By way of a summons filed 15 July 2019 the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police ("the plaintiff"), seeks orders pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) ("the Act") in respect of the defendants, Alaedine Rifai (also known as Alan Rifai) ("Rifai") and Amal Hilmi ("Hilmi").
The orders sought today are forfeiture and ancillary orders.
The plaintiff has previously sought and been granted restraining orders in respect of the property of the defendants: Application of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; In the matter of Rifai [2019] NSWSC 914.
Ms Minerds appears for the plaintiff and Mr Cummins appears for the defendants.
In support of the application the plaintiff relies on affidavits of Scott Michael Mathews affirmed on 11 July 2019 and 20 March 2020 and Catherine Therese Horan sworn 19 March 2020. The plaintiff also relies on affidavits of service of Justin Veitch sworn 4 February 2020 and Perry Gamsby sworn 2 April 2020.
The defendants consent to the orders sought today. However, the orders made today do not bring an end to the matter as there are two other properties about which there may be a dispute as to the interests of third parties and there may be possible exclusion applications under the Act.
The orders sought are forfeiture orders under s 49 of the Act in respect of four items of property being:
1. Real property situated at 13 Huxtable Place, Goulburn NSW in Hilmi's name;
2. Net proceeds from the sale of the Mercedes E63 with VIN number WDD2120772A117962 registered in the name of Rifai;
3. Porsche Cayenne with VIN number WP1ZZZ927DLA72745 registered in the name of Hilmi; and
4. Audi S3 with VIN number WAUZZZ8P99A111511N registered in the name of Rifai.
As set out in s 49 of the Act:
Forfeiture orders--property suspected of being proceeds of indictable offences etc.
(1) A court with proceeds jurisdiction must make an order that property specified in the order is forfeited to the Commonwealth if:
(a) the responsible authority for a restraining order under section 19 that covers the property applies for an order under this subsection; and
(b) the restraining order has been in force for at least 6 months; and
(c) the court is satisfied that one or more of the following applies:
(i) the property is proceeds of one or more indictable offences;
(ii) the property is proceeds of one or more foreign indictable offences;
(iii) the property is proceeds of one or more indictable offences of Commonwealth concern;
(iv) the property is an instrument of one or more serious offences; and
(e) the court is satisfied that the authority has taken reasonable steps to identify and notify persons with an interest in the property.
This Court is a Court with proceeds jurisdiction within the meaning of ss 18(1), 335 and 338 of the Act, as it has jurisdiction over indictable offences. The plaintiff is a responsible authority and the restraining order has been in force for at least six months.
I am satisfied that the properties are the proceeds of one or more indictable offences as set out in s 329 of the Act:
Meaning of proceeds and instrument
(1) Property is proceeds of an offence if:
(a) it is wholly derived or realised, whether directly or indirectly, from the commission of the offence; or
(b) it is partly derived or realised, whether directly or indirectly, from the commission of the offence;
whether the property is situated within or outside Australia.
The background to the matter is set out in the earlier judgment of Adamson J. It is only necessary to say that the defendants and a related company, Universal Group Australia Pty Ltd, are suspected of committing one or more serious indictable offences being dishonestly obtaining a gain from the Commonwealth, contrary to s 135.1(1) of Schedule 1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ("the Code") and, secondly, dealing with money with a value in excess of $100,000 which is reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime contrary to s 400.9(1) of the Code.
It is alleged that the defendants, as authorised providers under the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), dishonestly submitted claims in respect of services that were not provided. It is alleged that at least $1 million was paid by the Commonwealth in respect of fraudulent claims.
In his affidavit of 20 March 2020, Mr Mathews summarises the information contained in his first affidavit of 11 July 2019 in respect of the four items of property. Annexed to his affidavit of 20 March 2020 is a copy of a valuation report for the Goulburn property which states that the market value is $235,000. The property is unencumbered, was registered to Hilmi and Rifai contributed towards the purchase price of the Goulburn property.
Rifai was the registered owner of the Mercedes E63. It has now been disposed of by the Official Trustee for the sum of $38,750. The net proceeds of sale are currently held by the Official Trustee.
Hilmi was the registered owner of the Porsche Cayenne. Annexed to Mr Mathews affidavit of 20 March 2020 is a valuation suggesting a value of $60,000.
Rifai was the registered owner of the Audi S3 which was also unencumbered. Annexed to Mr Mathews affidavit is a copy of a valuation report suggesting a market value of $11,000.
Other than the defendants, the only person identified as persons who may have potential interest in the property is the first defendant's wife, Susan Rifai. She has been notified of the orders and the intention to seek forfeiture of the property but has not responded in respect of the four properties the subject of orders today, although Mr Cummins informs me that she may be making application in respect of the other properties not the subject of orders today.
Mr Mathews has also made a search of the Justice online registry records and there has been no application under Division 3 of Part 2.1 of the Act.
Having regard to the matters set out in Mr Mathews' affidavits in respect of each of the items of property, I am thus satisfied that each of the items of property is the proceeds of one or more indictable offences (within the meaning of proceeds as set out in s 329 of the Act).
In the circumstances, as required by s 49(1) of the Act, I must make an order that the property is forfeited to the Commonwealth and I make that order.
Further, as required by s 56 of the Act, the Court must specify the amount it considers to be the value of the property at the time the order is made. Having regard to the valuation reports annexed to Mr Mathews' affidavit, I am satisfied that the value of the property is as specified in the short minutes of order.
In the circumstances, I make the orders sought in the short minutes of order as follows:
1. Pursuant to section 49 of the Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 (Cth) (the Act), the property specified in Schedule One be forfeited to the Commonwealth.
2. Pursuant to section 56 of the Act, the value of the property specified in Schedule One is approximately $235,000.00.
3. Pursuant to section 49 of the Act, the property specified in Schedule Two be forfeited to the Commonwealth.
4. Pursuant to section 56 of the Act, the value of the property specified in item 2 of Schedule Two is approximately $60,000.00.
5. Pursuant to section 56 of the Act, the value of the property specified in item 3 of Schedule Two is approximately $11,000.00.
6. Pursuant to section 69(2) of the Act, the Commonwealth, and persons acting on its behalf, are granted leave to dispose or deal with the forfeited property immediately.
7. These orders be entered forthwith.
8. The matter will be listed for directions before the Common Law Registrar at 9:00am on 5 June 2020.
9. Liberty to restore with three days' written notice.
[2]
Schedule One
Real property located at 13 Huxtable Place, Goulburn NSW, being Lot 112 in Deposited Plan 1239189 in the name of Amal Hilmi.
[3]
Schedule Two
1. The net proceeds from the sale of the Mercedes E63 with VIN number WDD2120772A117962 registered in the name of Alaedine Rifai, being the sum of $37,815.94 as at 1 March 2020.
2. Grey 2012 Porsche Cayenne with VIN number WP1ZZZ927DLA72745 registered in the name of Amal Hilmi.
3. Audi S3 with VIN number WAUZZZ8P99A111511N registered in the name of Alaedine Rifai.
[4]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 08 April 2020