//
[2025] NSWSC 1399
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-11-25
Ierace J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Han [2025] NSWSC 1399
Hearing dates: 25 November 2025
Decision date: 25 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision: Forfeiture order made
Catchwords: CRIME — Confiscations — Forfeiture order — Where order not opposed — Where order sought over two sums of cash totalling approximately $555,550 — Where defendant suspected of having engaged in a serious crime related activity or serious crime related activities — Where seized property is serious crime use property
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 193C, 193C(1), 193C(2)
Crimes Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), ss 4(1), 6, 6(1), 6(2), 9B, 10A, 10B(2), 22
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
Justin Han (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
M Pruscino (Plaintiff)
Self-represented (Defendant)
Solicitors:
New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
File Number(s): 2023/77258
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.
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.
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.
“22 Making of assets forfeiture order
(1) The Commission may apply to the Supreme Court for an order forfeiting to, and vesting in, the Crown specified interests, a specified class of interests or all the interests, in property of a person (an assets forfeiture order).
(1A) The application must specify that the interest in property is an interest in property of any one or more of the following kinds--
(a) an interest in property of a person suspected by an authorised officer, at the time of the application, of having engaged in a serious crime related activity or serious crime related activities,
…
(d) an interest in property suspected by an authorised officer, at the time of the application, of being--
(i) an available interest relating to serious crime use property …
(2) The Supreme Court must make an assets forfeiture order in respect of an interest in property referred to in subsection (1A) (a) or (b) if the Court finds it to be more probable than not that the person whose suspected serious crime related activity, or serious crime related activities, formed the basis of the application for the assets forfeiture order was, at any time not more than 6 years before the making of the application, engaged in--
(a) …
(b) a serious crime related activity involving an offence punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more.
(2A) The Supreme Court must make an assets forfeiture order if the Court finds it more probable than not that interests in property subject to an application are fraudulently acquired property that is also illegally acquired property.
(2B) The Supreme Court must make an assets forfeiture order in respect of an interest in property if the Court finds it more probable than not that the interest is an available interest relating to serious crime use property.
(3) A finding of the Court for the purposes of subsection (2) need not be based on a finding as to the commission of a particular offence or a finding as to any particular quantity involved, and can be based--
(a) on a finding that some offence or other constituting a serious crime related activity and punishable by imprisonment for 5 years or more was committed, or
…
(3A) A finding of the Supreme Court for the purposes of subsection (2A) need not be based on a particular finding as to the commission of a particular offence and can be based on a finding that some offence or other constituting illegal activity was committed.
(4) When an assets forfeiture order is made it must be made so as to apply to specified interests in property …”
“… anything done by the person that was at the time a serious criminal offence, whether or not the person has been charged with the offence or, if charged—
(a) has been tried, or
(b) has been tried and acquitted, or
(c) has been convicted (even if the conviction has been quashed or set aside)”
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.
The meaning of “serious crime use property” and “available interest relating to serious crime use property” are provided for by s 9B:
“9B Meaning of **‘**serious crime use property’ and ‘available interest relating to serious crime use property’
(1) In this Act, a reference to serious crime use property is a reference to property that was used in, or in connection with, a serious crime related activity.
(2) In this Act, an interest in property is an available interest relating to serious crime use property if:
(a) the interest is an interest of a person who has engaged in serious crime related activity (the offender), and
(b) the offender’s activity resulted in the property, or any other property, becoming serious crime use property for the purposes of this Act, and
(c) the property is either the serious crime use property or, if that property is not available for forfeiture as referred to in subsection (3), any other property that is the subject of a substituted serious crime use property declaration.
(3) Serious crime use property is not available for forfeiture if--
(a) the offender does not own, and does not have effective control of, the property, or
(b) the property has been sold or otherwise disposed of or cannot be found for any other reason.”
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.
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).
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.
Having regard to that material, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the orders sought.
**********
Typographical error on coversheet
New South Wales Crime Commission
Han [2025] NSWSC 1399