New South Wales Crime Commission v Hu

This is an application brought by summons for orders under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) (“the Act”). At this stage a restraining order as defined in s 10 of the Act is sought and the plaintiff seeks to proceed ex parte pursuant to s 10A(1) of the Act. Other ancillary orders are sought, including an order for compulsory examination under s 12 of the Act.

Tendered in support of the application is a Statement of Facts and Circumstances relied on in an application for orders under the Act which identifies the serious crime related activity as defined in the Act as;

In support of the application two affidavits of Anthony Ante Krunes have been read, both sworn on 16 December 2025. The affidavit initially provided yesterday did not contain sufficient information for the Court to be relevantly satisfied of the matters necessary to make a freezing order under the Act. The material appended to that affidavit comprised miscellaneous investigative documents such as WeChat extracts not appropriately cross-referenced or titled to allow the Court to understand how the investigative material supported the charges referred to as serious crime related activity.

The Court has now been provided with a second affidavit of the same author which helpfully appends the very detailed Statement of Facts prepared by Strikeforce Myddleton. This statement sets out in comprehensive, helpful and appropriate detail the conduct demonstrating the charges specified.

That conduct comprises over 70 sequences of fraud, facilitated by the defendant’s training and background as a financial planner, skills which he appears to have directed towards a complex multifaceted fraud on various lending authorities in the nature of broker fraud, business, home loan and motor vehicle loan fraud, pursued by using fake identities, false financial documents, and loan “mules” as carriers for this fraudulent activity.

I am satisfied that the police facts show a strong basis for the suspicion deposed to by Mr Krunes in his affidavits that the defendant has been engaged in serious crime related activity.

I understand from information provided from the bar table today that the defendant has now been arrested and is currently in custody. I am well satisfied that despite this, given the nature of the application and pursuant to the powers under the Act, the application should be dealt with in closed court and should be dealt with ex parte on the basis that it is easy for persons to electronically and otherwise dispose of assets if alerted to the fact that this application is being made.

The affidavits establish the statutory prerequisites of subs (5) of s 10A of the Act. Mr Krunes is an authorised officer under the Act. As I have said, his belief and suspicions are well founded.

For these reasons I make orders in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 7 of the Orders provided by the solicitor appearing for the Crime Commission. That includes an order that there be no publication of these orders until midnight tonight on the basis that the Crime Commissioner will by then have served the restraining orders on the defendant and any other relevant or interested party.

In that latter respect, I note that schedule 1 of the Order refers to property to be restrained at Homebush which is held in shares as tenants in common, the defendant holding 5% of 100%, and a person referred to as Zhengleang Hu is the holder of a 95% share of the property.

I was assisted by Ms Akle with two decisions of this Court that considered the situation where another person was holding a property as tenants in common with a defendant and so will be affected by a restraining order made over that property. As noted by McDougall J in NSW Crime Commission v Peter Geoffrey Martin [2013] NSWSC 15 at [9], “Inevitably the administrative enforcement of the restraining order may affect the interest of the other proprietor at least in a practical sense,” with his Honour noting that it is a matter for the defendant and the co-proprietor to make any application they consider necessary.

Schmidt J in NSW Crime Commission v Elsage [2014] NSWSC 1648 at [16] noted the rights of any joint tenant or tenant in common to make an application under s 10C of the Act. In those circumstances Schmidt J was of the view that the orders could be made but should be served upon any person so affected.

I will adopt the same approach in respect of the Homebush property referred to, and also property referred to in sch 1 at Dundas Valley which refers to that same other individual holding (a single share of) the property as tenants in common with the defendant.