Commissioner of Police v Toki

[2025] NZHC 1824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2025-412-58

[2025] NZHC 1824

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

an application under ss 22, 24 and 25

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

ROSS NICOLAOU

First Respondent

JORDANA BROOKE TOKI

Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the Papers
Appearances:	R P Bates for Applicant
Judgment:	4 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1]    The Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) has made a without notice application for a restraining order under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) in respect of a property situated at 10 Bonnington Street, Normanby, Dunedin (the Bonnington Street property), and two motor vehicles. The first and second respondents, Ross Nicolaou and Jordana Toki, are the registered owners on the title of the Bonnington Street property, and Ms Toki is registered as the owner of the two vehicles. The Commissioner contends that Mr Nicolaou and Ms Toki have benefitted from significant criminal activity.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v NICOLAOU [2025] NZHC 1824 [4 July 2025]

[2]    The restraining order is sought in anticipation of civil forfeiture applications being filed once the Commissioner concludes his investigation into the financial affairs of the respondents.

[3]    In February 2025, police executed search warrants on a Volkswagen vehicle driven by Mr Nicolaou and the Bonnington Street property. In Mr Nicolaou’s motor vehicle, police located 12 pounds of cannabis and $95,040 in cash. Police also located

$18,887.50 in cash at the respondents’ shared home in Bonnington Street. A subsequent analysis of Mr Nicolaou’s cellular phones found that he was selling, and offering to sell, cannabis in large quantities. He regularly offered to sell, and had sold, pounds of cannabis which, depending on its quality, ranged from $2,000 to $3,800 in price.

[4]    A review of Mr Nicolaou’s cellular phone communications identified that he had arranged the purchase of 50 to 100 pounds of cannabis from an unidentified person, who indicated he could sell Mr Nicolaou 100 pounds of cannabis at $1,300 per pound. Mr Nicolaou was recorded as stating he could “take over the local market completely at that price”.

[5]    Mr Nicolaou has pleaded guilty to charges of possessing cannabis for sale;  20 charges of selling, or offering to sell cannabis; conspiring to deal in cannabis; and three charges of engaging in a money laundering transaction. He is for sentence on those charges in the Dunedin District Court on 18 September 2025.

[6]    Police inquiries have established that Mr Nicolaou and Ms Toki purchased the Bonnington Street property in February 2023. They have completed extensive renovations since purchasing the property, which the Commissioner contends were well beyond their legitimate financial means. During the execution of the search warrant, police located receipts for cash purchases totalling $10,230.37, some of which appear to relate to the renovation of the Bonnington Street address. It is also the Commissioner’s case that money from the proceeds of the sale of cannabis has contributed not only to the renovations but also to the purchase of vehicles for      Mr Nicolaou and Ms Toki, therefore tainting those assets.

[7]    A preliminary analysis of Mr Nicolaou and Ms Toki’s financial affairs has identified $119,725 in cash deposits to their bank accounts with no known or identifiable legitimate source, $143,230.37 of cash holdings and transactions outside the banking system, and $20,268 of electronic transfers from third parties that the Commissioner contends are the proceeds of the sale of cannabis.

[8]The grounds on which the restraining order is sought are:

(a)the property sought to be restrained is tainted property; and

(b)the first and second respondents have unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity, namely:

(i)selling the class C controlled drug cannabis, an offence against s 6(1)(e) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding eight years;

(ii)engaging in a money laundering transaction, an offence against s 243 of the Crimes Act 1961, punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years; and

(iii)conspiring to deal in cannabis, an offence against s 6(2)A of the Misuse of Drugs Act, punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

[9]    Having read the affidavit of Detective Kelsey Morgan, an officer attached to the Southern Asset Recovery Unit, Financial Crime Group of the New Zealand Police, and counsel for the Commissioner’s submissions in support of the without notice application for a restraining order, I am satisfied there are reasonable grounds that  Mr Nicolaou and Ms Toki have unlawfully benefitted from dealing in cannabis and money laundering. Further, that the proceeds of that significant criminal activity have been applied to the property at 10 Bonnington Street and used for the purchase of an Audi motor vehicle (NCD599) and a Ford Ranger vehicle (QNL886).

[10]   I am also satisfied of the need to seek a restraining order without notice in respect of the Bonnington Street property and the two vehicles, in the first instance, in order to prevent this property being altered, disposed of, or concealed, including by the drawing of further borrowing against the house or property. It is noted by counsel for the Commissioner that, in the experience of the Asset Recovery Unit, where people involved in significant criminal activity have been arrested, their income sources are affected and alternative means of meeting financial commitments can be sought. This can include borrowing against or selling property.

[11]   The Volkswagen vehicle, driven by Mr Nicolaou at the time of his arrest, and the cash seized upon execution of the search warrants have been retained and are in police custody. They are not at risk of immediate disposal. That property will be included in an on notice application for restraint that will follow the without notice application.

[12]   For the purposes of making a restraining order, which is only a temporary order, it is only necessary for the Court to be satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe either that the property is tainted, or the respondent has benefitted from significant criminal activity.1 Having regard to the offences with which Mr Nicolaou has been convicted and the circumstances of that offending, together with the findings of the financial investigation of the two respondents, I am satisfied the statutory requirements for the making of a restraining order have been established.

[13]Accordingly, there will be an order in the terms sought, namely:

(a)the property specified in (b):

(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 referred to in (a) is as follows:

1      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, ss 24 and 25.

(i)10 Bonnington Street, Normanby, Dunedin, Otago Region with a legal description of Lot 4 DP 8390. Registered owners Ross Duncan Nicolaou and Jordana Brooke Toki excluding any interest secured under registered mortgage 12670233.2 in favour of Westpac New Zealand Ltd.

(ii)2010 Audi S5, registration NCD599. Registered owner Jordana Brooke Toki.

(iii)2017 Ford Ranger, registration QNL886. Registered owner Jordana Brooke Toki.

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor