Commissioner of Police v Liu

[2025] NZHC 1595

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-2017 [2025] NZHC 1595

UNDER  the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN  COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND  SHUCHEN LIU

First respondent

XIUXIU HAO
Second respondent

JAEMAL HONEYCOMBE

Third respondent Continued overleaf

Hearing:                   On the papers

Counsel:                   EHK Rangamuwa and L Dalton for applicant

DPH Jones KC for first and second respondents C Jones for Official Assignee

Date of judgment:     16 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

Counsel/Solicitors:

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 June 2025 at 2.30pm.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

DPH Jones KC, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland Zhang Law, Auckland

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v LIU [2025] NZHC 1595 [16 June 2025]

YAN LI

Fourth respondent

TAINUI KARAKA
Fifth respondent

ANTON KAHOTEA
Sixth respondent

XINYU CHEN
Seventh respondent

LOUIS HALL
Eighth respondent

SOKEVIN MEAK
Ninth respondent

SHING WONG
Tenth respondent

[1]    As duty judge, I have a 13 June 2025 memorandum from counsel for the Commissioner, Mr Liu, Ms Hao and the Official Assignee, consensually seeking:

(a)variation of restraining orders—made in relation  to  Mr  Liu’s  and Ms Hao’s then-alleged drug and money laundering offending,1 to which they since have pleaded guilty and been sentenced2—to enable satisfaction of Mr Liu’s claims and costs in Mr Liu’s bankruptcy;

(b)permission for this proceeding to continue notwithstanding Mr Liu’s bankruptcy; and otherwise

(c)approval of the Commissioner, Mr Liu’s and Ms Hao’s settlement of this proceeding under s 95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act

1      Commissioner of Police v Liu [2020] NZHC 2826 and subsequently.

2      R v Hao [2024] NZDC 32301.

2009, in relation to the latter’s agreed joint and several unlawful benefit from their offending in the amount of $2.95 million.

[2]    Under ss 33–35 of the 2009 Act, on application, I may vary the restrained property to which a restraining order relates as I consider appropriate. Under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006, on application, I may allow proceeding predating a bankrupt’s adjudication to continue as I consider appropriate. And under s 95 of the 2009 Act, I must approve a settlement if satisfied the settlement is consistent with the purposes of the 2009 Act and the overall interests of justice.

[3]    I consider it appropriate the restraining orders should be varied to enable satisfaction of claims and costs in Mr Liu’s bankruptcy, precisely for that reason. On such satisfaction, and for that reason, I also consider it appropriate the proceeding continue.

[4]    Mr Liu and Ms Hao have agreed with the Commission on terms for their forfeiture to the Crown of cash and property approximating the agreed unlawful benefit value. Such otherwise is the consequence of this Court being satisfied on the balance of probabilities Mr Liu and Ms Hao have unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity and have interests in property,3 subject to any exclusion on grounds of undue hardship.4

[5]    I am satisfied in the above circumstances the parties’ settlement is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice, as likely reflecting what would at least have occurred absent their agreement.

[6]With reference to counsel’s joint memorandum dated 13 June 2025, I therefore:

(a)vary the restraining orders in terms of para 9.1(a)(i)–(ii);

(b)order in terms of para 9.2(a);

(c)approve the parties’ settlement recorded at section 6;

3      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 55(1).

4      Section 56.

(d)order in terms of para 9.3(a)–(c); and

(e)note further terms of agreed settlement set out at para 9.4(a)–(c).

—Jagose J