Commissioner of Police v Rangi

[2025] NZHC 495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-701

[2025] NZHC 495

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

an application pursuant to ss 43, 44 and 49

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

CANNEN JACKSON RANGI

First Respondent

GEORGE JOHN OWEN
Second Respondent

DANIEL LEVI GRIEVE

Third Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	K South and O Welsh for Applicant
Judgment:	13 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1]    The Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) has applied, pursuant to the Criminal (Proceeds) Recovery Act 2009 (the Act), for an assets forfeiture order against Cannen Rangi, George Owen and Daniel Grieve, respectively the first, second and third respondents. The order is sought in relation to the following property on the basis it is tainted property:

(a)$6,312 cash (plus any accrued interest) that was seized by police from Mr Rangi’s bedroom at his address of 615 Harewood Road, Christchurch;

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v RANGI [2025] NZHC 495 [13 March 2025]

(b)$10,260 cash (plus any accrued interest) seized on 13 May 2024 from Mr Owen’s bedroom at the same address;

(c)$2,260 cash (plus any accrued interest) also seized on 13 May 2024 from Mr Grieve’s bedroom at the same address; and

(d)$17,500 (plus any accrued interest) located in a combination safe from Mr Grieve’s bedroom at the Harewood Road address.

[2]    The seized cash is currently restrained and held in the possession of the Official Assignee, pursuant to an on notice restraining order of 13 February 2025.1

[3]    For the Commissioner to succeed on his application for an asset forfeiture order, he must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the property is “tainted”. If so satisfied, the Court is required to make an order subject to any discretionary relief it considers should be extended to any person.2

[4]“Tainted property” is defined in the Act. It means:3

(a)… 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

1. “Significant criminal activity” is defined as follows:4

(1)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

1      Commissioner of Police v Rangi [2025] NZHC 151.

2      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, ss 66 and 67.

3      Section 5.

4      Section 6.

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

(2)A person is undertaking an activity of the kind described in subsection (1) whether or not—

(a)the person has been charged with or convicted of an offence in connection with the activity; or

(b)the person has been acquitted of an offence in connection with the activity; or

(c)the person’s conviction for an offence in connection with the activity has been quashed or set aside.

…

[6]    As noted, the property the subject of the Commissioner’s application was located by police during the execution of a search warrant, pursuant to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, at the residence of the three respondents who lived at the Harewood Road property. The warrant was issued on the basis of evidence that the first respondent, Mr Rangi, had been engaged in dealing MDMA and ketamine to another individual who was being investigated by the police.

[7]    Possession of MDMA for the purposes of supply, supplying or offering to supply MDMA, and conspiring to supply that drug constitutes significant criminal activity, being offences that carry maximum penalties of 14 and 10 years’ imprisonment, respectively. Similarly, possession of ketamine for the purposes of supply or supplying and offering to supply that drug also constitutes significant criminal activity, with these offences carrying a maximum penalty of eight years’ imprisonment.

[8]    In support of the Commissioner’s application, an affidavit was filed by a Christchurch Detective, Dannelle Asher, who is attached to the Police’s Southern Asset Recovery Unit of the Financial Crime Group. She deposed to the circumstances in which the cash was located, which were probative of the respondents’ involvement in dealing MDMA and ketamine, and, in particular, the following facts:

(a)the $6,312 cash attributed to the first respondent, Mr Rangi, was located in his bedroom, along with drug paraphernalia, digital scales, empty

and used drug sale bags, 118.08g of MDMA, 30.61g of ketamine, and two cell phones.

(b)The $10,260 cash attributed to the second respondent, Mr Owen, was located in his bedroom along with drug paraphernalia, digital scales, a laptop, cell phone, and 3.74g of MDMA.

(c)The $2,260 cash attributed to the third respondent, Mr Grieve, was located in his bedroom, along with digital scales, zip lock bags containing 4.83g of MDMA, 1.21g of ketamine, a laptop, a cell phone, and a locked safe.

(d)The $17,500 cash was located in a locked safe in Mr Grieve’s bedroom.

[9]    Following the search and the respondents’ subsequent arrest, all three were charged and subsequently convicted of offences related to dealing in MDMA and ketamine, in breach of s 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[10]   None of the respondents have taken any steps in the proceeding. After the application was set down for a formal proof hearing, each of the them provided signed statements to the police documenting their formal consent to the sums of cash seized from their respective bedrooms at Harewood Road being forfeited to the Crown.

[11]   Based upon the evidence filed in support of the Commissioner’s application, I am satisfied that the property set out [1] is tainted, having been acquired as a result of significant criminal activity and must thereby be forfeited. No applications for relief have been made in respect of the property. None of the respondents have taken any steps to oppose the application, indeed, each of them have formally documented their consent to the making of an assets forfeiture order.

[12]An order in the terms sought will therefore issue.

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Christchurch