New South Wales Crime Commission v George Barikhan [2015] NSWSC 673

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v George Barikhan [2015] NSWSC 673 Hearing dates: 28 May 2015 Date of orders: 28 May 2015 Decision date: 28 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Hamill J Decision: Restraining orders made on plaintiff's undertaking as to damages. Catchwords: Criminal Assets – restraining orders – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff - New South Wales Crime Commission Defendant - George Barikhan Representation: Solicitor: Ms Miranda for the New South Wales Crime Commission File Number(s): 2015/00158767

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The New South Wales Crime Commission, that is the plaintiff, seeks restraining orders under s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 ("CARA") against the defendant George Barikhan. It brings its application by summons filed in court this morning supported by a statement of facts and circumstances and an affidavit of Jonathan Lee Spark who is an employee of the plaintiff. 2. The facts and circumstances are under the hand of Ms Miranda, a solicitor with the plaintiff. The affidavit of Mr Spark complies with the provision of s 10A in that it states a belief on his part or a suspicion that the defendant engaged in serious crime related activity. That term is defined in CARA. 3. In particular he suspects that the defendant engaged in a relatively large number of offences of dishonestly obtaining benefit by deception, contrary to s 192E of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). 4. The affidavit attaches a number of relevant documents and critical in terms of the formulation of the belief asserted, is a statement of facts prepared by the New South Wales Police. That is a relatively lengthy document and I have perused it carefully. It outlines around 70 offences in the nature of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception and an offence of no particular relevance of perverting the course of justice. 5. That latter offence appears to have arisen when false documents were tendered in some traffic proceedings against the defendant, the false documents being a reference that had been forged. 6. The remaining offences detailed disclosed similar modus operandi, at least if the facts as set out are accepted. 7. In a nutshell the defendant was operating as a finance broker in relation to the borrowing of money on motor vehicles. It is alleged, and that allegation is supported by the product of various searches that have been undertaken, that he obtained the finance by means of the use of false documentation, including false tax returns and other financial documents, thus overstating the capacity of the borrower, to repay. 8. Based on the material in that facts sheet and the other material, I am satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for the suspicion deposed to by Mr Spark and accordingly I must make a restraining order: s 10A(5) CARA. 9. Accordingly I make orders in accordance with the short minutes of order provided by the plaintiff and those orders are to take effect forthwith.