Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Haseljic [2020] NSWSC 1523 Hearing dates: 10 June 2020 Date of orders: 10 June 2020 Decision date: 10 June 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Walton J Decision: In all the circumstances, I make the orders proposed as filed in court today. Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) – restraining order – ex parte – orders made Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Almir Haseljic (Defendant) Representation: Solicitors: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2020/172135 extempore Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The summons before the Court seeks that the Court partially deals with an application under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) ("the Act") and that the proceedings come before the Court instanter. 2. The application is an application pursuant to s 10A of that Act whereby the NSW Crime Commission applies for a restraining order in respect of all interests in property of Almir Haseljic. 3. Having regard to the contents of the affidavit of Ms Katie Elaine Bourne sworn 4 June 2020, I consider that this is an appropriate matter to be heard and determined ex parte. 4. The affidavit of Ms Bourne establishes that she is an authorised officer for the purposes of the Act and that she holds suspicions that Mr Haseljic has engaged in serious crime related activities, namely: 1. manufacture or produce prohibited drug (cocaine) not less than large commercial quantity contrary to s 24(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) ("the DMT Act"); 2. supply a prohibited drug (cocaine) not less than the large commercial quantity contrary to s 25(2) of the DMT Act; and 3. deal with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime contrary to s 193C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), being an offence punishable by imprisonment for 5 years, involving money laundering. 1. The offences under the DMT Act, fall within the definition of "serious criminal offence" pursuant to s 6(2)(b) of the Act and the offence under the Crimes Act falls within the definition of "serious criminal offence" pursuant to s 6(2)(d) of the Act. 2. Ms Bourne gives grounds for her suspicions. The facts and circumstances upon which she relies are set out in her affidavit. She has had regard in that respect and accepts a police facts statement that describes the suspected serious criminal activity with respect to which Ms Bourne suspects that Mr Haseljic has been engaged. 3. In my view, having regard to the contents of the affidavit of Ms Bourne and the police facts sheet, there are reasonable grounds for Ms Bourne's suspicion that Mr Haseljic has engaged in serious crime-related activity. 4. I note further that the Commission by its summons is also seeking in respect to Mr Haseljic an assets forfeiture order pursuant to s 22 of the Act and a proceeds assessment order and an unexplained wealth order pursuant to ss 27 and 28A, respectively. The facts and circumstances underpinning those orders are set out in paras 6 and 7 of the facts statement. 5. By s 10B(2) of the Act, the Court may, when making a restraining order, if it considers that the circumstances so require, order the NSW Trustee and Guardian to take control of some or all of the interests in property that are interests to which the restraining order applies. Ms Bourne deposed that the circumstances so require and supported this belief with regard to the evidence deposed in her affidavit, which set out the circumstances in which the aforementioned seized cash was seized by members of the police. She also noted, the seized cash is presently being held by the police. 6. On the evidence before the Court, the Commission has established that a restraining order should be made under ss 10A and 10B, and ancillary orders be made under s 12 of the Act. I note that the Commission also seeks assets forfeiture, proceeds assessment and unexplained wealth orders under Pt 3 of the Act but this is not presently pressed today. 7. In all the circumstances, I make the orders proposed as filed in court today. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 30 October 2020