Applicants v Respondent

3 On 24 October 2023, the day before the arrests were made, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police ('Commissioner') sought and obtained from this Court restraining orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) ('POCA' or the 'Act') based upon his suspicion that those persons charged ('Suspects') were involved in the Long River MLO which, it was said, had successfully laundered money using Australian based registered remitters including AUSTRAC registered remitter Chang Jiang Financial Pty Ltd (ACN 624 164 067) (the 'October 2023 Orders').

4 The Commissioner alleges that the Suspects used the proceeds of the alleged money laundering activities to acquire a large number of valuable assets by using trusted family members and other associates to hold those assets on their behalf, thereby distancing themselves from any apparent ownership of those assets. The applications were supported by affidavit material setting out the basis upon which the Commissioner's suspicion was founded.

5 The effect of the October 2023 Orders was to prevent any dealings with the properties to which the orders attached. There were five orders made on 24 October 2023 attaching to 20 properties.

6 One of the six suspects charged on 25 October 2023 was Jing Zhu ('Ms Zhu').

7 On 16 November 2023, this Court granted the Commissioner's application for further restraining orders under the POCA (the 'November 2023 Orders') in relation to several commercial properties suspected of being property in which Ms Zhu held an interest. The Commissioner suspected that these properties were acquired using the proceeds derived from the money laundering activities of the Long River MLO, and were therefore used as instruments of Ms Zhu's suspected money laundering activities.

8 The effect of the November 2023 Orders was to prevent any dealings with the property to which the orders attached. The November 2023 Orders attached to seven properties said to be linked to Ms Zhu.

9 In total, in this proceeding, S ECI 2023 04939, a total of 13 restraining orders have been made by this Court, affecting a total of 28 properties.

10 Section 29 of the POCA permits this Court to make an order excluding the operation of a restraining order from specified interests in any property the subject of a restraining order.

11 A number of persons have made application for orders excluding certain properties from the operation of the October 2023 and November 2023 restraining orders. By a suite of orders made by McCann JR, almost all of those applications for exclusion are adjourned for further directions until December 2025.

12 The November 2023 Orders attached to several properties held by Southlink Grosvenor Pty Ltd (ACN 629 396 229) ('Southlink 1') and Southlink Grosvenor No.2 Pty Ltd (ACN 631 590 175) ('Southlink 2', together with Southlink 1, 'Southlink').

13 Southlink 1 is the registered proprietor of the land described in:

(a) Certificate of Title Volume 11250 Folio 263 and known as 45 Grosvenor Street, Abbotsford ('45 Grosvenor St'); and

(b) Certificate of Title Volume 8817 Folio 995 and known as 50-54 Grosvenor Street, Abbotsford ('50-54 Grosvenor St').

14 The contract of sale for the purchase of 45 and 50-54 Grosvenor Street ('First Grosvenor Property') was signed on 11 October 2018 for a sale price of $37,280,000. Southlink 1 was nominated to be the purchaser for the First Grosvenor Property on 24 October 2018, and the properties comprising the First Grosvenor Property were both settled on 18 December 2018.

15 Southlink 2 is the registered proprietor of the land described in the Certificate of Title Volume 11305 Folio 624 and known as 30-36 Grosvenor Street, Abbotsford ('30-36 Grosvenor St').

16 The contract of sale for 30-36 Grosvenor Street ('Second Grosvenor Property', together with the First Grosvenor Property, the 'Grosvenor Properties') was signed on 14 February 2019 for a sale price of $17,310,000 and the property was settled on 18 August 2019.

(a) has loan facilities through the National Australia Bank ('NAB'); and

(b) does not own any other property and does not trade, save for leasing the Grosvenor Properties.

18 The Grosvenor Properties are commercial rental properties, presently occupied by longstanding blue-chip tenants.

19 Southlink, having unsuccessfully applied to this Court to have the restraining orders revoked,[1] now seeks to have the Grosvenor Properties excluded from the operation of the November 2023 Orders pursuant to s 29 of the POCA.

20 On 28 February 2025, Southlink appeared before McCann JR and informed the Court that they would seek to have their applications for exclusion proceed to a hearing before all other exclusion applications made in relation to restraining orders granted in the broader Long River MLO matter. The Commissioner opposed this course. McCann JR made procedural orders setting down a hearing on the discrete question: whether Southlink's applications for exclusion orders should be heard before any of the other applications for exclusion orders made in the Long River MLO matter. McCann JR also made orders for the filing and service of affidavit material and written submissions directed to that question.

21 Southlink first made their applications for exclusion to this Court on 28 March 2024. The applications are made under s 31 of the POCA for exclusion orders under s 29.

22 The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the exclusion applications made by Southlink should be heard and determined without further delay. Southlink says that their applications should not be forced to await or have to be dealt with at the same time as or in conjunction with the other applications for exclusion made in the Long River MLO matter, all of which are adjourned and listed for further directions in December 2025.

23 Southlink press for a hearing on its applications for exclusion as soon as possible. The Commissioner opposes this course and says instead that Southlink's applications should be heard at the same time as all other applications for exclusion. Ms Zhu, who is charged with money laundering offences, does not oppose the Southlink exclusion applications being heard sooner than the other exclusion applications, or in advance of any trial in the substantive criminal proceedings, on the proviso that such a hearing would not involve any potential for the consideration of criminality on her part.

24 It is convenient to set out the way in which the Southlink applications are framed.

25 The POCA is legislation which interferes with the property rights of individuals on the suspicion, not proof, that the property is the proceeds of crime - empowering the Court to prevent the dissipation of those proceeds before the question of whether the property is the proceeds of crime can be determined.

26 There is no express language in the POCA which require proceedings or disputes arising thereunder to be dealt with speedily, but it can also be readily accepted, even in the absence of such express words, that the statutory framework (if not the broader canons of construction) invite an approach, as Southlink submits, which seeks to resolve POCA proceedings as expeditiously as possible. It is that phrase which gives rise to the present dispute about timing, 'as expeditiously as possible'. What is possible will depend upon the nature of the criminality which led to the restraining orders being made and all of the surrounding circumstances. It will include consideration of the possibility of prejudice both to ongoing investigations and also to landowners whose assets are subject to the restraining orders.

27 It can also be readily accepted that there is no statutory bar to the consideration of the Southlink exclusion applications sooner than the other related applications. While the POCA permits multiple applications to be heard at the same time, there is no requirement that applications for exclusion in related matters be heard together, and there can be no statutory presumption that all of the Long River MLO restraining orders be heard at the same time or by the judge. Indeed, as the Commissioner pointed out, there may be any number of reasons which would render such a course undesirable or even impossible.

28 Southlink have filed and served affidavit material in support of their applications for exclusion which addresses the impact of the restraining orders on their ability to re-let the properties, obtain refinancing of existing facilities, and the impact upon the underlying value of the properties which may result from the restraining orders remaining in place for a lengthy period. In substance, Southlink's evidence seeks to establish that ongoing uncertainty as to whether or not the Grosvenor Properties will be excluded from the November 2023 Orders has the potential to impede Southlink's ability to secure tenants, and arrange appropriate finance. Leasing the properties, and arranging finance for them, involves long lead times. According to Southlink, if it were forced to wait indefinitely for the other applications seeking exclusion orders in the Long River MLO matter to be resolved, it may do irreparable harm to its chances of obtaining finance or securing high quality tenants for the Grosvenor Properties. Southlink submits that the undertakings given by the Commissioner at the time the restraining orders were made may not be sufficient to cover the full extent of damage which might arise from excessive delay.

29 A wide range of factors must be weighed in the balance to determine whether to list Southlink's exclusion applications in isolation from, and before, the other exclusion applications in this matter.

32 Application not to be heard unless responsible authority has had reasonable opportunity to conduct an examination

The court must not hear an application to exclude specified property from the *restraining order if:

(a) the restraining order is in force; and

(b) the *responsible authority has not been given a reasonable opportunity to conduct *examinations in relation to the application.

31 Southlink submits that s 32 presents no bar to the consideration of their applications for exclusion because, in this case, the Commissioner has already had 16 months to undertake its examinations.

32 The parties informed me at the hearing that a tranche of examinations relevant to the Southlink exclusion applications were scheduled to occur in late August and September 2025. Subject to some qualifications, it is expected that this tranche of examinations would be completed by 3 October 2025. The Commissioner informed me that it may be that these most recent examinations may spawn further examinations. I accept that this may be so, but it remains possible that this will not be necessary.

33 On this basis, Southlink submits that following these examinations the Commissioner will have had a more than 'reasonable opportunity' to conduct examinations in relation to the applications, and that its applications for exclusion should not be delayed further. Southlink submits that its applications should be set down for trial in early 2026, and that the Commissioner should be required to put on any affidavit material in opposition to the Southlink exclusion applications by no later than 31 October 2025 - that being a reasonable opportunity for the Commissioner to put on material following the examinations which are presently underway.

34 For the reasons which follow, I do not propose to list this matter for hearing in early 2026 - at this stage. That said, I do propose to make orders which require the Commissioner to put on further affidavit material by no later than 12 November 2025, which either responds to the material advanced in support of the Southlink exclusion applications, or otherwise explains why, after the most recent examinations, the Commissioner will be unable, or should not be required, to answer the Southlink exclusion applications. I also propose to list this matter for further directions on 19 November 2025 to coincide with the hearing to consider substitution applications made in relation to the properties. At the directions hearing I will consider the state of the Commissioner's evidence following the most recent examinations and make orders as to the future conduct of the exclusion applications. It is premature to foreshadow what those orders might be at this stage. If the Commissioner says that they are in a position to proceed with the hearing of the applications, I will make orders accordingly. If on the other hand the Commissioner maintains that a hearing of the Southlink applications should be further delayed, then I may make orders which listing the matter for a further contested case management hearing, providing Southlink the opportunity to make application to cross-examine the Commissioner's witnesses and/or put on further evidence.

35 It is apparent to me that there is not, at present, a tangible reason which would necessarily prevent the Southlink exclusion applications being heard separately from, and before, the balance of the Long River MLO matters.

36 It is self-evidently clear that the Long River MLO matters may require careful case management, given the number of matters and the potential complexity associated with them. It may be, as the Commissioner says, that there are issues of evidence that are common to different applicants, including the Southlink applicants. But it is not clear to me at this point that the resolution of the Southlink exclusion applications must or should necessarily be delayed.

37 Where, as in this case, a restraining order is granted under ss 18 and 19 of the POCA, an exclusion order under s 29 may be granted if the Court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities,[2] that the property or the interest in the property is not either:

(a) the proceeds of unlawful activity; or

(b) the proceeds of an indictable offence (whether in Victoria, in a foreign jurisdiction, or of Commonwealth concerns as defined), nor the instrument of a serious offence.

38 Southlink has made clear that on the hearing of its application they will seek to bring their case entirely within s 330(4)(a) of the POCA, which relevantly provides:

(4) Property only ceases to be proceeds of an offence or an instrument of an offence:

(a) if it is acquired by a third party for *sufficient consideration without the third party knowing, and in circumstances that would not arouse a reasonable suspicion, that the property was proceeds of an offence or an instrument of an offence (as the case requires);

39 For the purposes of their applications for exclusion orders, the Southlink parties invite the assumption that the properties the subject of the restraining orders were purchased, at least in part, with the proceeds of unlawful activity.

40 On Southlink's case, the only relevant question is whether the funds received from Zhu Investments Pty Ltd ('Zhu Funds'), an entity controlled by Mr Zhu, the brother of criminal suspect Ms Zhu, were received by Southlink and applied towards the Grosvenor Properties in circumstances that would arouse a reasonable suspicion that the investment was made with the proceeds of an offence.

41 Southlink concedes that their applications will fail if they are unable to bring themselves within the operation of s 330(4)(a) of the Act.

42 The evidence relied upon by Southlink is to the effect that:

(a) the First Grosvenor Property was purchased by Southlink 1's nominator on 11 October 2018, for $37,280,000;

(b) Mr Zhu, through the Zhu Funds paid approximately $5,389,976.06 on 11 October 2018, and 10-12 December 2018;

(c) the Second Grosvenor Property was purchased by Southlink 2 on 14 February 2019 for $17,310,000;

(d) Mr Zhu through the Zhu Funds paid approximately $2,710,000 on 18 February 2019, and 6-9 August 2019;

(e) Southlink received Mr Zhu's funds:

(i) for value, given by way of debt and equity to Mr Zhu and/or his company Zhu Investments Pty Ltd; and

(ii) in the context of personal trust between persons of extreme familial wealth - which was no different to other investment projects managed by Southlink and its related entities;

(f) the total contribution of Zhu Investments Pty Ltd to the purchase of the Grosvenor Properties was only a part of the funds used to acquire the properties (less than 25%). It has not been suggested at this stage that any of the other funds used to acquire the Grosvenor Properties have been sourced from illegal activity, or have connection with the Long River MLO;

(g) at the time that the investment was made by Zhu Investments Pty Ltd, the officers of Southlink did not have personal knowledge of the source of Mr Zhu's funds, did not know Mr Zhu before the co-investment opportunity arose, and did not know his sister, Ms Zhu, one of the six suspects, or any of the other suspects or their known associates.

43 Southlink submits that even if the funds received from Mr Zhu were laundered money, those funds were received for sufficient consideration and in circumstances that would not arouse a reasonable suspicion that the funds were the proceeds or an instrument of any offence, with the result that the funds received by Southlink cease to be proceeds of crime by operation of s 330(4) of the Act.

44 The test for determining whether property ceases to be proceeds or an instrument is not satisfied merely by a person in receipt of illicit funds swearing that they didn't know the funds were derived from unlawful activity. If that were the test it would be straightforward for a person in receipt of illicit funds to structure their affairs in order to ensure that there is never evidence from which their actual knowledge of the source of those funds could be inferred.

45 The evidence given by the sole director of both Southlink 1 and Southlink 2, Mr Yuan Tao ('Mr Tao'), that he did not know the source of the Zhu Funds, is insufficient by itself. What must be established is that Mr Tao's state of knowledge existed in circumstances that would not arouse a reasonable suspicion that the Zhu finds were proceeds of an offence or an instrument of an offence. This necessarily involves an inquiry of the surrounding circumstances known to Mr Tao, potentially including the circumstances of the criminal activity, relationships and associations between and among the people concerned. In the case of a money laundering operation, the evidence of the circumstances could be extensive and complex. Where the money laundering operation is on a large scale, involving many participants, it may well be that the web of interconnectedness is very involved and takes time to investigate, establish and prove. In a case like this, it has to be acknowledged that this may involve evidence which extends beyond the facts and circumstances of the Southlink entities, and traverses factual inquiries that the Court will be obliged to undertake in the context of the broader Long River MLO.

46 Southlink submits that because it does not contest (for the purpose of its applications) that the Zhu Funds were the proceeds of crime, the analysis required by this Court is not tethered to any specific offending. Southlink says that even if the circumstances could arouse a reasonable suspicion that the funds were laundered funds, this would not require the Court to go any further and determine whether the funds were actually laundered, or by who. This may be true, but there remain the possibility that a consideration of the circumstances which give might be said by the Commissioner to arouse a reasonable suspicion involve evidence of the operations of the Long River MLO. It is this possibility which is of concern to the Commissioner.

47 The logic underpinning Southlink's attempt to narrowly define the necessary scope of inquiry in its applications for exclusion is superficially attractive, but potentially (if not probably) illusory. I am concerned, at least at this stage and without knowing more, that Southlink's attempts to narrow its case will not successfully quarantine the factual issues in dispute in the way in which it anticipates. I cannot ignore the fact that this may have implications for the proper management of other related proceedings, and for the Commissioner's ongoing investigations.

48 Weighing against that are two important factors which lead me to the conclusion that the Commissioner should be required to put on evidence by 12 November 2025 in response to the Southlink exclusion applications, or otherwise explain in more detail why the Southlink application should be further delayed.

49 First, while I accept that there is the possibility that hearing the Southlink exclusion applications before and in isolation from the wider group of Long River MLO proceedings has the potential to create complexity, there is no guarantee that not hearing the Southlink exclusion applications before the other applications will avoid case management issues, albeit potentially of a different kind. Second, without knowing more, I am concerned that simply consigning the Southlink exclusion applications to be dealt with at the same time as the other Long River MLO applications on the material presently available to me could result in a significant injustice to the Southlink entities.

50 The Commissioner submits, and I accept, that it cannot be overemphasised that the suspected syndicate's dealings that have given rise to the suspicion of money laundering, to their arrests and to this proceeding, are extremely convoluted, extensive and sophisticated. It is in the nature of the offending (money laundering) that the criminal activity is clandestine, complex and dependent upon the need to remain out of view.

51 Typical money laundering methodology involves: placement, introducing illicit funds into the financial system through deposits into bank accounts; layering, moving and disguising money to try to conceal its origin by transferring funds through multiple apparently unconnected bank accounts and using the names of apparently unrelated persons and entities to hold such funds; and integration, reintroducing the now-distanced money into apparently legitimate holdings, such as property or businesses.

52 Investigations to date reveal that the six suspects in the criminal proceeding acquired a large number of assets, including real property, with what are suspected to be the proceeds of money laundering. This is said to have been achieved by using trusted family members and associates to hold those assets on their behalf, thereby distancing themselves from any apparent ownership of those assets. The acquisition of the Grosvenor Properties (the subject of the Southlink exclusion applications) is said to be part of this enterprise.

53 The evidence furnished by the Commissioner as to the breadth and scope of the Long River MLO establishes the sophistication of the enterprise.

54 The Southlink exclusion applications proceed in a context where:

(a) It is accepted that the relevant properties have been purchased (at least in part) with funds obtained through unlawful activity;

(b) There is a sound basis for believing that the money laundering syndicate operates through a network of close relatives and associates;

(c) One of the shareholders is a brother of one of six people charged with money laundering;

(d) The relationship between Ms Zhu, who is charged with money laundering offences, and other players forms part of the broader context in which the activities of the syndicate are to be viewed;

(e) A complex web of corporate structures and shareholdings facilitated the movement of funds to disguise the source and intended destination of the funds;

(f) The true breadth of the operation is still the subject of ongoing investigation; and

(g) The evidence which might be relied upon by the Commissioner to defeat the Southlink exclusion applications could, and in all probability will, be relevant (in whole or in part) to the remaining applications and potentially the criminal proceedings.

(a) Six tranches of restraining orders have been made so far, in respect of each of the suspects, three of which have been made in relation to property associated with the suspect Ms Zhu;

(b) The Commissioner has already filed applications for forfeiture in each of the six tranches; and

(c) There have been approximately 80 applications for exclusion and/or ancillary relief in relation to the restraining orders made so far, 36 of which are applications made for exclusion and/or ancillary relief in relation to the restraining orders made in respect of Ms Zhu.

56 A review of company searches, and other information obtained during the investigation establishes that Southlink 1 and Southlink 2 are related entities of other companies in a group of companies which share common directors and shareholders (the 'Southlink Group').

(a) Southlink 1;

(b) Southlink 2;

(c) Southlink Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 604 196 689), incorporated on 12 February 2015, the directors of which are Mr Tao, Yenan Yin ('Yo') and Keqi Zhang, and the sole shareholder since 29 June 2019 is Jianhao Pty Ltd ('Jianhao');

(d) Southlink Projects Pty Ltd (ACN 629 480 600), incorporated on 18 October 2018, the sole director of which is Mr Tao and the sole shareholder is Jianhao;

(e) Southlink Beddoe Pty Ltd (ACN 628 005 747), incorporated on 7 August 2018, the director of which is Mr Tao and the shareholders are Jianhao, Junrui Holdings Pty Ltd ('Junrui'), Felixz Investments Pty Ltd and Yo Group Pty Ltd ('Yo Group');

(f) Southlink Alvina Pty Ltd (ACN 637 807 633), incorporated on 2 December 2019, the director of which is Mr Tao and the shareholders are Jianhao, Yo Group, Junrui, Zhu Investments Pty Ltd and Chen Xi Pty Ltd; and

(g) South Fuji Developments Pty Ltd (ACN 166 709 306), incorporated on 11 November 2013, the directors of which are Mr Tao, Yo and Keqi Zhang, and the shareholders are Yo Group, Jianhao and Junrui.

58 Mr Tao is a director, and Jianhao a shareholder, of all companies in the Southlink Group.

59 The Commissioner says that so far investigations demonstrate a considerable degree of interconnectedness between relevant persons and associates, including Mr Tao, and considerable financial dealings among them, both directly and through corporate intermediaries. The Commissioner relies upon the affidavit material filed in support of the applications for restraining orders and subsequently filed affidavits which they say suggest that there are connections between Mr Tao, the Southlink Group and entities associated with the Long River MLO.

60 The evidence relied upon by the Commissioner establishes that the funds used by Zhu Investments Pty Ltd to contribute to the acquisition of the properties was derived from sources who have been charged with money laundering offences. For the purposes of their exclusion applications, Southlink accepts this to be so.

61 At present, there is no evidence that the Commissioner's investigations have established that Mr Tao, or any of the other investors, knew Mr Zhu, Ms Zhu (the suspect) or any of the other associates of the Long River MLO, or were involved in any financial dealings with any entity associated with any of the alleged money laundering activity before the properties were purchased.

62 Indeed, Southlink make the point that the evidence relied upon as to the nature of those relationships has remained largely unchanged since the applications were made for the restraining orders more than 18 months ago. In that time the Commissioner has not unearthed any additional evidence which could be directed to the circumstances in which the properties were acquired, including whether the receipt of the money from Zhu Investments Pty Ltd would have aroused a reasonable suspicion that the Zhu Funds were the proceeds of crime. If the Commissioner has unearthed additional information which might be directed to what was in the knowledge of Mr Tao, it has not yet produced that evidence.

63 There is some evidence of association between Mr Tao and associates of the Long River MLO in the period after the acquisition of the properties. Neither Mr Tao nor any of the other investors have yet been charged with any criminal offence. There is also some evidence of significant transfers of funds between the various Southlink Group entities and entities connected with Chang Jiang Financial Pty Ltd, the Long River MLO, Ms Zhu, Ye Qu (another suspect in the proceedings and married to Ms Zhu) and members of Ms Zhu's family.

64 The Commissioner relies upon evidence to the effect that it is suspected that Ms Zhu and Ye Qu control bank accounts held in the names of members of Ms Zhu's family which is in part borne out by the nature of the transactions recorded in bank statements and in part, based on intercepted telephone recordings in which Ms Zhu and Ye Qu discuss the movement of funds from accounts held in family member names. The Commissioner states that the accounts held by family members record transactions referring to Southlink Group entities and at this time, it is not possible to ascertain the interests which gave rise to these transactions or whether they are related to any interests in the Grosvenor Properties.

65 All of these transactions occurred after the properties were acquired and, on the evidence so far, only once the tainted money had been received and a business relationship established. The transactions by themselves do not establish a basis for a finding that circumstances existed at the time of the acquisition of the properties that would have aroused a reasonable suspicion in Mr Tao. Southlink says, that at present the evidence does not provide a basis for even a suspicion that there may be evidence which could be unearthed as part of future investigations.

66 At best, the evidence of the Commissioner establishes the existence of transactions between Southlink related entities after the purchase of the properties, which might found a suspicion that further investigations could reveal a closer connection which extends in time before properties were acquired, but at present the evidence does not substantiate that suspicion. There has been no advance on that position in more than 18 months and there is presently nothing to contradict, or even cast doubt on the evidence of Mr Tao that he did not know the people involved in the Long River MLO before Zhu Investments Pty Ltd was introduced to him as a co-investor in the acquisition of the Grosvenor Properties.

67 The Commissioner submits that until the web of financial transactions and dealings can be tracked by forensic accountant analysis, it is not possible to proceed with the hearing of the Southlink exclusion applications in a vacuum, separated from the rest of the evidence in the proceedings as to the activities of the suspected Long River MLO, its associates, the Suspects, and the potential recipients of proceeds of its suspected offending.

68 This may be so, but I am not yet ready to accept such a broad statement of the position. The evidentiary basis upon which the Southlink exclusion applications is based was filed in January 2025, and narrowed further by the submissions of Southlink in the lead up to this case management hearing.

69 At present, I would characterise the evidence upon which the Commissioner relies to defer consideration of the Southlink applications indefinitely as unhelpfully general, with insufficient focus on the particular circumstances of the Southlink entities and the case which Southlink seeks to advance.

70 The position in relation to the Grosvenor Properties remains that a relatively small portion of the funds used to acquire the properties, sourced from one investor and representing less than 25% of the total purchase price, was derived from a money laundering operation. No other funds used in the acquisition of the properties have been impugned in any way at this stage. None of the other investors in the acquisition of the properties have yet been charged with an offence, or identified as associates of any person either charged with an offence, or associates of those charged. That evidence remains largely unchanged since the restraining orders were first obtained more than 18 months ago.

71 The Commissioner submits, and I accept that forensic inquiries are being undertaken, including the preparation for and conduct of applications for examination.

72 The Commissioner states that a large number of applications for exclusion orders have been filed by other parties in this proceeding and that a number of those applications have been filed by persons and entities connected to Southlink, either because the companies they control are shareholders in companies which are the registered proprietors of restrained property, including the Grosvenor Properties, or because they are involved in other financial dealings with Southlink.

73 The Commissioner's evidence is that until all the banking documents required to be produced under related production orders are received, forensic accountants engaged by the AFP cannot meaningfully progress or finalise the ongoing task of ascertaining the source of the relevant funds or transactions identified to date or trace fund flows between the relevant entities involved in acquiring restrained assets, including the restrained Grosvenor Properties the subject of Southlink's exclusion applications.

74 The Commissioner says that once all bank documents are received, the forensic accountants will need to consolidate financial records for all persons and entities so that a comprehensive analysis can be carried out as to the source of all funds applied to the acquisition of the Grosvenor Properties.

75 It is said that this information gathering process has not been completed and a reasonable opportunity for that to be conducted, including the opportunity to conduct examinations under s 32 of the Act, has not been afforded to the Commissioner and that the Commissioner has not yet had an opportunity to conduct any examinations.

76 The Commissioner says that it will not be possible to review and assess the material the Commissioner can rely on in opposition to the Southlink exclusion applications until:

(a) examination orders for relevant persons are granted and the relevant examinations completed;

(b) any documents identified as a result of information obtained during the examinations have been requested, received and reviewed;

(c) all documents requested by way of production orders served on banks and other relevant entities are received and reviewed;

(d) the forensic accountants are able to consolidate bank records for all relevant persons and entities and once that task has been completed, trace the source of funds applied towards restrained property and identify the relevant flow of funds between persons of interest; and

(e) all applicants for exclusion have filed affidavit material in support of their exclusion applications and set out the grounds upon which they seek exclusion by reference to the evidence upon which they will rely in their applications.

77 The Commissioner's evidence is that until such time as all the information and documents from the procedures set out above have been completed, the Commissioner does not believe that it will be possible to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the interests in restrained property claimed by any applicant for exclusion, by reference to the wide definition of 'interest' contained in s 338 of the Act.

78 In the end, the Commissioner may be right, but on the evidence presently available in relation to the Southlink applications as recently narrowed, I am not yet prepared to accept the Commissioner's cannot be refined. Evidence is necessary which provides a better explanation of what more the Commissioner needs to do, why what needs to be done can't be done, why what it needs to do hasn't been done yet, and how long that work might take. In short, I am not prepared to accept at this stage that the Southlink applications must be adjourned indefinitely. I am conscious that the Commissioner is undertaking an investigation and that examinations are presently underway. It is my expectation that the results of these examinations will shed give a better basis upon which to formulate the case management of these applications.

79 I expressly decline to express a view as to whether or not the Commissioner has had a reasonable opportunity to conduct examinations at this stage. I am struck by the fact that Southlink's application for exclusion orders was made some time ago, but I note that the refinement and narrowing of its position is relatively recent. I am mindful that examinations are presently underway, and that this may yield more information and greater clarity as to how the future conduct of this matter in this Court should be managed. It may well be that it is not possible for the Commissioner to advance a comprehensive response to the Southlink exclusion applications until all of the work which it says must be done is completed, but the evidence to date does not establish that the Commissioner has addressed itself directly to the narrower case advanced by the Southlink entities in a meaningful way.

80 At present, there is not a sufficient basis for assuming that the Southlink exclusion applications should necessarily be heard with all other applications for exclusion, or at least not before those other Long River MLO applications. There are so many Long River MLO related applications that it would be impossible to predict the course that they will each take at this stage, or that delaying the Southlink exclusion applications is necessarily desirable. The starting assumption ought to be that if it is possible to deal with one of the many Long River MLO exclusion applications in isolation from the rest, that could be a good thing. If there is to be a delay in the hearing of the Southlink exclusion applications, there needs to be a good reason, directed to the case advanced by Southlink, and supported by evidence.

81 Accordingly, I will make orders that the Commissioner file and serve evidence in response to the Southlink exclusion applications by 12 November 2025, or alternatively evidence as to why the Southlink exclusion applications should be delayed, and the reasons for and length of any delay. This timing allows the Commissioner time to consider the results of the examinations currently underway, and the possibility of hearing the Southlink applications. I will list the matter for a further directions hearing for the purpose of making orders as to the future conduct of the case in the manner outlined in these reasons.

[1] 45 Bonview Circuit Pty Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (No 2) [2024] VSC 481].

[2] Lordianto & Anor v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2019] HCA 39; (2019) 266 CLR 273.