New South Wales Crime Commission v Davidson

HIS HONOUR: The New South Wales Crime Commission (“the plaintiff”) seeks a restraining order on an ex parte basis pursuant to s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) (“the Act”). The defendant in this matter is Crystella Davidson (“the defendant”). The summons dated 26 July 2019 is supported by an affidavit sworn by Katie Elaine Bourne on 25 July 2019. Ms Bourne is an authorised officer of the plaintiff for the purposes of the Act.

Section 10A(5) of the Act requires the Court to make the restraining orders sought if the application is supported by an affidavit of an authorised officer stating that they suspect that one of the statutory requirements set out in s 10A(5)(a) are satisfied and the grounds on which that suspicion is based. As well, the Court must consider that, having regard to the matters contained in the affidavit, there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion.

Ms Bourne deposes to a suspicion that the defendant has engaged in a serious crime-related activity as defined in s 6 of the Act, namely, dealing with property being cash in the amount of $245,000 deposited into an account held by Mercedes Benz Melbourne, suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to s 193(C)(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). As an offence punishable by imprisonment for five years involving money laundering, this falls within the definition of a “serious criminal offence” pursuant to s 6(2)(d) of the Act.

The basis upon which Ms Bourne entertains the suspicion is set out at par 5 of her affidavit. This comprised the following: documents indicating the defendant’s declared income to the Australian Tax Office for the financial years of 2012, 2013 and 2014; the fact that the defendant did not lodge tax returns between 2015 and 2018; evidence of significant cash deposits into bank accounts operated by the defendant between October 2017 and May 2018; and evidence of the defendant making the aforesaid payment in cash to purchase a vehicle, which was located during the execution of a warrant for the property suspected to be a safe house, used by members of a criminal syndicate engaged in drug supply and related activities.

Having read the affidavit, I am satisfied that the suspicions deposed to are based on reasonable grounds and that the onus borne by the plaintiff has been satisfied, and therefore it is appropriate for me to make the orders in the terms sought.