Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Zaouk [2015] NSWSC 690 Hearing dates: 21 May 2015 Date of orders: 21 May 2015 Decision date: 21 May 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Wilson J Decision: Orders made as per the Short Minutes of Order Catchwords: PROCEEDS OF CRIME – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Simon John Zaouk (Defendant) Representation: Solicitors: Ms R Katrib (Plaintiff) Ex parte File Number(s): 2015/00150309 Ex tempore Judgment 1. HER HONOUR: This is an application brought by Summons by the New South Wales Crime Commission seeking orders pursuant to s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 ("the Act") to restrain any person from dealing in an interest in property being listed as Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the Summons of 20 May 2015. 2. The owner of the property is Simon John Zaouk. Mr Zaouk is not before the Court today and the matter is proceeding ex parte. Section 10A provides for applications such as this to be heard and dealt with ex parte. The matter is taking that course because of the need to restrain these assets in circumstances where it is not possible for the defendant or any other person to liquidate them prior to the Court determining the Summons. 3. The application before the Court is supported by an affidavit from Jonathan Lee Spark sworn on 14 May 2015. Mr Spark is the Director of Financial Investigations at the New South Wales Crime Commission and he is an authorised officer within the meaning of subs 4(1) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act. 4. Mr Spark has made a number of enquiries, both of computer records and with officers of the New South Wales Police Force and as a result of his enquiries has come to suspect that Mr Zaouk is engaged in serious crime. The affidavit refers to and annexes a statement of facts prepared by Senior Constable Brett Spencer of the New South Wales Police Force. The information contained in the statement of facts provides evidence which goes to the reasonableness of Mr Spark's submissions. 5. On the basis of the evidentiary material before the Court it appears to me that those suspicions are reasonably held. The evidence sets out some details in relation to the investigation of drug related activity that the defendant is alleged to be engaged in. There has been electronic surveillance conducted of various telecommunication services together with other surveillance including physical surveillance which suggests that the defendant is a supplier of the prohibited drug cocaine and, indeed, is a supplier to a wide circle of customers of that drug. 6. The defendant has been charged with an offence of supplying a prohibited drug on an ongoing basis contrary to s 25A of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. Indeed, there are two such charges and each of those offences is a serious criminal offence as provided by s 6(2)(d) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act. 7. Having considered the evidentiary material provided by the Commission, I am satisfied that the suspicions held by Mr Spark are reasonably held and it is, therefore, necessary for the court to make the orders that the Commission seeks. Section 10A(5) of the Act, in fact, requires the court to make a restraining order if the court concludes that the suspicion held by the authorised officer is a reasonably held suspicion. 8. I am satisfied that the defendant is ordinarily resident of New South Wales and that the property which is sought to be restrained is located within the jurisdiction. Accordingly, I propose to make the orders that are sought. They are the orders contained at prayers 1-5 and 7 of the summons. They have been reduced to a written statement of the orders. 9. In accordance with the information in the summons and the prayers sought in the summons, I sign the Short Minutes of Order. 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: 02 June 2015