Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Application by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police dated 10 March 2016 re matter 2015/208401 [2016] NSWSC 280 Hearing dates: 10 March 2016 Date of orders: 10 March 2016 Decision date: 10 March 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Davies J Decision: 1. Pursuant to Section 49 of the Act, the property listed in Schedule One to this Order is forfeited to the Commonwealth. 2. Pursuant to Section 49 of the Act, the property listed in Schedule Two to this Order is forfeited to the Commonwealth. SCHEDULE ONE The total cash amount of AUD 299,800 seized by members of the Australian Federal Police on 17 February 2011 from premises located at 1/273 Dunmore Street, Pendle Hill NSW and deposited into the AFP Trust Account with the Reserve Bank of Australia, together with any interest earned on that amount. SCHEDULE TWO The total cash sum of AUD 29,445 seized by members of the Australian Federal Police on 17 February 2011 from premises located at 2/31 Chandos Street, Ashfield NSW and deposited into the AFP Trust Account with the Reserve Bank of the Australia, together with any interest earned on that amount. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – proceeds of crime – forfeiture orders Legislation Cited: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff) Pratheepan Sinnarasa (Interested party) Ravi Srinivasan (Interested party) Jose Pablo Herrero-Calvo (Interested party) Representation: Counsel: J Millington (Plaintiff) A Kumar (Pratheepan Sinnarasa - Interested party) No appearance (Ravi Srinivasan - Interested party) No appearance (Jose Pablo Herrero-Calvo - Interested party) Solicitors: Criminal Assets Litigation, Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff) Mr Kumar - direct access (Pratheepan Sinnarasa) Unrepresented (Ravi Srinivasan) Unrepresented (Jose Pablo Herrero-Calvo) File Number(s): 2015/208401 Judgment 1. This is an application for forfeiture orders under s 49 of the Proceeds of Crime Act at 2002 (Cth). Under that section the Court must make orders if the requirements of s 49(1) are satisfied. 2. In the present case there are three requirements. The first is that it is a responsible authority that makes application under the section, and I find that the AFP Commissioner is a responsible authority. The second requirement is that the restraining order has been in force for at least six months. Restraining orders were made by Justice Beech-Jones on 2 September 2015 and that requirement is satisfied. 3. The third requirement in the present case is that the Court be satisfied that the authority has taken reasonable steps to identify and notify persons with an interest in the property. I am satisfied from the affidavit of Jody Earl, affirmed 14 September 2015, and the affidavit of Scott Murphy, sworn 8 March 2016, that the three interested persons, Pratheepan Sinnarasa and Ravi Srinivasan and Jose Pablo Herrero-Calvo have all been notified of the orders having been made. 4. Mr Kumar of counsel appeared this morning for Pratheepan Sinnarasa and sought an adjournment for five or six weeks to enable him to get instructions from Mr Sinnarasa in relation to the matter. 5. At or about the time that the property was seized in 2011, a letter was written from a firm of solicitors called Success Lawyers and Barristers saying that they represented Mr Sinnarasa and they put forward an explanation for the presence of the large amount of money in their clients' possession. They enclosed what were said to be business records and which were said to show that he operated a cash remittance business. That was the explanation for his possession of the money. 6. Since 28 February 2011 nothing has been heard from that firm of lawyers nor from Mr Sinnarasa until the present application for the adjournment was made this morning. Mr Sinnarasa has had a number of opportunities to make an application in relation to the seized funds but he has not done so. His counsel this morning was not able to give me any indication upon what basis it would be suggested that the money was legitimately in his possession when it was seized. 7. For these reasons I refuse the adjournment. 8. Since no application has been made for property to be excluded from the restraining orders that have been made, it is not necessary for the Court to be satisfied of the matters set out in s 49(1)(c) of the Act which relates the seized property to the commission of offences. 9. The relevant requirements of s 49 have been satisfied and the orders sought by the Commissioner should be made. 10. I note the usual undertaking is given by the applicant's solicitor. I make orders in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the orders signed by me and dated 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: 17 March 2016