New South Wales Crime Commission v Mohamed Kabbout

Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – criminal assets recovery – delay – order for examination of third parties regarding defendant's property

Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56(1)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 193C(1), 193C(2)
Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), ss 4(1), 10A, 12(1)(b)(ii), 28A, 28B(2), 28B(5)

Cases Cited: Lee v NSW Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196; [2013] HCA 39
New South Wales Crime Commission v Hung Sun Choi (2012) 222 A Crim R 62; [2012] NSWSC 658

Category: Procedural rulings

Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
Mohamed Kabbout (Defendant)

Representation: Counsel:
P English (Plaintiff)
P Singleton (Defendant)
Solicitors:
New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
Gregory Goold Solicitors (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/00361585

Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff moves on a Notice of Motion filed on 3 October 2025 seeking orders pursuant to s 12(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) (“the CAR Act”) that Matthew Thomas and Matthew Meaton be examined on oath before a Registrar of the Court concerning the affairs of the defendant, including the nature and location of any property in which the defendant has an interest.

2. In support of the application, the plaintiff reads the affidavits of Warwick Oliver affirmed on 2 October 2025 and 14 November 2025 and relies on exhibit WO-2.

3. The defendant opposes the application. The defendant reads the affidavit of Matthew Thomas affirmed on 6 November 2025, the affidavit of Matthew Meaton affirmed on 6 November 2025, and the affidavit of Julie Nguyen affirmed on 7 November 2025.

4. The application came before me as the Duty Judge on 4 December 2025. Mr Oliver was required for cross-examination. At the conclusion of the evidence, submissions were made by the parties. The matter was stood in the list to give the parties an opportunity to discuss the possibility of consent orders in relation to a timetable to progress the substantive proceedings.

Procedural history

5. These proceedings were commenced by summons filed on 21 December 2021. At the time that the proceedings were commenced the defendant had not yet been charged with the related criminal matters. The defendant was arrested on 30 December 2021.

6. A restraining order was made in relation to the defendant’s interest in property specified in Schedules One, Two, Three, Four, Five and Six of the summons. On 21 December 2021, the Court also made orders that the defendant be examined on oath before a Registrar of the Court concerning his affairs including the nature and location of any property in which he has an interest. In addition, compulsory examination orders were made in respect of Ashurina Pulis (“Pulis”) and Wissam Hamzeh (“Hamzeh”).

7. On 25 November 2024, Mr Oliver communicated with Detective Sergeant Jesse Porter (“DS Porter”) requesting a copy of the police facts sheet relating to the defendant. On 26 November 2024, Mr Oliver received two police fact sheets in relation to the defendant and further information from DS Porter.

8. On 21 July 2025, Mr Oliver received confirmation from DS Porter that the defendant had been convicted in relation to offences of deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime ($250,000), contrary to s 193C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“Crimes Act”) and deal with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime ($90,000), contrary to s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act.

9. On 2 October 2025, a copy of the Statement of Agreed Facts tendered in the sentence proceedings was received. The Agreed Facts state that the defendant owned a number of companies, including Skyworkers Group Pty Ltd (“Skyworkers Group”).

10. Hamzeh was examined pursuant to the examination orders on 19 to 20 October 2023 and 10 November 2023. Pullis was examined pursuant to the examination orders on 17 October 2023 and 20 November 2023.

11. In addition to this brief summary of the procedural history, it is appropriate to reproduce the chronology table contained in the affidavit of Warwick Oliver, affirmed on 14 November 2025, given the relevance of delay in these proceedings:

| DATE | EVENT | | 21 December 2021 | Commission's Summons commencing proceedings filed and orders made ex parte. | | 4 April 2022 | Commission's Summons listed for first return. The Defendant was unrepresented and the proceedings were adjourned at the Commission's request to 11 July 2022 to allow the Commission time to progress its financial investigations and to allow the Defendant time to deal with his criminal matter, which was ongoing. | | 11 July 2022 | Commission's Summons listed for Further Mention. No appearance for the Defendant. The proceedings were adjourned at the Commission's request to 17 October 2022 to allow the Commission time to further its financial investigations and to allow the Defendant time to deal with his criminal matter. | | 17 October 2022 | Commission's Summons listed for Further Mention. No appearance for the Defendant. The proceedings were adjourned at the Commission's request to 27 February 2023 to allow the Commission time to further its financial investigations and to allow the Defendant time to deal with his criminal matter. | | 27 February 2023 | Commission's Summons listed for Further Mention. The proceedings were adjourned to 22 May 2023 with the consent of the Defendant's legal representative to allow the parties to engage in settlement discussions. | | 6 March 2023 | Defendant files Notice of Motion seeking variation to Restraining Order – listed on 22 March 2023. | | 22 March 2023 | Defendant's Motion listed for first return. Adjourned to 5 April 2023 with the consent of the Defendant's legal representative to allow the parties to engage in settlement discussions. | | 22 March 2023 | Parties engage in without prejudice settlement meeting. | | 5 April 2023 | Defendant's Motion listed for Further Mention. Defendant's Motion adjourned to 26 April 2023 with the consent of the Defendant's legal representative to allow the parties to engage in settlement discussions. | | 5 April 2023 | Parties engage in without prejudice settlement meeting. | | 26 April 2023 | Defendant's Motion listed for Further Mention. Defendant's Motion further adjourned to 17 May 2023. | | 17 May 2023 | Defendant's Motion listed for Further Mention. Defendant's Motion further adjourned to 14 June 2023. | | 22 May 2023 | Commission's Summons listed for Further Mention. No appearance for the Defendant. Proceedings were adjourned to 28 August 2023 at the Commission's request noting that the Defendant's criminal proceedings were ongoing, and the parties were engaged in ongoing settlement discussions with respect to the Defendant's Notice of Motion. | | 23 May 2023 | Parties engage in without prejudice settlement meeting. | | 14 June 2023 | Defendant's Motion listed for Further Mention. Defendant's Motion further adjourned to 12 July 2023 with the consent of the Defendant's legal representative. | | 26 July 2023 | Defendant's Motion listed for Further Mention. Motion further adjourned to marry up with the next listing of the Commission's Summons on 28 August 2023 with the consent of the Defendant's legal representative on the basis that the Commission had not yet been served with the documents relied upon by the Defendant in support of his Motion. | | 28 August 2023 | Defendant's Motion and Commission's Summons listed for Further Mention. Motion was further adjourned to 16 October 2023. The adjournment was granted on the basis that the Defendant's representative sought an extension to file evidence in support of the Motion, and to allow the Commission time to file its evidence in reply. The Commission's Summons was adjourned to 27 November 2023 with the consent of the Defendant's legal representative. | | 15 September 2023 | Commission served with an incomplete affidavit of Wissam Hamzeh ("Hamzeh affidavit") sought to be relied upon in support of the Defendant's Motion. The Commission was not served with exhibits "WH1", "WH2" or "WHT" referenced in the Hamzeh affidavit | | 19 September 2023 | Commission sends correspondence to Defendant's legal representative requesting service of exhibits to Hamzeh affidavit – no response | | 21 September 2023 | Commission sends correspondence to Defendant's legal representative requesting service of exhibits to Hamzeh affidavit – no response. | | 28 September 2023 | Commission sends correspondence to Defendant's legal representative requesting service of exhibits to Hamzeh affidavit – no response. | | 5 October 2023 | Commission served with an affidavit comprising 185 pages affirmed by Bachir Zreika sought to be relied upon in support of the Defendant's Motion. | | 16 October 2023 | Defendant's Motion listed for Further Mention. Further timetabling orders made with the consent of the Defendant's representative noting the delayed service of the Defendant's evidence on the Motion which had impacted the Commission's ability to file evidence in reply. The Defendant was directed to serve all exhibits on the Commission and provide particulars as to the legal basis for the relief sought in the Defendant's Motion by 17 October 2023. The Commission was directed to file and serve any evidence in reply on the Motion by 14 November 2023 and the Motion and Commission's Summons were adjourned to 20 November 2023 for Mention, with orders made vacating the listing on 27 November 2023. | | 13 September 2023 | Examination of Pulis fixed for 17 October 2023 and examination of Hamzeh fixed for 19 October 2023. | | 17 October 2023 | Examination hearing – Pulis. Examination of Pulis adjourned generally at the conclusion of the examination. | | 19-20 October 2023 | Examination hearing – Hamzeh. Examination of Hamzeh adjourned to 10 November 2023. | | 10 November 2023 | Further examination hearing – Hamzeh. Examination of Hamzeh adjourned generally at the conclusion of the examination | | 20 November 2023 | Further examination hearing – Pulis. Examination of Pulis adjourned generally at the conclusion of the examination. | | 20 November 2023 | Defendant's Motion listed for Further Mention. Extension to allow the Commission to file its evidence in reply to the Motion by 1 December 2023 made at the Commission's request noting that further examinations had recently been conducted and the Commission required time to properly consider the evidence given at those examinations. Motion listed for Hearing on 4 December 2023 and the Commission's Summons adjourned to 11 March 2024. | | 22 November 2023 | Hearing of the Defendant's Motion on 5 December 2023 vacated and timetabling orders varied to allow the Commission to file and serve its evidence in reply to the Defendant's Motion by 27 November 2023. The Defendant's Motion and the matter generally re listed for Directions on 11 December 2023. | | 11 December 2023 | Defendant's Motion and Commission's Summons listed for Further Mention. Motion and Commission's Summons adjourned at the Defendant's request, with the consent of the Commission, to 29 January 2024 to allow time for the Defendant's Forensic Accountant to prepare material | | 29 January 2024 | Defendant's Motion and Commission's Summons listed for Further Mention. Defendant's Motion withdrawn with the consent of the Plaintiff, with an order that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff's costs. The Commission's Summons was adjourned to 30 September 2024 to allow the parties to engage in further discussions and to allow the Defendant to deal with his criminal proceedings, which were ongoing. | | 20 March 2024 | Parties engage in without prejudice settlement meeting. | | 16 May 2024 | Parties engage in without prejudice settlement meeting. | | 30 September 2024 | Commission's Summons listed for Further Mention. Proceedings adjourned with the consent of the Defendant's legal representative to 24 March 2025 to allow the Defendant to deal with his criminal proceedings, which were ongoing. | | 17 October 2024 | Parties engage in without prejudice settlement meeting. | | 24 March 2025 | Commission's Summons listed for Further Mention. Proceedings adjourned with the consent of the Defendant's legal representative to 22 September 2025 to allow the Defendant to deal with his criminal proceedings, which were listed for Hearing on 4 August 2025 and obtain an expert report. The Commission also sought to further its financial investigations during the intervening period. | | 19 May 2025 | Parties engage in without prejudice settlement meeting. | | 14 July 2025 | Commission issues correspondence marked "without prejudice" to the Defendant's legal representative setting out a settlement offer. | | 18 July 2025 | Defendant enters pleas of guilty to Counts 2 and 6 on the Indictment (being offences of 'deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime ($250,000)' contrary to s 193C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and 'deal with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime ($90,000) contrary to s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act), with the other charges withdrawn. Criminal matters adjourned to 6 November 2025 for sentence. | | 13 August 2025 | Commission receives correspondence from the Defendant's legal representative marked "without prejudice" rejecting the settlement offer proposed in the Commission's correspondence of 14 July 2025 and setting out a counter offer. | | 3 September 2025 | Commission contacts Ms Nguyen inviting the Defendant's legal representative to attend a further settlement conference in respect of the matter. Settlement conference initially arranged for 26 September 2025. | | 16 September 2025 | Commission informs Ms Nguyen that the settlement conference would need to be rescheduled owing to the unavailability of the Commission's delegated negotiator and an alternative date of 6 October 2025 is proposed. The Commission also seeks the Defendant's position with respect to the proposed adjournment of the Commission's Summons for a period of three months. | | 19 September 2025 | Ms Nguyen emails the Commission confirming that the date of 6 October 2025 is suitable for the settlement conference and providing proposed consent orders to be sought at the listing of the Commission's Summons on 22 September 2025, which inter alia propose that the Commission file and serve an amended notice pursuant to r. 1.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 and its evidence for the purposes of section 28B(5) of the Act, and that the Commission's Summons be listed for further directions on 20 October 2025. The Commission responds to Ms Nguyen advising that the Commission did not consent to the proposed orders and informing Ms Nguyen that in the event the matter was not resolved following settlement discussions, it intended to conduct further examinations of certain persons and move the Court for examination orders in respect of other persons, including Thomas and Meaton. | | 22 September 2025 | Commission's Summons listed for Further Mention. Commission seeks an adjournment of the proceedings for three months to enable the parties to engage in further settlement discussions noting that in the event the matter is not resolved, the Commission intends to seek orders for further examination. The adjournment is opposed by the Defendant's counsel and the proposed orders sent to the Commission by Ms Nguyen are handed up. The Commission resists the orders noting that the parties intended to engage in settlement discussions and, pending the outcome of those discussions, further examinations may need to take place, including the examination of the Defendant, noting that the examination of the Defendant had not been able to proceed whilst his criminal proceedings were on foot. Orders made inter alia requiring the Commission to seek any further examination orders by 3 October 2025 and adjourned the Commission's Summons for Directions on 20 October 2025. | | 3 October 2025 | Commission's Notice of Motion seeking examination orders in respect of Meaton and Thomas filed. Listed for first return on 4 November 2025. | | 7 October 2025 | Parties engage in without prejudice settlement meeting. | | 20 October 2025 | Commission's Summons listed for Further Mention. Orders made by consent inter alia vacating the listing of the Commission's Notice of Motion on 4 November 2024 and re listing the Commission's Motion on 10 November 2025, together with the Commission's Summons. | | 10 November 2025 | Commission's Notice of Motion and Summons listed for Further Mention. Orders made with the consent of the parties: (1) By 14 November 2025, the Commission is to file and serve any further evidence in respect of its notice of motion filed on 3 October 2025. (2) By 21 November 2025, the defendant is to file and serve any further evidence in respect of the said notice of motion. (3) By 28 November 2025, both parties are to file and serve submission regarding the said notice of motion. (4) The said notice of motion is listed for hearing on 4 December 2025. (5) The parties have liberty to apply to restore the matter to the registrar's list on three days' notice. |

Grounds for Mr Oliver’s belief

12. Mr Oliver is an “authorised officer", as defined in s 4(1) of the CAR Act, for the purposes of s 10A and Pt 4 of the CAR Act.

13. Mr Oliver deposes that he believes that Mr Thomas and Mr Meaton have knowledge of the affairs of the defendant, including the nature, location, background, and origin of property in which the defendant has an interest. Mr Oliver also believes that Mr Thomas and Mr Meaton will be able to provide information and/or evidence about cash payments to staff which were the subject of the criminal charges against the defendant and may have knowledge of the defendant’s involvement in the offences for which he has been sentenced.

14. Mr Oliver’s belief is held on the basis of evidence relating to meetings and discussions between the defendant, Mr Thomas, and Mr Meaton regarding payment of employees’ wages using cash. This evidence seems to relate to conversations and meetings in 2021.

15. Furthermore, Mr Oliver relies upon the transcript of the examination hearing conducted on 19 October 2023 in relation to Hamzeh, during which Hamzeh identified that Mr Meaton was the operations and/or general manager within Skyworkers Group and made decisions in relation to the payment of employee wages. Mr Thomas was the bookkeeper of Skyworkers Group and monitored the hours worked on job sites and determined how much employees were paid each week.

16. Mr Oliver relies on the transcript of the examination of Hamzeh in relation to the following additional matters:

(i) Mr Meaton was heavily involved in the running of Skyworkers Group. (ii) Mr Thomas was involved in organising payment of workers. (iii) Mr Thomas recorded the weekly wages for employees and held records relating to the payment of employees. (iv) Mr Thomas kept records of cash payments paid to workers and management. (v) Mr Thomas engaged in discussions with other persons in relation to the payment of wages in cash. (vi) Messrs Thomas and Meaton may have knowledge of occasions during which the defendant counted cash in the office. (vii) Mr Meaton informed Hamzeh that payments to workers comprised cash payments as well as wages documented “on the books”. (viii) Mr Thomas was involved in distributing cash payments to be paid to workers. (ix) Mr Thomas provided spreadsheets in relation to wage payments.

The parties’ positions

17. The defendant does not oppose the application on the grounds that Messrs Thomas and Meaton could not give relevant evidence about the defendant’s affairs, including the nature and location of any property in which he has an interest. Instead, the defendant resists the examination of Messrs Thomas and Meaton on the basis of delay.

18. The defendant accepts that the plaintiff was entitled to commence proceedings before completing its investigations and on the basis that its case would be framed after a reasonable period had passed. However, the defendant submits that this does not mean that the Commission may investigate endlessly for years or fail to investigate diligently.

19. Absent some justification for a contrary conclusion, the defendant contends that four years is unreasonable and undue delay. Granting the plaintiff’s application will cause further delay. The defendant submits that he is entitled to finality.

20. The plaintiff relies upon the explanation provided in the affidavits of Mr Oliver to explain the delay in applying to examine Messrs Thomas and Meaton. Essentially, the plaintiff refrained from applying to carry out these examinations given an expectation that they may have been unnecessary in the event that the proceedings against the defendant settled. The plaintiff relies upon the chronology, submitting that the proceedings have been adjourned on five occasions to allow for settlement discussions to take place between the parties. The parties have engaged in eight settlement conferences. Furthermore, the proceedings have been adjourned on six occasions to permit the defendant to deal with his criminal proceedings.

21. Furthermore, the plaintiff points out that the defendant is yet to be examined, an order for his examination having been made by Justice Cavanagh on 21 December 2021. It is also the intention of the Commission to further examine Mr Hamzeh. In those circumstances, there will be a further delay, in any case, before the plaintiff can file its evidence.

Legal principles

22. While the making of orders under s 12 of the CAR Act is discretionary, the discretion must be exercised having regard to the objects of the Act: New South Wales Crime Commission v Hung Sun Choi (2012) 222 A Crim R 62; [2012] NSWSC 658 at [55].

23. Section 12(1) of the CAR Act is “designed to achieve in part the last of the identified principal objects of the CAR Act – to enable law enforcement authorities effectively to identify and recover property under the Act. That object, of its nature, is ancillary to the other identified principal objects of the CAR Act”: Lee v N**SW Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196; [2013] HCA 39 at [282].

24. The Court’s power to make such orders is not displaced but rather is guided by the “overriding purpose” of “facilitating the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings”: s 56(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (“the CPA”).

Consideration

25. The final relief sought by the plaintiff includes an unexplained wealth order pursuant to s 28A of the CAR Act. For present purposes I proceed on the basis that the necessary circumstances exist for the making of such an order. The real issue in the substantive proceedings will be to quantify the order.

26. Subsection 28B provides:

28B Assessment for unexplained wealth order—unexplained wealth

…

(2) The Supreme Court must assess the unexplained wealth of the person as the whole or any part of the current or previous wealth of the person that the Supreme Court is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities is not or was not—

(a) illegally acquired property, or

(b) the proceeds of an illegal activity.

…

27. Subsection 28B(5) relevantly provides, “[i]n assessing the unexplained wealth of a person, the Supreme Court is not required to consider any current or previous wealth of which the Commission has not provided evidence.

28. The orthodox approach is for the plaintiff to file evidence for the purposes of s 28B(5), then for the defendant to file evidence to show (if he can) that the wealth in question was neither illegally acquired nor is the proceeds of illegal activity.

29. I have already set out the chronology of the proceedings. The plaintiff did not seek examination orders in respect of Messrs Thomas and Meaton before October 2025. At the time the proceedings were commenced on 21 December 2021, the defendant had not yet been charged, and the Commission did not hold information to suggest that Messrs Thomas and Meaton may have information concerning the affairs of the defendant and accordingly did not seek examination orders in respect of them

30. The plaintiff did, however, hold information in 2021 (from transcripts of listening and surveillance device recordings obtained during the Commission’s investigation in relation to the defendant) as to the involvement of Messrs Meaton and Thomas in the payment of employee wages using cash (a matter relied upon as a basis for the belief that they have knowledge of the affairs of the defendant including the nature, location, background and origin of property in which the defendant has an interest).

31. The plaintiff did hold further information in 2023 (by way of the transcript of the examination hearing conducted on 19 October 2023 in relation to Hamzeh) of the role played by Messrs Thomas and Meaton in the operations of Skyworkers Group, being information relied upon as a further basis for Mr Oliver’s belief.

32. Mr Oliver conceded in cross-examination that the Commission was certainly aware, by mid-2022, that Messrs Thomas and Meaton could provide relevant information.

33. The plaintiff could have made an application for examination orders in 2022 or 2023 and would certainly have had a sufficient basis for such orders to be made. The question then arises in respect of the delay between mid-2022 and the present (November 2025) and the failure in that period to make the application for the orders sought today.

34. In respect of that delay, the plaintiff’s explanation is that there was an expectation that examination orders may have been unnecessary because of the settlement discussions that were taking place between the parties.

35. The settlement discussions between the parties are an insufficient basis for the delay (by a period of over three years) on the part of the plaintiff in applying to examine Messrs Thomas and Meaton. A defendant is entitled to an efficient and timely progress of proceedings to determine whether his/her assets should be released from restraint.

36. It became clear during the hearing that the Commission could have made an application for the compulsory examination of Messrs Thomas and Meaton in 2022/2023 but failed to do so.

37. The delay in making the application and any prejudice occasioned to the defendant is only one matter to which I have had consideration. In this case, while I have some concern about the delay in making the application for compulsory examination of Messrs Thomas and Meaton, I am minded to make the orders sought by the plaintiff. I have decided to do so because during the hearing, I indicated that a timetable in relation to the progress of the substantive proceedings is necessary to ensure that the Commission conduct the outstanding examinations as soon as possible, file its evidence expeditiously and ensure that the substantive proceedings are resolved in a timely fashion.

38. The parties have placed before me an agreed timetable to progress the proceedings. In those circumstances I am satisfied that the application be granted.

39. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

40. Pursuant to s 12(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), Matthew Thomas be examined before a Registrar on oath concerning the affairs of Mohamed Kabbout, including the nature and location of any property in which Mohamed Kabbout has an interest.

41. Pursuant to s 12(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), Matthew Meaton be examined before a Registrar on oath concerning the affairs of Mohamed Kabbout, including the nature and location of any property in which Mohamed Kabbout has an interest.

42. Leave is granted to the plaintiff to obtain from the Registry dates for the examinations ordered at 1 and 2 above.

43. The examinations ordered at 1 and 2 above must be completed by 13 February 2026.

44. The examination of Wissam Hamzeh ordered on 21 December 2021 must be completed by 13 February 2026.

45. The examination of the defendant, Mohamed Kabbout, ordered on 21 December 2021 must be completed by 24 March 2026.

46. A daily transcript be made available of the examinations of the persons referred to in orders 1, 2, 5 and 6 above.

47. The Commission's evidence in support of the final relief sought in the summons shall be filed and served by 24 April 2026.

48. An amended statement pursuant to r. 1.6 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) shall be filed and served by 24 April 2026.

49. The proceedings are stood over for directions on 4 May 2026.

50. Costs reserved.

**********