The Commissioner, New Zealand Police v Singh aka Sangha

[2017] NZHC 2159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

CIV-2015-442-55 [2017] NZHC 2159

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act

2009

IN THE MATTER

of an application under sections 22, 25 and
58

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Applicant

AND

JASWINDER SINGH (AKA JASWINDER SANGHA) First Respondent

AND

KULJIT KAUR (AKA KULJHIT KAUR) Second Respondent

AND

SATNAM SINGH (AKA GORA SINGH, GOVA SINGH)

Third Respondent

AND

BALWINDER KAUR Fourth Respondent

AND

KULWANT SINGH (AKA KULWANT DHALIWAI)

Fifth Respondent

AND

NIRMAL WALIA Sixth Respondent

AND

SATWINDER KAUR Seventh Respondent

AND

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Interested Party

AND

ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Second Interested Party

On the papers:

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v SINGH (AKA SANGHA) [2017] NZHC 2159 [6 September 2017]

Counsel:

J M Webber for Applicant

R Keam for Fifth and Sixth Respondents

Judgment:

6 September 2017

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

Introduction

[1]      In  September  2015  the  Commissioner,  New  Zealand  Police,  obtained restraining orders in relation to property owned by the respondents.   The orders expire on 6 September 2017.

[2]      The parties seek, pursuant to s 95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act

2009, this Court’s approval of a settlement.

Background

[3]      The alleged criminal activity, which provided the basis for the application for restraining orders, was the subject of criminal proceedings in the High Court in November 2015.   The first and fifth respondents were convicted on  charges of supplying  false  information  to  a  refugee  status  officer.     The  first  and  third respondents were acquitted of more serious charges of arranging the entry of persons into New Zealand by deception.   The acquittals had ramifications for the Commissioner’s position because the significant criminal activity relied on has not been proved.

[4]      Following further investigation the Commissioner has determined not to seek forfeiture of the money paid to the first and third respondents by the workers for whom the New Zealand work visas were arranged.   That decision recognises the difficulties in seeking to prove the case in relation to the funds said to have been provided to the first and third respondents by the workers prior to their arrival in New Zealand.  The High Court Judge found that significant sums were paid by the

workers making the false refugee claims although he was unable to make a specific finding as to the amount the fifth respondent was paid.

[5]      In July 2017 the High Court approved a settlement which the Commissioner reached with the fifth and sixth respondents who are husband and wife.

[6]      The  Commissioner  does  not  intend  to  pursue  the  forfeiture  proceedings against the third, fourth, and seventh respondents (husband, wife and husband’s mother) and accordingly the restraint of their property has been allowed to lapse.

[7]      The first and second respondents seek an economic resolution and make no factual concessions in doing so.   They and the Commissioner have filed a joint memorandum seeking approval of the High Court to their settlement.

Request for approval

[8]      I  take  note  of  the  background  set  out  in  the  joint  memorandum.    It  is proposed that the proceedings against the first and second respondents be settled by way of agreed forfeiture to the Crown of the sum of $6,000 with no order as to costs.

[9]      I am satisfied that the settlement is a sensible and pragmatic resolution that is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the interests of justice.  Bearing in mind the uncertainty on the evidence about the value of the unlawful benefit to the first and fifth respondents from the said significant criminal activity and the inability of the  Judge  to  make  a  specific  finding  on  that  issue,  the  settlement  reflects  a reasonable assessment of the value of the unlawful benefit and an economic settlement that is acceptable to all parties.

[10]     The proposed settlement will result in savings in terms of resources and achieves finality and certainty.

[11]     Accordingly, the settlement is approved.

Karen Clark J

Solicitors:

O’Donoghue Weber, Nelson for Applicant