Commissioner of Police v Knight

[2025] NZHC 1713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2025-441-000035

[2025] NZHC 1713

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

An application under ss 43, 44 & 49 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

ELIJAH CHADWICK KNIGHT

Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	C R Walker for Applicant
Judgment:	26 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Forfeiture order)

[1]                 The Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) has applied for a type 1 asset forfeiture order under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) in respect of $68,650 in cash seized from the respondent.

[2]There has been no appearance by the respondent or notice of opposition filed.

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v KNIGHT [2025] NZHC 1713 [26 June 2025]

Principles

[3]                 An application for a type 1 assets forfeiture order is determined under s 50(1) of the Act, which provides:

If, on an application for a type 1 assets forfeiture order, the High Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that specific property is tainted property, the Court must make a type 1 assets forfeiture order in respect of that specific property.

1. “Tainted property” is defined in s 5 of the Act as follows:

tainted property—

(a)means any property that has, wholly or in part, been—

(i)acquired as a result of significant criminal activity; or

(ii)directly or indirectly derived from significant criminal activity; and

(b)includes any property that has been acquired as a result of, or directly or indirectly derived from, more than 1 activity if at least 1 of those activities is a significant criminal activity.

[5]“Significant criminal activity” is defined in s 6(1) of the Act as follows:

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, significant criminal activity means an activity engaged in by a person that if proceeded against as a criminal offence would amount to offending—

(a)that consists of, or includes, 1 or more offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years or more; or

(b)from which property, proceeds, or benefits of a value of the threshold amount or more have, directly or indirectly, been acquired or derived.

[6]I must therefore be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that:

(a)the respondent was involved in significant criminal activity; and

(b)the $68,650 was tainted property being derived, directly or indirectly, from that significant criminal activity.

Decision

[7]                 The respondent’s involvement in significant criminal activity is proven by the respondent having been sentenced on 23 charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, with 19 of those charges having a maximum penalty of at least eight years’ imprisonment.

[8]                 The respondent was sentenced on the basis of his involvement in dealing in seven different drugs (being Class A, B and C controlled drugs) over a period of about nine months up to 16 August  2024,  when  he  was  stopped  by  the  police  on  State Highway 5, Napier. He was found to be in possession of numerous drugs and the $68,650 in cash that is the subject of the application.

[9]                 At the time he was stopped, the respondent stated that he was “moving [the cash] for some guys”. When interviewed at the police station, the respondent admitted that he had been acting as a courier for drugs and money over the previous six months and that the cash located by the police was being taken by him to Taupō to exchange for drugs. That admission in respect of the cash is supported by an analysis of the respondent’s bank accounts that did not identify any savings or transactions that could explain the respondent having that amount of cash.

[10]              Accordingly, I am satisfied that the respondent was involved in significant criminal activity and that the $68,650 was tainted property in that it was the proceeds of drug sales and was being delivered for the purchase of further drugs.

[11]I therefore order forfeiture of the $68,650 under s 50 of the Act.

La Hood J

Solicitors:

Elvidge & Partners, Napier for Applicant