New South Wales Crime Commission v Nguyen

1. [1]

   HER HONOUR: The New South Wales Crime Commission moves today on a Summons, the defendant to which is Thanh Tien Nguyen. The Summons seeks orders pursuant to the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990. The proceedings today are ex parte and it is only some of the prayers contained within the Summons that are moved upon. Those prayers are 1-5 inclusive, and prayer 8.

2. [2]

   In support of the application, the Commission relies upon an affidavit of Jonathan Lee Spark sworn on 20 May 2015. Mr Spark is the Director of Financial Investigations with the New South Wales Crime Commission. He has made a number of enquiries of matters relevant to proceedings against Mr Nguyen.

3. [3]

   His affidavit refers to and annexes documents connected with a criminal prosecution which has been commenced by the New South Wales Police Force against Mr Nguyen. The affidavit establishes that the defendant was charged on 20 March 2015 with an offence of cultivating a prohibited plant in not less than the commercial quantity for such plants.

4. [4]

   Mr Spark has made enquiries of the investigating police and has obtained details of the allegations that the police make against the defendant. In brief, the allegation is that the defendant was cultivating cannabis plants in a reasonably significant number, in a hydroponic setup which he had established and maintained. The defendant was arrested at the premises at which the hydroponic setup had been established and there appears to be a considerable amount of evidence to establish that he was, in fact, the cultivator of the plants that police officers found on the premises.

5. [5]

   There were some twelve rooms within the premises which had been converted to provide for the hydroponic cultivation and inside those twelve rooms, 1670 plants in a range of sizes were discovered together with a quantity of dried cannabis head, apparently, harvested from plants which had been grown on the premises.

6. [6]

   The action that the Crime Commission takes today is to seek to restrain the defendant or, indeed, any other person from dealing with the property set out in the schedule to the summons, which is property connected with the commission of the offence, on the basis of the evidence before the court.

7. [7]

   The matter is being dealt with ex parte at least insofar as these particular prayers are concerned because of the need to move quickly in circumstances where notice to the defendant may lead to the property being liquidated and the assets disposed of. The evidence before the Court is sufficient to establish those matters that the legislation requires the Court to have regard to and, accordingly, I am prepared to make the orders that the commission seeks in its summons.

Orders

1. [8]

   I make the orders sought as per the Short Minutes of Order.