New South Wales Crime Commission v Mohamed Kabbout

1. [1]

   The plaintiff moves on a Notice of Motion filed on 3 October 2025 seeking orders pursuant to s 12(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) (“the CAR Act”) that Matthew Thomas and Matthew Meaton be examined on oath before a Registrar of the Court concerning the affairs of the defendant, including the nature and location of any property in which the defendant has an interest.

2. [2]

   In support of the application, the plaintiff reads the affidavits of Warwick Oliver affirmed on 2 October 2025 and 14 November 2025 and relies on exhibit WO-2.

3. [3]

   The defendant opposes the application. The defendant reads the affidavit of Matthew Thomas affirmed on 6 November 2025, the affidavit of Matthew Meaton affirmed on 6 November 2025, and the affidavit of Julie Nguyen affirmed on 7 November 2025.

4. [4]

   The application came before me as the Duty Judge on 4 December 2025. Mr Oliver was required for cross-examination. At the conclusion of the evidence, submissions were made by the parties. The matter was stood in the list to give the parties an opportunity to discuss the possibility of consent orders in relation to a timetable to progress the substantive proceedings.

Procedural history

1. [5]

   These proceedings were commenced by summons filed on 21 December 2021. At the time that the proceedings were commenced the defendant had not yet been charged with the related criminal matters. The defendant was arrested on 30 December 2021.

2. [6]

   A restraining order was made in relation to the defendant’s interest in property specified in Schedules One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six of the summons. On 21 December 2021, the Court also made orders that the defendant be examined on oath before a Registrar of the Court concerning his affairs including the nature and location of any property in which he has an interest. In addition, compulsory examination orders were made in respect of Ashurina Pulis (“Pulis”) and Wissam Hamzeh (“Hamzeh”).

3. [7]

   On 25 November 2024, Mr Oliver communicated with Detective Sergeant Jesse Porter (“DS Porter”) requesting a copy of the police facts sheet relating to the defendant. On 26 November 2024, Mr Oliver received two police fact sheets in relation to the defendant and further information from DS Porter.

4. [8]

   On 21 July 2025, Mr Oliver received confirmation from DS Porter that the defendant had been convicted in relation to offences of deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime ($250,000), contrary to s 193C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“Crimes Act”) and deal with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime ($90,000), contrary to s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act.

5. [9]

   On 2 October 2025, a copy of the Statement of Agreed Facts tendered in the sentence proceedings was received. The Agreed Facts state that the defendant owned a number of companies, including Skyworkers Group Pty Ltd (“Skyworkers Group”).

6. [10]

   Hamzeh was examined pursuant to the examination orders on 19 to 20 October 2023 and 10 November 2023. Pullis was examined pursuant to the examination orders on 17 October 2023 and 20 November 2023.

7. [11]

   In addition to this brief summary of the procedural history, it is appropriate to reproduce the chronology table contained in the affidavit of Warwick Oliver, affirmed on 14 November 2025, given the relevance of delay in these proceedings:

Grounds for Mr Oliver’s belief

1. [12]

   Mr Oliver is an “authorised officer", as defined in s 4(1) of the CAR Act, for the purposes of s 10A and Pt 4 of the CAR Act.

2. [13]

   Mr Oliver deposes that he believes that Mr Thomas and Mr Meaton have knowledge of the affairs of the defendant, including the nature, location, background, and origin of property in which the defendant has an interest. Mr Oliver also believes that Mr Thomas and Mr Meaton will be able to provide information and/or evidence about cash payments to staff which were the subject of the criminal charges against the defendant and may have knowledge of the defendant’s involvement in the offences for which he has been sentenced.

3. [14]

   Mr Oliver’s belief is held on the basis of evidence relating to meetings and discussions between the defendant, Mr Thomas, and Mr Meaton regarding payment of employees’ wages using cash. This evidence seems to relate to conversations and meetings in 2021.

4. [15]

   Furthermore, Mr Oliver relies upon the transcript of the examination hearing conducted on 19 October 2023 in relation to Hamzeh, during which Hamzeh identified that Mr Meaton was the operations and/or general manager within Skyworkers Group and made decisions in relation to the payment of employee wages. Mr Thomas was the bookkeeper of Skyworkers Group and monitored the hours worked on job sites and determined how much employees were paid each week.

5. [16]

   Mr Oliver relies on the transcript of the examination of Hamzeh in relation to the following additional matters:

The parties’ positions

1. [17]

   The defendant does not oppose the application on the grounds that Messrs Thomas and Meaton could not give relevant evidence about the defendant’s affairs, including the nature and location of any property in which he has an interest. Instead, the defendant resists the examination of Messrs Thomas and Meaton on the basis of delay.

2. [18]

   The defendant accepts that the plaintiff was entitled to commence proceedings before completing its investigations and on the basis that its case would be framed after a reasonable period had passed. However, the defendant submits that this does not mean that the Commission may investigate endlessly for years or fail to investigate diligently.

3. [19]

   Absent some justification for a contrary conclusion, the defendant contends that four years is unreasonable and undue delay. Granting the plaintiff’s application will cause further delay. The defendant submits that he is entitled to finality.

4. [20]

   The plaintiff relies upon the explanation provided in the affidavits of Mr Oliver to explain the delay in applying to examine Messrs Thomas and Meaton. Essentially, the plaintiff refrained from applying to carry out these examinations given an expectation that they may have been unnecessary in the event that the proceedings against the defendant settled. The plaintiff relies upon the chronology, submitting that the proceedings have been adjourned on five occasions to allow for settlement discussions to take place between the parties. The parties have engaged in eight settlement conferences. Furthermore, the proceedings have been adjourned on six occasions to permit the defendant to deal with his criminal proceedings.

5. [21]

   Furthermore, the plaintiff points out that the defendant is yet to be examined, an order for his examination having been made by Justice Cavanagh on 21 December 2021. It is also the intention of the Commission to further examine Mr Hamzeh. In those circumstances, there will be a further delay, in any case, before the plaintiff can file its evidence.

Legal principles

1. [22]

   While the making of orders under s 12 of the CAR Act is discretionary, the discretion must be exercised having regard to the objects of the Act: New South Wales Crime Commission v Hung Sun Choi (2012) 222 A Crim R 62; [2012] NSWSC 658 at [55].

2. [23]

   Section 12(1) of the CAR Act is “designed to achieve in part the last of the identified principal objects of the CAR Act – to enable law enforcement authorities effectively to identify and recover property under the Act. That object, of its nature, is ancillary to the other identified principal objects of the CAR Act”: Lee v NSW Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196; [2013] HCA 39 at [282].

3. [24]

   The Court’s power to make such orders is not displaced but rather is guided by the “overriding purpose” of “facilitating the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings”: s 56(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (“the CPA”).

Consideration

1. [25]

   The final relief sought by the plaintiff includes an unexplained wealth order pursuant to s 28A of the CAR Act. For present purposes I proceed on the basis that the necessary circumstances exist for the making of such an order. The real issue in the substantive proceedings will be to quantify the order.

2. [26]

   Subsection 28B provides:

3. [27]

   Subsection 28B(5) relevantly provides, “[i]n assessing the unexplained wealth of a person, the Supreme Court is not required to consider any current or previous wealth of which the Commission has not provided evidence.

4. [28]

   The orthodox approach is for the plaintiff to file evidence for the purposes of s 28B(5), then for the defendant to file evidence to show (if he can) that the wealth in question was neither illegally acquired nor is the proceeds of illegal activity.

5. [29]

   I have already set out the chronology of the proceedings. The plaintiff did not seek examination orders in respect of Messrs Thomas and Meaton before October 2025. At the time the proceedings were commenced on 21 December 2021, the defendant had not yet been charged, and the Commission did not hold information to suggest that Messrs Thomas and Meaton may have information concerning the affairs of the defendant and accordingly did not seek examination orders in respect of them

6. [30]

   The plaintiff did, however, hold information in 2021 (from transcripts of listening and surveillance device recordings obtained during the Commission’s investigation in relation to the defendant) as to the involvement of Messrs Meaton and Thomas in the payment of employee wages using cash (a matter relied upon as a basis for the belief that they have knowledge of the affairs of the defendant including the nature, location, background and origin of property in which the defendant has an interest).

7. [31]

   The plaintiff did hold further information in 2023 (by way of the transcript of the examination hearing conducted on 19 October 2023 in relation to Hamzeh) of the role played by Messrs Thomas and Meaton in the operations of Skyworkers Group, being information relied upon as a further basis for Mr Oliver’s belief.

8. [32]

   Mr Oliver conceded in cross-examination that the Commission was certainly aware, by mid-2022, that Messrs Thomas and Meaton could provide relevant information.

9. [33]

   The plaintiff could have made an application for examination orders in 2022 or 2023 and would certainly have had a sufficient basis for such orders to be made. The question then arises in respect of the delay between mid-2022 and the present (November 2025) and the failure in that period to make the application for the orders sought today.

10. [34]

    In respect of that delay, the plaintiff’s explanation is that there was an expectation that examination orders may have been unnecessary because of the settlement discussions that were taking place between the parties.

11. [35]

    The settlement discussions between the parties are an insufficient basis for the delay (by a period of over three years) on the part of the plaintiff in applying to examine Messrs Thomas and Meaton. A defendant is entitled to an efficient and timely progress of proceedings to determine whether his/her assets should be released from restraint.

12. [36]

    It became clear during the hearing that the Commission could have made an application for the compulsory examination of Messrs Thomas and Meaton in 2022/2023 but failed to do so.

13. [37]

    The delay in making the application and any prejudice occasioned to the defendant is only one matter to which I have had consideration. In this case, while I have some concern about the delay in making the application for compulsory examination of Messrs Thomas and Meaton, I am minded to make the orders sought by the plaintiff. I have decided to do so because during the hearing, I indicated that a timetable in relation to the progress of the substantive proceedings is necessary to ensure that the Commission conduct the outstanding examinations as soon as possible, file its evidence expeditiously and ensure that the substantive proceedings are resolved in a timely fashion.

14. [38]

    The parties have placed before me an agreed timetable to progress the proceedings. In those circumstances I am satisfied that the application be granted.

15. [39]

    Accordingly, I make the following orders:

    1. (1)

       Pursuant to s 12(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), Matthew Thomas be examined before a Registrar on oath concerning the affairs of Mohamed Kabbout, including the nature and location of any property in which Mohamed Kabbout has an interest.

    2. (2)

       Pursuant to s 12(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), Matthew Meaton be examined before a Registrar on oath concerning the affairs of Mohamed Kabbout, including the nature and location of any property in which Mohamed Kabbout has an interest.

    3. (3)

       Leave is granted to the plaintiff to obtain from the Registry dates for the examinations ordered at 1 and 2 above.

    4. (4)

       The examinations ordered at 1 and 2 above must be completed by 13 February 2026.

    5. (5)

       The examination of Wissam Hamzeh ordered on 21 December 2021 must be completed by 13 February 2026.

    6. (6)

       The examination of the defendant, Mohamed Kabbout, ordered on 21 December 2021 must be completed by 24 March 2026.

    7. (7)

       A daily transcript be made available of the examinations of the persons referred to in orders 1, 2, 5 and 6 above.

    8. (8)

       The Commission's evidence in support of the final relief sought in the summons shall be filed and served by 24 April 2026.

    9. (9)

       An amended statement pursuant to r. 1.6 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) shall be filed and served by 24 April 2026.

    10. (10)

        The proceedings are stood over for directions on 4 May 2026.

    11. (11)

        Costs reserved.