Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Junxian Ke [2018] NSWSC 1779 Hearing dates: 21 September 2018 Date of orders: 21 September 2018 Decision date: 21 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: Pursuant to s 52F of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) the interstate restraining order dated 19 February 2018 and registered in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 8 March 2018 in respect of the interests in property of Junxian Le in New South Wales is cancelled. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) - cancellation of interstate restraining order – prosecution of underlying offence withdrawn – cancellation effected Legislation Cited: Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), s 52F Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs) Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Junxian Ke (Defendant) Representation: Solicitors: S Santhikumar (Plaintiff) Ex Parte (Defendant) File Number(s): 2018/00076390 EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: Before the Court is a Motion for the discontinuance or withdrawal of an interstate restraining order and its cancellation. There is an affidavit of Jonathan Lee Spark, who is an authorised officer on behalf of the New South Wales Crime Commission under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW). The affidavit annexes correspondence and in particular a notice of discontinuance in relation to the original charges which gave rise to the orders made by the South Australian Supreme Court, which were registered in this State pursuant to the Act. That notice of withdrawal is signed by an officer of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on behalf of Adam Kimber SC, the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of South Australia. 2. In those circumstances, the Court makes the orders sought in the Motion filed today in Court and signed and dated by me. ********** 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: 20 November 2018