Application of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; In the matter of Lami [2017] NSWSC 1345

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Application of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; In the matter of Lami [2017] NSWSC 1345 Hearing dates: 15 September 2017 Date of orders: 15 September 2017 Decision date: 04 October 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Walton J Decision: Upon the basis that the plaintiff provided, on behalf of the Commonwealth, the usual undertaking as to costs and damages, the Court confirms the orders and direction made on 15 September 2017. Catchwords: CRIME – Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) – proceeds of crime – application for restraining order – custody and control orders – ancillary orders – orders made Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions v Chan (2004) 150 A Crim R 163; [2004] ACTSC 101 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff) Representation: Solicitors: Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2017/243516

REASONS FOR Judgment 1. By a summons filed 10 August 2017, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police ("the Commissioner") made an application under s 25 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) ("the Act") for a restraining order pursuant to s 19 of that Act. The Commissioner relied upon two affidavits of Adrian Linus Edwards sworn 10 and 24 August 2017. 2. The Commissioner sought the orders with respect to the following property: 1. All funds standing to the credit of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited ("CBA") account [number omitted] held in the name of Smart Care Solutions Pty Ltd ("Smart Care Solutions"), together with any interest earned thereon. 2. All funds standing to the credit of the CBA account [number omitted] held in the name of Smart Care Solutions, together with any interest earned thereon. 1. The purpose of the orders sought was to preserve the property pending the making of a forfeiture order under s 49 of the Act. 2. On 15 September 2017, the Court made orders which appear at the close of this judgment and gave short reasons. It was indicated that full reasons would be given in due course. These are those reasons.