Commissioner of Police v Nguyen

[2025] NZHC 782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-0411

[2025] NZHC 782

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act 2009

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

TUAN VAN NGUYEN

First respondent

HIEN VAN NGUYEN

Second respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

S M Earl and J T Lowyim for applicant

D B Stevens and R Jones for first respondent
SNB Wimsett KC and HZL Krebs for second respondent

Date of judgment:

4 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 April 2025 at 2.30pm.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:

SNB Wimsett KC, Auckland

D B Stevens, Barrister, Auckland Meredith Connell, Auckland

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v VAN NGUYEN [2025] NZHC 782 [4 April 2025]

[1]    As duty judge, I have counsel’s 2 April 2025 joint memorandum, seeking approval of the Commissioner’s settlement with the respondents—father and son, Hien and Tuan Van Nguyen—under s 95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. Under that section, I must approve the settlement if satisfied the settlement is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice.

[2]    Together with his brother, Tu Van Nguyen, Tuan Van Nguyen was convicted of cultivating cannabis.1 The Commissioner alleges Hien Van Nguyen was complicit in that offending. The Commissioner obtained restraining orders over Hien and Tuan Van Nguyen’s jointly-owned property in Auckland’s Manurewa and cash found in vehicles at Tuan Van Nguyen’s address in Auckland’s Clover Park.2

[3]    The parties agree Hien and Tuan Van Nguyen unlawfully have benefited from the offending in an amount of $441,600. They also are agreed that sum may be forfeited to the Crown. Such otherwise is the consequence of this Court being satisfied on the balance of probabilities the respondents have unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity and have interests in property,3 subject to any exclusion on grounds of undue hardship.4 The settlement establishes a process by which property may be realised for such payment.

[4]    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.

[5]I therefore:

(a)approve the parties’ settlement recorded at section 3 of counsel’s joint memorandum dated 2 April 2025;

(b)order in terms of the joint memorandum’s subparas 6.2(a) and (b); and

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9(1); R v Van Nguyen [2022] NZDC 5994.

2      Commissioner of Police v Van Nguyen, HC Auckland CIV-2023-404-0411, (Minute No 2 of Becroft J) 14 June 2023 and (Minute of Johnstone J) 31 May 2024.

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

4      Section 56.

(c)reserve leave to the parties in terms of the joint memorandum’s subpara 7.1(c).

—Jagose J