminal group, unlawful possession of a firearm, and failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer [search].

[5]        Police seized slightly over $70,000 cash  at  an address rented  by  Mr Karetu and Ms Wesche. They also found a money counting device, a pistol, ammunition, cutting agent, multiple mobile phones, as well as more cash in a vehicle parked in the driveway. Police have also analysed encrypted messaging from Mr Karetu’s phones consistent with methamphetamine distribution, which is said to involve at least 11 kilograms with a purchase price of at least $1.54 million.

[6]        In addition, an analysis of Mr Karetu’s income, based on Inland Revenue records, indicates a minimal legitimate income since 2018, averaging around $6,000 per annum. Ms Wesche’s income averages around $10,500 per annum since 2017. It is alleged the couple have led a lifestyle that is inconsistent with this level of income, including receiving significant cash deposits into their bank account during this period, enjoying expensive holidays, carrying out extensive property renovations, and acquiring high- value vehicles.

[8]    The affidavit of Ms Vernon dated 18 December 2024 sets out the basis for restraining  the  additional  property.  In  December 2023,  Police  identified  that   Mr Karetu was involved in conspiring to injure with intent to injure and participating in an organised criminal group. This involved Mr Karetu, as national president of the Barbarians chapter of the Mongrel Mob, ordering Mongrel Mob members attending a tangi to each pay $50 and instructing that anyone who did not attend the tangi would be fined $1000 and beaten.

2      Commissioner of Police v Karetu [2024] NZHC 3022.

[9]    In October 2024, Police executed a search warrant at the Grace Foundation Facility in Manurewa, Auckland, which is a rehabilitation and accommodation service for people released from prison or on bail. Mr Karetu was on electronically monitored bail, with a 24-hour curfew at the address. Police executed the search warrant in relation to Mr Karetu’s involvement in conspiring to injure with intent to injure, and participating in an organised criminal group.

[10]   Police located five mobile phones in Mr Karetu’s bedroom, $75,100 in cash concealed under a set of drawers and $1,600 in cash in a satchel bag.

[11]   In addition, a further analysis of Mr Karetu’s income, based on Inland Revenue records, indicates that he received income for the 2024 tax year totalling $10,989.38. The Commissioner says that Mr Karetu’s low income is insufficient to cover usual living costs. Mr Karetu did not declare any other income and as he was incarcerated between  13 March  2024  and  3 May  2024  prior  to  being  released   to   the  Grace Foundation on a 24-hour curfew, there has been no clear opportunity for him to legitimately accrue the $76,700 of cash located at the address.

[12]   In November 2024, Police received an inquiry as to the status of the mobile phones that were seized from the Grace Foundation. The sixth respondent, Mr Hone, subsequently asked Police when they would return his mobile phones and cash that was seized. Mr Hone indicated that he had legitimately obtained that cash from tattoo services and gambling.

[13]   Records show that Mr Hone was on a 24-hour curfew with electronically monitored bail at the Grace Foundation from 20 June 2024 on a charge of assaulting a person  in  a   family   relationship   until   he  was  convicted  of  the   offence   on   1 November 2024. On 7 August 2024, Police stopped Mr Karetu driving a vehicle and there were three passengers in vehicle, one of whom was Mr Hone. The Commissioner says this confirms Mr Karetu and Mr Hone are associates and that they were both living at the Grace Foundation at the same time.

[14]   An analysis of Inland Revenue records shows  that for the 2024 tax year     Mr Hone received income in the total of $2,484.90, and he did not declare any other

income. Mr Hone was also incarcerated from 5 December 2022 to April 2024 (with periods  of  up  to  only  two  months  released  from  prison  during  this  time).   The Commissioner says that Mr Hone’s low income is insufficient to cover usual living costs, and there was no obvious opportunity for Mr Hone to legitimately accrue the cash located at the Grace Foundation. There were also inconsistencies with how much cash Mr Hone said was at the address and where it was hidden.

Discussion and result

[15]   Having considered the application, the affidavits filed in support of the application and the memorandum of counsel for the Commissioner, I am satisfied that:

(a)there are reasonable grounds to believe the cash is tainted property, as the cash has wholly, or in part, been derived from significant criminal activity (namely the supply of methamphetamine and/or conspiring to injure with intent to injure, and participating in an organised criminal group);3 and

(b)there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent and sixth interested party have unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity (namely the supply of methamphetamine and/or conspiring to injure with intent to injure, and participating in an organised criminal group), as they have knowingly, directly or indirectly, derived a benefit (being the cash) from that activity.4

[16]   Accordingly, and as sought by the Commissioner, I order the property described above at [2] is not to be disposed of, or dealt with, other than as is provided for in the restraining order and is to be under the Official Assignee’s custody and control.

3      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 24 and see definition of “tainted property” in s 5.

4      Section 25 and see definition of “significant criminal activity” in s 6 and “unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity” in s 7.

[17]   The restraining order  is  granted  for  a  period  of  12  months,  expiring  on 7 April 2026.

McQueen J

Solicitors:
Elvidge & Partners, Napier for Applicant