Commissioner of Police v Richards
[2025] NZHC 2767
•22 September 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE
CIV-2023-443-58
[2025] NZHC 2767
UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 IN THE MATTER OF
an application under ss 43, 44, 49 and 50 of the said Act
BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Applicant
AND
ANTHONY GORDON RICHARDS
First Respondent
REECE TAURAKAHA RONGONUI
Second RespondentTONY JOHN LOOKER
Third Respondent
GRAEME RICHARDS
First Interested PartyTERRY JOHN MONAHAN
Second Interested PartyJOLENE MAY ERICKSON
Third Interested Party
On the papers: Counsel:
J E Bourke for Applicant
Judgment:
22 September 2025
JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v RICHARDS [2025] NZHC 2767 [22 September 2025]
Introduction
[1] This proceeding came before Radich J in this Court in the Criminal Proceeds List on 15 September 2025.
[2] In a minute dated 16 September 2025 Radich J issued, following the call of this matter, he noted that there were three issues before him for consideration. He outlined as follows:
[4] The first is the Commissioner’s application for restraint of the 2021 Indian Scout motorcycle, the property of the second respondent, to be extended through to 30 January 2026 to align with all other restrained property. … I directed that the proceeding is to be called again in the 13 October 2025 list to enable proof of service or, otherwise, for the position of the second respondent to be known.
[5] The second matter is the type 1 asset forfeiture application relating to property of the third respondent. That property is described as follows:
A quantity of cash totalling $113,000 found during the search of Nissan Skyline motor vehicle, registration JDL382 – being a vehicle driven by the third respondent, Tony Looker.
[6] As Mr Bourke (counsel for the Commissioner) has said, counsel for the third respondent filed a memorandum in March 2025 in which he said that he made no claim to the restrained funds and abides the Court’s decision. Accordingly, the applicant asks that the forfeiture application, the affidavit and the memorandum in support be considered on the papers.
…
[8] The third matter relates to applications being drafted by the Commissioner for the early sale of the Indian Scout motorcycle, already mentioned, and of a 2005 Harley Davidson; restrained property of the first respondent.
[3]The second matter, being the asset forfeiture application relating to the
$113,000 cash, property owned or controlled by the third respondent, has come before me as Duty Judge. This judgment relates to that matter. My judgment is made on the papers and follows.
Application for asset forfeiture
[4] The Commissioner’s application for a Type 1 Asset Forfeiture Order dated 5 September 2025 seeks orders that the $113,000 quantity of cash noted above (plus
accrued interest), found during the search of the Nissan Skyline motor vehicle driven by the third respondent (Mr Looker):
(a)vests in the Crown absolutely; and
(b)is to be in the Official Assignee’s custody and control.
[5]This order is sought on the grounds that the cash is tainted property because:
(a)the third respondent, Tony Looker, has unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity. Namely the supply of methamphetamine;
(b)the cash, as property identified in this application, is “tainted property” in terms of s 5 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 in that it has been wholly or in part acquired or derived from significant criminal activity; and
(c)the respondent has an interest in the identified property.
[6]There is no opposition to the present application.
[7] Instead, the third respondent, Mr Looker (who is presently a sentenced prisoner), through his counsel, has filed a memorandum responding to this application. Relevantly, this memorandum confirms:
…
[2] In brief, Mr Looker was arrested in October 2023 while acting as a “courier” assisting with methamphetamine dealing. At the time he was arrested, he was found in possession of cash totalling $113,000. It is this cash that gives rise to his involvement in these proceedings as a respondent.
[3] Counsel has recently acted for Mr Looker in the Court of Appeal for his successful sentence appeal.
[4] Counsel does not have a legal aid assignment for this civil proceeding and is not intending to file a notice of appearance, however Mr Looker has provided counsel with instructions to alert the Court to his position and counsel does so as a courtesy.
Mr Looker’s position
[5] It was an accepted fact at sentencing that Mr Looker was not the owner of the $113,000 he was found in possession of. Rather, it was accepted by all parties that Mr Looker was acting as a courier and was in the process of returning the cash to the supplier of the methamphetamine.
[6] This remains Mr Looker’s position. It follows that he makes no claim to any of the restrained funds and simply abides the Court’s decision moving forward. …
[8] As the affidavit dated 3 September 2025 filed in this Court in support of this application by Christine Anne Walker (Ms Walker), a Specialist Investigator Police employee, notes at [1.6]:
[1.6] The property (the $113,000 cash fund) is currently restrained and held under the Official Assignee’s custody and control, pursuant to an on-notice restraining order determined by the Honourable Justice Gwyn on 12 February 2024 in the Wellington High Court.
[9] Mr Looker has been convicted of an offence (relating to a Class A controlled drug) being selling, giving, supplying, administering, dealing in methamphetamine and amphetamine. He is now serving a sentence of imprisonment of four years and three months for this.
[10] Mr Looker makes no claim to ownership of the $113,000 cash at issue here. And, as notes from the affidavit of Ms Walker make clear, from 2017 to 2023 Mr Looker’s principal declared income was derived mainly from benefit payments from the Ministry of Social Development and Accident Compensation Corporation payments.
[11] So far as Mr Looker’s involvement in this matter is concerned, Muir J (at Mr Looker’s sentence appeal hearing on 4 February 2025), summarised the level of this involvement as follows:
[27] In this case, Mr Looker acted as a courier transporting methamphetamine from Tauranga to the Taranaki area. In addition, he was responsible for returning payment from the customer to the supplier, who is higher up the chain in command. At the time of his arrest, he held $113,000 in cash. This evidenced the level of trust held within the organisation and the support he gave it.
[12] Ms Walker, in her affidavit, confirms her belief that the $113,000 cash seized from Mr Looker’s Nissan Skyline motor vehicle represented the proceeds from selling methamphetamine (as indeed Mr Looker appears to accept) and is therefore tainted.
[13]From all the material before the Court, I accept this is the position.
[14] I accept here too that the Commissioner has met the requirements of s 49 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act).
[15] Mr Looker, the third respondent, is the person here who is alleged to have engaged in the criminal activity from which the $113,000 cash (being the property that is to be forfeited), was acquired or derived. That property, I accept on the balance of probabilities, is “tainted property” in terms of s 5 of the Act, as I have noted. I accept that Mr Looker (as the acknowledged courier and driver of the Nissan Skyline motor vehicle) was, at the relevant time, in charge of, and had an interest in, the cash as identified property.
Result
[16] For all these reasons, the Commissioner’s application for a Type 1 Asset Forfeiture Order succeeds.
[17] An order is now made in terms of s 50 of the Act that the quantity of cash totalling $113,000 (plus accrued interest) found during the search of the Nissan Skyline motor vehicle, registration JDL382:
(a)vests in the Crown absolutely; and
(b)is to be in the Official Assignee’s custody and control.
Gendall J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth for Applicant
0
0
0