[2024] NSWSC 921
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v HWCJ GLB Pty Ltd (No 4)
See [2]-[3]
Catchwords
CRIME – proceeds of crime – where proceedings brought by the Australian Federal Police under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) – monies held in various accounts with Australian banks – where those monies are proceeds of crime – restraining orders made – where applicants sought recompense – exclusion orders – where this Court has previously considered the alternative methodologies for the division of funds – where most appropriate methodology was applied to each account CRIME – proceeds of crime – where subsequent to hearing but prior to judgment further applicants came forward claiming an interest in the restrained funds – where previous orders had been stayed for 28 days – where orders sought by new applicants will affect previous orders made – further hearing dispensed with by agreement of the parties – new applications determined on the papers – interest determined by application of same method of distribution determined to be appropriate for each particular account in previous judgment – stay of orders discharged – orders made in favour of new applicants – orders previously made varied to adjust the interests of original applicants
Cases cited
- Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v HWCJ GLB Pty Ltd (No 2)[2024] NSWSC 482
- Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v HWCJ GLB Pty Ltd (No 3)[2024] NSWSC 897
Legislation cited
- Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)
Judgment
- [1]
These reasons should be read with my reasons for judgment in Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v HWCJ GLB Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 482 and Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v HWCJ GLB Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 897. Subsequent to handing down judgment in those matters, the only matters remaining unresolved are the applications relating to the Commonwealth Bank GSL Bud accounts. Those motions were set down before me for hearing on 8 August 2024. The Commissioner and the applicants with an interest in those accounts, that is, both the original applicants and the new applicants have now agreed to orders which will have the effect of distributing the monies in those accounts amongst the original applicants and the new applicants using the same distribution methodology as I determined to be appropriate in Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v HWCJ GLB Pty Ltd (No 2). I am of the view those orders should be made. The hearing in relation to the new applications can therefore be vacated.