Commissioner of Police v Taylor
[2025] NZHC 1922
•14 July 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE
CIV-2025-412-000061
[2025] NZHC 1922
BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Applicant
AND
ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR
Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Appearances:
R D Smith for Applicant
Judgment:
14 July 2025
JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J
This judgment was delivered by me on 14 July 2025 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v TAYLOR [2025] NZHC 1922 [14 July 2025]
Introduction
[1] The Commissioner of Police (Commissioner) applies without notice for a restraining order over property in Westport owned by the respondent Mr Taylor.1
[2] The application is advanced on grounds that Mr Taylor has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity; that he has an interest in the proposed restrained property; and that there is a risk the property may be destroyed, disposed of, altered or concealed if the application was made on notice.2
[3] The application is supported by an affidavit of Detective Joanne McLaughlan, an officer attached to the Southern Asset Recovery Unit (ARU), Financial Crime Group, New Zealand Police.3
Background
[4] The detective deposes the respondent is aged 68 years and currently remanded in custody. Prior to the remand he lived at a Ravensbourne address in Dunedin. The respondent has 157 convictions in the New Zealand jurisdiction, including 14 drug related convictions, and eight convictions in the Australian jurisdiction.
Significant criminal activity
[5] Detective McLaughlan deposes that during 2019 and 2020 Eastern District Police conducted an investigation into the supply of controlled drugs within the Hawkes Bay region, codenamed Operation Casino. As a result of Operation Casino Mr Taylor was charged with drug dealing offending and pleaded guilty to charges including a charge of supply the class B controlled drug GBL in large quantities.
1 An on notice application is foreshadowed, additionally, to restrain cash totalling $20,555 seized from the respondent’s then reisdential address by police pursuant to warrant on 4 March 2024.
2 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, ss 22, 25. If an order is made on an ex parte application it has the force of an order made on notice, except for its duration. It cannot be extended, and ceases to be in force after seven days unless an application on notice is made within that period in respect of the property. In such a case the order continues in force until the application on notice is disposed of: s 39, Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.
3 Affirmed 3 July 2025.
[6] While he was on bail in relation to that offending, the Organised Crime Unit of the Dunedin police identified Mr Taylor as continuing to deal in controlled substances and commenced Operation Rubus, an investigation focusing on this illicit drug dealing. On 4 March 2024, police executed search warrants in relation to Mr Taylor’s home and vehicle as part of Operation Rubus. They located items including cell phones, firearms and ammunition, $20,555 cash, cannabis and drug dealing paraphernalia. Subsequent analysis of the respondent’s cell phones also revealed evidence of drug dealing activity.
[7] Mr Taylor has pleaded guilty to charges involving the sale and supply of methamphetamine, GBL and cannabis arising out of Operation Rubus. He is scheduled to be sentenced on that offending on 22 July 2025.
Preliminary financial investigation
[8] The ARU conducted a preliminary financial investigation. This identified that Mr Taylor was operating 10 bank accounts with seven different financial institutions, using varying names.
[9] In relation to one of those accounts, in the name Tranzalpine Holidays Limited (Tranzalpine), Mr Taylor is a signatory, and is also recorded with an international money transfer and currency service, Wise Payments Limited, as company director and sole shareholder of Tranzalpine. However, a search of the companies register indicates at the time the Wise account was opened on 27 January 2022 Mr Taylor was not a director of Tranzalpine. He was appointed a director and ceased to be a director on the same day, 16 September 2020, within days of the company being incorporated. The currently listed director is a named person, whom Detective McLaughlan believes to be the respondent’s sister.
[10] Police have identified that between 16 August 2020 and 7 July 2024 Mr Taylor transferred $153,571.96 into the Wise account. The purpose of those transfers is unknown at this time. As at 7 July 2024 the Wise account had a balance of $56,823.46, and modest balances of Australian dollars and British pounds. The account was closed on 9 August 2024. Mr Taylor was a signatory in respect of the accounts operated by Tranzalpine, including the Wise account, however the
circumstances around the company's incorporation and the establishment and use of the Wise account will need to be further investigated.
[11] Police contend that Mr Taylor's financial behaviour, including that he is operating multiple bank accounts with several different institutions, some under an apparent alias, has characteristics consistent with money laundering.
[12] As a result of the preliminary financial analysis the Commissioner contends that Mr Taylor has benefited from the sale of controlled drugs for a number of years. Mr Smith submits the police conservatively contend that the respondent has unlawfully benefitted to a sum of at least $218,990 over the period of analysis. Police have identified a total of $191,480 in cash deposits that appear to have no legitimate source made into bank accounts operated by Mr Taylor over the period 27 February 2019 to 5 August 2024. Electronic transfers totalling $12,430 into Mr Taylor’s bank accounts have been identified from third parties known to police to have a history of illegal drug use. A further $15,080 in electronic transfers identified by police align with the typical sale values of controlled drugs.
[13] Detective McLaughlan deposes that police have identified that Mr Taylor's declared income is modest, averaging $15,222.24 a year between 2019 and 2024. The Commissioner contends that the large amounts of cash deposits and third- party transfers do not appear to have a legitimate source but are consistent with Mr Taylor benefitting from significant criminal activity.
The proposed restrained property
[14] The proposed restrained property is 39 Fonblanque Street, Westport, West Coast Region. The respondent is the registered owner. The property appears to have been purchased by Mr Taylor on 11 June 1983. The online property database "Terranet" shows that the property is unencumbered.
[15] The rateable value of the property is $215,000. Enquiries with the Buller District Council have determined that for the last two years prior to 10 August 2024, all rates payments were made by way of cash paid over the public counter—a total of $6,552 in nine separate payments made over two years. At the
time some of those payments were made Mr Taylor was in custody, in the Otago Corrections Facility.
[16] Counsel for the Commissioner submits the question whether the property has been tainted by the application of proceeds from significant criminal activity is to be investigated further.
[17] A restraining order is sought so that the residential property at 39 Fonblanque Street, Westport can be realised should a profit forfeiture order be made.
Discussion
[18] Under s 25 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, the Court, if satisfied it has reasonable grounds to believe a respondent has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity, may make an order that specified property is not be disposed of, or dealt with other than is provided for in the restraining order and is to be under the Official Assignee’s custody and control.
[19] I am satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe that the real property identified by the Commissioner is the respondent’s property and that he has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity, namely the sale of controlled drugs, over the preceding seven-year period.
[20] Further, the evidence satisfies me that there is a risk the identified property at 39 Fonblanque Street, Westport, could be disposed of or dealt with absent a restraining order. As the property is currently unencumbered, accordingly it could be sold, transferred, or be the subject of mortgage draw down if the matter proceeds on notice. I accept, as is the evidence for the Commissioner, there is a risk the property may be disposed of or its value diminished accordingly if the application is required to be made on notice.
[21]It is appropriate, accordingly, to make a restraining order without notice.4
Order
[22]I make an order accordingly:
(a)The property to which this order applies:
(i)is not to be disposed of, or dealt with, other than as is provided for in the restraining order; and
(ii)is to be in the Official Assignee's custody and control.
(b)The property to which this order applies is as follows:
(i)39 Fonblanque Street, Westport, West Coast Region with a legal description of LOT 29 DP 4335 LOT 162 DP 4411. Registered owner Arthur William Taylor. Rateable value listed as
$215,000.
………………………………………
Preston J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Dunedin
4 Restraining orders are a “holding measure” to preserve property liable to be forfeited to the Crown as derived from significant criminal activity: Yan v Commissioner of Police [2015] NZCA, [2016] 2 NZLR 593 at [7]. As noted at n 1, above, a without notice order ceases to be in force after seven days unless an application on notice is made within that period in respect of the property. In such a case the order continues in force until the application on notice is disposed of. Under s 23(1) of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, persons who are entitled to appear to adduce evidence at the hearing of an application for a restraining order are the applicant, any person who holds an interest in the proposed restrained property (including, if applicable, the respondent) and the Official Assignee. Section 23(1) is subject to s 22.
0
0
1