New South Wales Crime Commission v Han

1. [1]

   HIS HONOUR: By way of summons filed on 8 March 2023, the New South Wales Crime Commission (the plaintiff) seeks an asset forfeiture order pursuant to s 22 of the Crimes Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) over two sums of cash seized from Justin Han (the defendant) on 29 November 2022, totalling approximately $555,550. The defendant was present at the hearing on 25 November 2025. He was not legally represented and consented to the order sought by the plaintiff.

2. [2]

   On 8 March 2023, Weinstein J made orders in accordance with other relief sought by the plaintiff in its summons, including a restraining order over the same property, pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes Assets Recovery Act and an order that it be transferred to the control of the NSW Trustee and Guardian, pursuant to s 10B(2) of the Crimes Assets Recovery Act.

3. [3]

   On 1 February 2024, the defendant was convicted of two offences of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, contrary to s 193C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), in respect of a sum of $500,000 that was seized from his car (the car seizure) (s 193C(1)) and $56,500 that was seized from his residence (the residence seizure) (s 193C(2)). The defendant received a Community Correction Order for a period of 18 months, commencing on 1 February 2024 and expiring on 31 July 2025.

The legislative regime

1. [4]

   The plaintiff may apply for an assets forfeiture order to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 22 of the Crimes Assets Recovery Act, which relevantly provides as follows:

2. [5]

   A “serious crime related activity” has a wide-ranging definition in s 6(1) in that it is a reference to:

3. [6]

   The expression, “serious criminal offence”, relevantly includes an offence punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more involving theft, fraud, obtaining financial benefit from the crime of another person and money laundering: see s 6(2) of the Crimes Assets Recovery Act.

4. [7]

   The meaning of “serious crime use property” and “available interest relating to serious crime use property” are provided for by s 9B:

The application

1. [8]

   The summons is accompanied by an affidavit in support by John Blackburn-Hart, affirmed on 30 July 2025 and filed on the same date, whom I am satisfied comes within the meaning of an “authorised officer” for the purposes of s 4(1) of the Crimes Assets Recovery Act.

2. [9]

   In his affidavit, Mr Blackburn-Hart notes a discrepancy between the residence seizure amount for which the defendant was convicted ($56,500) and other material that establishes the amount seized from the defendant’s residence to be $55,550. He states: “I confirm that the amount of $55,550 … is the correct amount of cash that was seized from the defendant’s bedroom on 29 November 2022”. I am satisfied that is so, having regard to affidavits of police who attended upon the search of the defendant’s residence and seized the property and were otherwise involved in the investigation, namely, Detective Senior Constable Tiffany O’Neill, Senior Constable James Karkoulas (both dated 20 May 2025), Senior Constable Christopher McIntosh (23 May 2025) and Senior Constable Luke Magri (30 July 2025).

3. [10]

   Mr Blackburn-Hart believes that it is more probable than not that the defendant has engaged in a serious crime related activity or activities within the meaning of s 6 of the Crimes Assets Recovery Act involving one or more offences punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more involving money laundering. He suspects that it is more probable than not that the seized property is serious crime use property and, in view of the defendant’s convictions, that it was used in, or in connection with, a serious crime-related activity. Finally, he is unaware of any other person making a claim to an interest in the seized property.

4. [11]

   Having regard to that material, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the orders sought.