Commissioner of Police v Tamihana
[2022] NZHC 955
•6 May 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE
CIV-2017-441-101 [2022] NZHC 955
BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Applicant
AND
SHANE TAMIHANA
First Respondent
NERRISHA MARIE MARGARET GRANT
Second Respondent
PETER ALLEN PATRICK GAMLEN
Third Respondent
KARA RANGIMARIE SHANNON CULLEN-SILLICK
Fourth Respondent
Continued…
Hearing: 5 October 2020
Additional submissions and memoranda filed
Counsel:
M Mitchell for the Applicant
No appearance for the First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents
P N Ross for the First Interested Party
No appearance for the Second, Third and Fourth Interested Parties
Judgment:
6 May 2022
JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Napier
Gifford Devine Lawyers, Hastings Cathedral Lane Law, Napier
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v TAMIHANA [2022] NZHC 955 [6 May 2022]
… Continued
AND MICHAEL HOWARD ALLISON
First Interested Party
CREDIT UNION BAYWIDE
Second Interested Party
JASON SIDNEY WILLIAM SAMUELS
Third Interested Party
QUALITY AUTOS NZ LIMITED
Fourth Interested Party
Background
[1] On 26 October 2018 the applicant (the Commissioner of Police) filed an Application for an Asset Forfeiture Order pursuant to ss 43, 44, 49 and 52 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) seeking orders that a range of property was to vest in the Crown and was to be in the custody and control of the Official Assignee.
[2] The Application went on to describe the property over which the Asset Forfeiture Order was sought as follows:
(a)all interests in the property at 3 Whitby Place, Flaxmere, Hastings registered in the name of Michael Howard Allison described in Certificate of Title HBD2/711, legal description Lot 64 DP 12304, other than the interests of Credit Union Baywide under the Registered Mortgage 10672912.3 (Whitby Place) but under the effective control of Shane Tamihana (the first respondent);
(b)a 2006 Toyota Hilux 3.0TD 4WD including ignition keys, registration DKF725, and registered in the name of John Doe (the Hilux) but under the effective control of Shane Tamihana (the first respondent);
(c)the contents of a CU Baywide Bank Account 03 1753 0636956 00, in the name of Shane Tamihana (the first respondent) with an approximate balance of $33,856 (the CU Baywide Account ending 56 00);
(d)cash totalling $41,536.40 seized from 901B Dufferin Street, Akina,
Hastings on 13 September 2017; and
(e)$15,000 cash retrieved from Stephen Hill Motors, Hastings, paid by Shane Tamihana (the first respondent).
[3] The Application for an Asset Forfeiture Order went on to outline the grounds on which the proposed forfeited property was said to be tainted property in the following way:
(a)because it is property wholly or in part acquired or derived from the sale of methamphetamine by the respondent (Shane Tamihana); and
(b)on further grounds set out in the affidavits of Alex Holden MacDonald dated 13 October 2017 and 25 June 2018 and Brent Andrew Murray dated 18 October 2017, and further affidavits yet to be filed.
[4] That 26 October 2018 Application as I understand it accompanied a previous application for forfeiture dated 6 December 2017 relating to these parties of which the only property remaining to be dealt with by this Court was stated as: “5 Louis Vuitton bags with protective coverings seized from 901B Dufferin Street, Akina, Hastings on 13 September 2017.”
[5] In his 26 October 2018 Application, the applicant went on in the alternative to seek a profit forfeiture order set out in detail there. As will become apparent, the applicant’s Asset Forfeiture Order here is to be granted and therefore at this point I say nothing further about the alternative profit forfeiture order sought as outlined in the Application.
Legislative framework
[6] The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) provides a regime for the confiscation and forfeiture of certain property where a causal nexus between the acquisition of that property and significant criminal activity can be established. Although dependent on evidence of criminal activity, proceedings of this type are civil in nature and the evidence required need not be such as would sustain criminal charges.1
[7] The regime is intended to capture both property that is directly derived from criminal activity (such as, for example, cash, vehicles or assets exchanged for methamphetamine) and property that may not be itself associated with that criminal activity, but which represents the value of some other benefit that a respondent has unlawfully received. An example of this second category might be property paid for
1 The standard of proof with respect to the criteria for forfeiture orders is that of the balance of probabilities which is well below the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
with legitimate income where the respondent has received an equivalent benefit elsewhere, for example from the sale of methamphetamine.
[8] So far as Asset Forfeiture Orders are concerned, an application for these is determined under s 50(1) of the Act which provides:
50 Making assets forfeiture order
(1) If, on an application for an assets forfeiture order, the High Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that specific property is tainted property, the Court must make an assets forfeiture order in respect of that specific property.
…
“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
[10]“Significant criminal activity” is in turn defined by s 6 of the Act as follows:
6 Meaning of significant criminal activity
(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
(b)from which property, proceeds, or benefits of a value of
$30,000 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.
…
[11] Considering all these definitions together, the test as I see it may be summarised as being whether this Court is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the identified property in question was derived in some way from activity that, if charged as a criminal offence, would be punishable by a term of at least five years’ imprisonment.
[12] In the present case, the applicant seeks forfeiture of the subject property noted at [2] and [4] above on the basis that it is more likely than not to have been directly or indirectly derived from the supply of methamphetamine (an offence punishable by life imprisonment) for which the first respondent, Mr Tamihana, following a guilty plea, has been convicted and sentenced.
[13] Indeed, on 1 June 2018, Mr Tamihana was sentenced in the District Court to 13 years’ imprisonment having pleaded guilty to charges of supplying methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of supply. A minimum non-parole period of six years and six months was also imposed.
[14] At Mr Tamihana’s sentencing, the District Court Judge described him and his offending in the following way:2
You are at least the most comprehensive methamphetamine dealer that Hawke’s Bay has ever seen and [the offending] puts you right up there on a national scale over the last 10 years as well. You have established an extensive distributing network. There have been significant quantities distributed and significant profits.
[15] Accordingly, there can be no question here that Mr Tamihana (also known as Shane Thompson), had engaged in “significant criminal activity” for the purposes of the Act.
2 R v Thompson [2018] NZDC 11394 at [8].
[16] Further, as I understand the position, Mr Tamihana had declared no income for tax or other purposes since March 2013, prior to which time his declared income was limited to modest sums which did not exceed a little over $49,000. Since that time, the applicant says Mr Tamihana acquired significant property (including the property that is the subject of the present application) and engaged in substantial gambling activity with no identifiable source of funds for either beyond his methamphetamine dealing. As a result, it is the applicant’s contention that the subject property is “tainted property” in that it was purchased or acquired using or representing the profits of methamphetamine dealings.
Procedural background
[17] This proceeding has a lengthy and somewhat convoluted history. The present Application, filed on 26 October 2017, was the subject of a hearing before the Honourable Justice Clark in the Napier High Court on 5 October 2020. Ms Mitchell appeared as counsel for the applicant. There was no appearance for the first, second, third or fourth respondents, nor for any of the interested parties other than Mr Ross, who appeared as counsel for the first interested party, Michael Howard Allison (Mr Allison). Mr Allison had filed a Notice of Opposition to the Asset Forfeiture Application but relating only to the residential property outlined at [2(a)] above known as “Whitby Place”.
[18] At the conclusion of that High Court hearing on 5 October 2020, additional submissions were to be filed and the applicant was granted leave to file further affidavits addressing evidential matters that had been raised at that hearing by the first interested party, Mr Allison, for the first time in his oral evidence. A further affidavit in support of the present Application from Detective Sergeant Alex MacDonald dated 29 October 2020 was accordingly filed. In addition, further submissions subsequent to that 5 October 2020 hearing were provided.
[19] In the meantime, Her Honour Justice Clark retired as a Judge of the High Court. Various other communications, it seems, took place then between the Court, counsel for the applicant and counsel for Mr Allison. This led at one point to His Honour
Justice Simon France issuing a minute on 24 September 2021 noting: “This matter has stalled due to a lack of response by counsel for the first interested party [Mr Allison]”.
[20] Regrettably, it seems finality has still not been reached in this matter. Accordingly, in the last week or two, it was suggested to the interested parties remaining, the applicant, and Mr Allison, that this matter might be the subject of a further hearing before a new Judge to rehear the evidence involved.
[21] In response, both Ms Mitchell, counsel for the applicant and Mr Ross, counsel for Mr Allison, confirmed on 2 May 2022 and 3 May 2022, respectively, that a further hearing was not required here. Instead, they said what was sought was a decision on the papers from this Court based upon all the material filed, including the recorded notes of evidence of the 5 October 2020 hearing.
[22] This matter was then referred to me. I have had an opportunity to consider all the material which is before the Court and now give that decision.
The Application for an Asset Forfeiture Order
[23] Effectively no opposition has been filed to this Application by or on behalf of Mr Tamihana, or any of the other respondents or indeed by any of the interested parties other than by Mr Allison, and relating only to the Whitby Place property. (Although as I understand it Mr Tamihana initially may have expressed some opposition to the present application, he has done nothing further and now indicates he will simply abide the decision of this Court). Effectively, Mr Tamihana therefore is not pursuing that opposition.
[24] And, so far as the property referred to at [2] (b), (c), (d), and (e) above, being the Toyota Hilux, the contents of the Baywide bank account and cash are concerned, along with the five Louis Vuitton bags, outlined at [4] above, the application for Asset Forfeiture Orders relating to these is effectively undefended and unopposed. As to this property, I am satisfied the requirements of the Act are met and the orders sought are properly made by this Court. Those orders are to follow.
[25] The sole outstanding issue for this Court therefore relates to the residential Whitby Place property. As to Whitby Place, the present application as I note is opposed by Mr Allison as the registered legal owner. He claims too that at all times he was the true and beneficial owner of Whitby Place, and that his opposition to the present application was pursued both at the 5 October 2020 hearing and in submissions subsequently advanced for Mr Allison here by his counsel, Mr Ross.
[26] Effectively, therefore, this disputed issue relating to who may be the genuine beneficial owner of the Whitby Place property is the question requiring resolution here.
[27] In Mr Allison’s formal Notice of Opposition to the Asset Forfeiture Order Application (relating as it does to the Whitby Place property), he sets out the following grounds in opposition to the making of the order sought:
(a)The first respondent [Mr Tamihana] is not and never has been either the legal or beneficial owner of the [Whitby Place] property;
(b)The first respondent does not and never has had any control, effective or otherwise, over the property;
(c)The second respondent [Nerrisha Grant] did, from time to time, prior to the first interested party [Mr Allison] having any knowledge of her criminal offending, act as his agent in the administration of the property but otherwise has not had any control over the property.
(d)No part of the funds used to obtain the property was known by the first interested party to be derived from the respondents.
(e)If it transpired that any funds passed from the first or second respondents to the first interested party they were gambling winnings won legitimately through participation in games of chance, conducted at a time prior to the first interested party having any knowledge [of] any [of] the first and second respondents’ serious criminal offending.
(f)The first interested party acquired the funds applied towards the purchase of the property legitimately.
Evidence relating to Whitby Place
[28] At the outset, Mr Allison accepts in his evidence there is no dispute first, that he had a lengthy involvement with Mr Tamihana and the second respondent, Nerrisha Grant (Mr Tamihana’s wife/partner), and secondly, that he and Mr Tamihana were friends for some time and had common interests, particularly relating to gambling.
Mr Allison accepted, too – without question – that Mr Tamihana was a large scale distributor of methamphetamine and a major and accomplished casino gambler. To his credit, Mr Ross on behalf of Mr Allison also confirmed that insofar as Whitby Place is concerned, if the Court accepts it is proven that Mr Tamihana had a genuine beneficial interest in this property, then the forfeiture order sought here by the applicant would be irresistible, given Mr Tamihana’s serious criminal offending.
[29] Throughout, Mr Allison does maintain in his evidence, however, that Mr Tamihana had no interest whatsoever, whether legal or beneficial, in the Whitby Place property. He says the property belongs entirely to him, Mr Allison, confirmed by his being recorded as legal owner on the title, he having provided the $40,000 deposit funds for its purchase, and he having arranged the $140,000 mortgage.
[30] I now turn to what I consider are important aspects here regarding this issue of genuine beneficial ownership of Whitby Place.
Source of the $40,000 deposit
[31] In his 22 June 2020 affidavit, Mr Allison initially deposed that the $40,000 deposit funds for the Whitby Place purchase “were derived from gambling” and lodged in cash in early December 2016 in his NZCU Baywide account. Settlement of the purchase it seems did not occur until over one month later on or about 16 January 2017.
[32] As to his later evidence before the Court (including his oral evidence on 5 October 2020), I am satisfied Mr Allison’s further explanations regarding the mechanics of the purchase of the property and his relationship to it “evolved” somewhat. The applicant maintains that in fact this evidence changed significantly over recent times. I address that claim further below.
[33] Earlier, on 28 September 2017, Mr Allison had voluntarily attended and gave a statement at the Napier Police Station regarding a search of his home address that had occurred a week prior. In the statement he gave on that day, Mr Allison provided the following explanation regarding the purchase of Whitby Place:
I own 3 Whitby Place; I purchased it after winning a bit of money from SkyCity. I also had a bit of money at home as well. I bought Whitby Place for $180,000, I had a cash deposit of $40,000, I had wins over a few visits to the Auckland SkyCity casino which totalled to $35,000 and I had $5,000 saved up at home.
…
I had wins probably over a six year period from Auckland SkyCity. I cashed in the chips that I won on the table. My biggest win would probably be around
$7,000 from the Omaha game. You can keep the chips and just cash them in whenever you like, you don’t have to cash it in each time you are there.
I have a SkyCity swipe card I use it every time I’m there.
[34] Subsequently, Mr Allison attended a formal examination with Detective Sergeant Alex MacDonald which took place on 19 December 2018. During that examination, Mr Allison produced the records of his SkyCity membership card and stated that for the two years that he had held that card he used it “pretty much all the time” but that there “mighta been the odd time” when he attended the casino but did not have the card on him.
[35]At that same examination, when asked again to define the source of the
$40,000 deposit paid to purchase Whitby Place, Mr Allison stated that $20,000 had come from an occasion when he had had a “lucky hit” at the baccarat table “when I was there on the 26th [of November 2016]” while the other $20,000 took the form of cash and chips that he had saved over five or six years of gambling at the casino.
[36] Later, on 22 June 2020 (after Mr Allison had for some 10 months been in receipt of affidavits from others establishing that SkyCity held no record of him winning $20,000 at baccarat or any other game on 26 November 2016 or indeed on any other date) Mr Allison swore the affidavit noted at [31] above that implied the
$20,000 in chips that were cashed on 26 November 2016 had been amassed through prior and unspecified activity at the casino rather than at any one game. The affidavit made no mention of baccarat.
[37] Next, from the notes of evidence of the 5 October 2020 oral hearing, it seems clear that Mr Allison resiled entirely from his earlier explanation that he had won
$20,000 at baccarat. As to this, he claimed to have misunderstood Sergeant MacDonald’s earlier question, notwithstanding that he had it seems at the
examination repeated this explanation a number of times. His claim at this point it appears changed again. He said that the $20,000 in chips that had been cashed at the casino on 26 November 2016 had been accumulated over time but was simply “topped up” to $20,000 by a win at baccarat. Notably, SkyCity had no record of Mr Allison making any win of substance at baccarat on that date.
[38] When pressed as to the source of the other $20,000 of the $40,000 deposit paid for Whitby Place, in his oral evidence on 5 October 2020, Mr Allison presented what seemed to be an entirely fresh explanation for these funds. In this explanation, Mr Allison now claimed to have cashed casino chips over multiple private “high roller” poker games with Chinese players (not held at the casino) to obtain these cash funds. No details of times or dates or specific locations of these games were provided. Nor, the applicant says, could Mr Allison provide any coherent explanation as to how his apparent success in these games could be reconciled with his overall pattern of losses within the casino nor as to why he would choose to cash chips at such games as opposed to at the casino directly. It does appear also that he was unable to offer any explanation as to why he had not given this account of his possession of the cash to Police or to this Court in his earlier affidavits.
[39] What does seem clear to me here is that Mr Allison has had some difficulty in adequately and consistently explaining the source of funds used for the Whitby Place purchase deposit. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Mr Allison’s evolving explanations for the source of the $40,000 in cash used to pay the purchase deposit have changed as intervening periods of evidence from the applicant discrediting his earlier explanations have arrived. Further, it is clear Mr Allison accepts in his evidence that he is a problem gambler. The SkyCity records show, too, him making an overall loss at his times at the casino relevant to present matters of around $4,000. All these matters must, as I see it, raise some question as to the credibility of his evidence relating to the source of the deposit for Whitby Place.
Activities and management of the property since purchase
[40] Since its purchase, Mr Allison confirms in his evidence he has not lived in Whitby Place at all. He says it has been rented. No rental details, rental or taxation returns or the like, however, have been provided to the Police or to the Court.
[41] When first spoken to by Police on 28 September 2017, Mr Allison wholly rejected any association by Mr Tamihana with the property. As recorded in a Police Job Sheet from the affidavit of Emmett Lynch dated 18 July 2019 filed herein, Mr Allison had stated on 28 September 2017:
I’m the only owner there’s no one else involved. Shane has no involvement in the property at all.
…
I talked to Shane in general about the purchase of this place but Shane has no involvement whatsoever in the property at 3 Whitby Place.
[42] Subsequently, at his later examination on 19 December 2018, Mr Allison claimed however that Mr Tamihana’s partner, the second respondent Ms Grant, was acting as a property manager for him in relation to Whitby Place. This, he said, was as payment for a debt of $5,000 that Mr Tamihana owed him arising out of a poker game that had occurred on 26 November 2016. However, no further explanation as to the debt was given.
[43] Notably, this explanation was advanced more than a year after Mr Allison had received the applicant’s affidavit of Sergeant Alex MacDonald dated 5 October 2017, an affidavit which had provided evidence that established a strong link between Mr Tamihana, Ms Grant and Whitby Place.
[44]In a later affidavit sworn 22 June 2020, Mr Allison stated:
Shane has had nothing whatever to do with the property. I did employ his partner as a “caretaker” as they lived in Akina, Hastings whereas I lived in Puketapu and they were far closer than I was…
I did not actually pay cash to Shane’s partner as she owed me some money from gambling and this was a means of settling that debt which worked to our mutual advantage.
[45] This later explanation, however, does seem to be inconsistent with Mr Allison’s earlier explanation of a poker debt owing to him from Mr Tamihana. Significantly, in oral evidence at the 5 October 2020 hearing, Mr Allison reverted to his earlier explanation that the alleged debt had stemmed from Mr Tamihana and not from Ms Grant. Further, no explanation was given as to why Mr Tamihana, who, according to Mr Allison, had significant cash at all times, had not simply paid off the $5,000 debt.
Documentation
[46] Despite invitation on a number of occasions from the applicant and the Court, Mr Allison has put no relevant documentation before the Court in any way to back up claims he makes relating to Whitby Place. As a bare minimum, no confirmation of payment by him of rates, insurance, repair costs or receipt of rental is provided. Instead, as I understand it, direct evidence is before the Court that on relevant occasions rates (amounting to almost $1,600), other payments and some repair costs (including a plumbing repair invoice) have been paid (it seems generally in cash) by Mr Tamihana and Ms Grant. Further, it is clear from evidence that Mr Tamihana has himself on a number of occasions confirmed to others that the property is his.3 Mr Allison endeavours to explain this away, however, by saying that Mr Tamihana is simply boasting and that he is wrong on this.
[47] Further indications regarding ownership of Whitby Place from evidence before the Court include the fact that Mr Allison’s father, with whom he lives, unequivocally stated to the Police that his son does not own any property at all and he has never heard of the Whitby Place property. Again, Mr Allison endeavoured to explain this away on the basis of a claim his father does not know everything about him. Even accepting that, it might still be regarded as somewhat surprising in my view that major family issues here, such as ownership of a home, are matters not to be shared with a parent with whom one lives on a daily basis.
3 Undisputed evidence is also before the Court that Mr Tamihana has referred to “his tenants” at Whitby Place (being teachers and parents of friends) and paying “rates for our house” at Whitby Place. Further evidence has been provided confirming that Hastings District Council material showing property and valuation details for Whitby Place, obtained just before its purchase negotiations in December 2017, were located at Mr Tamihana’s residence.
General veracity and credibility of Mr Allison
[48] For the first time, it was at the 5 October 2020 hearing that issues arose and were the subject of cross-examination over certain intercepted mobile telephone calls. Mr Allison disputed that he was the individual identified by Police in a number of these calls made to Mr Tamihana, calls that might suggest some knowledge of Mr Tamihana’s drug dealing activities and further supply by the caller of Mr Tamihana with cannabis for on sale. However, the direct relevance of this to matters before the Court here is somewhat sketchy. Nevertheless, Mr Allison does deny that he was the person on these calls. He claimed instead that his cell phone in question, which was a work phone, was used by a number of his employees. In explanation for why he had not previously raised this issue, Mr Allison claimed not to have read the evidence before the Court relating to these phone calls.
[49] The applicant says here significant doubts must arise relating to this sworn evidence of Mr Allison. The cell phone it seems is clearly Mr Allison’s, noting the recorded answerphone message on it which states “Michael Allison here. Leave a message… sweet”.
[50] According to the applicant, the cell phone evidence goes directly to issues over Mr Allison’s credibility. As such, these phone aspects, linked also to his many changing claims over ownership issues relating to Whitby Place, the applicant says must be seen as significant. Weighing up all matters before me, I am satisfied Mr Allison’s evidence in relation to the acquisition and management of the Whitby Place property has been somewhat inconsistent. It has changed and evolved over time in what I accept are attempts to answer developing evidence provided by the applicant. I am satisfied from all the evidence before the Court, including the notes of evidence of the 5 October 2020 hearing, that it is difficult to conclude other than that Mr Allison with his regularly changing position cannot be seen as a credible witness on the crucial matters the Court is required to decide here.
[51] Evidence is before the Court, too, that Mr Tamihana particularly, and also through his partner, Ms Grant, played a significant role in paying for and managing the upkeep of the Whitby Place property. As I have noted, he had in his possession
significant paperwork relevant to the property. Mr Tamihana represented on a number of occasions that he – Mr Tamihana – owned the Whitby Place property, and he had tenanted it. Ms Grant was clearly the property manager for Whitby Place for a time from the outset, as tenants confirmed. Even Mr Allison himself accepted this. Overall, I am satisfied it is Mr Tamihana who is the likely source of the funds made available for payment of the deposit for the purchase of the property. The applicant here in my view has done sufficient to show, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Tamihana is the true beneficial owner of Whitby Place and that Mr Allison, despite being shown as the legal owner on the title to the property, does not have a beneficial interest in it. I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the Whitby Place property was purchased in Mr Allison’s name on behalf of Mr Tamihana and, as such, Whitby Place is tainted property in terms of the Act.
Result
[52] For all the reasons I have outlined above, the application for Asset Forfeiture Orders over all the property outlined at [2] and [4] above succeeds.
[53]Orders are now made as follows:
(a)The following property being:
(i)all interests in the property at 3 Whitby Place, Flaxmere, Hastings registered in the name of Michael Howard Allison, described in certificate of title HBD2/711, legal description Lot 64 DP 12304, other than the interests of Credit Union Baywide under the registered mortgage 10672912.3 but under the effective control of Shane Tamihana (the first respondent);
(ii)a 2006 Toyota Hilux 3.0TD 4WD including ignition keys, registration DKF725, and registered in the name of John Doe (the Hilux) but under the effective control of Shane Tamihana (the first respondent);
(iii)the contents of a CU Baywide bank account number 03 1753 0636956 00, in the name of Shane Tamihana (the first respondent), with an approximate balance of $33,856 (the CU Baywide account ending 56 00);
(iv)cash totalling $41,536.40, seized from 901B Dufferin Street, Akina, Hastings on 13 September 2017;
(v)$15,000 cash retrieved from Stephen Hill Motors Hastings paid by Shane Tamihana (the first respondent); and
(vi)five Louis Vuitton bags with protective coverings seized from 901B Dufferin Street, Akina, Hastings on 13 September 2017;
vests in the Crown absolutely; and is to be in the Official Assignee’s custody and control.
(b)Costs, if at issue here, are reserved.
Gendall J
0
0
0