//
[2025] NSWSC 1141
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-09-30
Elkaim AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: 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 Pahwa [2025] NSWSC 1141
Hearing dates: 30 September 2025
Date of orders: 30 September 2025
Decision date: 30 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Elkaim AJ
Decision: 1. In the notice of motion filed by the plaintiff on 22 August 2024: Orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 against the third, fourth and fifth defendants as applicable respectively.
2. In the amended notice of motion filed by the plaintiff on 18 September 2025: Orders 12, 13 and 14 against the third, fourth and fifth defendants as applicable respectively.
3. The third, fourth and fifth defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings against them.
Catchwords: CRIME — Confiscations — Forfeiture order — Property derived from serious crime — Property held by third party companies — Order made under s 22(2) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW)
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Judgment for plaintiff — No defence — Where defendants have not participated in proceedings since being joined in 2019 — Summary judgment entered under r 13.1 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Service — Substituted service — Whether document cannot practicably be served — Where company directors, secretaries and shareholders are either offshore or cannot be located — Substituted service granted under r 10.14(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Legislation Cited: Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), ss 6, 7, 9, 22
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 10.14, 13.1
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
Alpha Protective Group Management Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)
Secure Your Asset Group Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant)
AKP Import Export Group Pty Ltd (Fifth Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
(Plaintiff) D Tynan
Solicitors:
New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
File Number(s): 2019/217190
Publication restriction: No
These reasons relate to a notice of motion filed by the plaintiff on 22 August 2024, and an amended notice of motion filed on 18 September 2025. The motions are primarily supported by affidavits of Mr Nigel Robinson dated 21 August 2024 and 17 September 2025. The affidavits and the attached exhibits are contained within the Court Book which I marked as Exhibit A. Mr Robinson is a Senior Forensic Accountant employed by the plaintiff.
It is important to note that the only orders pressed in the amended notice of motion are orders 12 to 14 in respect of substituted service. This point is important because the original intention of the plaintiff was to rely entirely on the amended notice of motion, but this might have created a limitation problem arising from s 22(2) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW). It was thought preferable to proceed as set out in the previous paragraph in case the primary orders sought in the amended notice of motion would have contravened the six year period mentioned in s 22(2).
The orders sought in the motion concern asset forfeiture orders under s 22. There are five defendants, the first two being individuals and the remaining three are limited corporations. The proceedings against the first and second defendants have been finalised, and they no longer play a part in the proceedings, although the substituted service orders sought against the third, fourth and fifth defendants do rely on service on the first defendant.
The scheme of the motion is that orders 1, 2 and 3 relate to asset forfeiture orders against the third fourth and fifth defendants. Orders 4, 5 and 6 seek summary judgment against the same three defendants. Orders 7 and 8 are effectively a safety net to allow the defendants to approach the court to set aside the forfeiture orders and/or the orders for summary judgment. Orders 9, 10 and 11 were not pressed.
As noted above, orders for substituted service arise under the amended notice of motion and are included in the requested orders 12, 13 and 14.
As a general statement the forfeiture orders sought arise from the criminal activity of Mr Gagandeep Pahwa, in particular relating to money laundering and the illegal obtaining of financial benefits. Mr Pahwa was convicted of a number of offences on 22 October 2021 in the District Court at Parramatta.
Returning to s 22, the orders are sought in respect of an interest in property (the specified bank accounts) which fall under s 22(1A)(b). The authorised officer is Mr Robinson, and his suspicion is expressed in his affidavits. The property is derived from serious crime as defined in s 6. Sections 6(1)(c) and ss (d) and (g)(iii) of the definition of serious criminal offence are relevant to Mr Pahwa’s offences. The bank accounts, and their contents, fall within the relevant definitions in ss 7 and 9.
The third, fourth and fifth defendants are appropriately targeted because of their use by Mr Pahwa for his criminal activities. In his witness statement dated 17 November 2020, Mr Pahwa, adopting the summary in the plaintiff’s written submissions, stated:
“a. he used Binod Acharya’s name to register two companies, including Alpha Protective;
b. he used Arjun Kumar Pun’s name to open several companies using an online service, including AKP, Secure Your Asset and Alpha Protective;
c. he agreed to start paying Binod Acharya $2,500.00 a week for using his name and for brining [sic] Arjun Kumar Pun to him to do the same;
d. he started paying Arjun $2,000.00 a week once he had opened up all the bank accounts for the companies in his name;
e. any invoices he created and sent through to people like [redacted] under the other companies were fake and for the purposes of the tax evasion scam or for money laundering. The companies he used mostly for the fake invoicing included Alpha Protective, AKP and Secure Your Asset and others.”
“I think you have some misunderstanding, this has nothing to do with me. I’m not able to help in this matter as well.”
Mr Pahwa’s answer is to some extent understandable. He has been convicted and punished and has left the country and has resolved his issues with the plaintiff. The importance of his response however is that there is a response at all, and he is the only connection to the third, fourth and fifth defendants.
Mr Binod Acharya is the sole director, secretary and shareholder of Alpha Protective Group Management Pty Ltd (the third defendant). He has not been in Australia since May 2019, and his current whereabouts are unknown.
Mr Arjun Kumar Pun is the sole director, secretary and shareholder of Secure Your Asset Group Pty Ltd (the fourth defendant), and of AKP Import Export Group Pty Ltd (the fifth defendant). Mr Pun is apparently in Australia, but all efforts to locate him have failed.
Returning to the forfeiture orders, I think the necessary requirements have been established leading to the compulsory obligation to make the requested orders as dictated by s 22(2).
Turning now to the orders for summary judgment, it is first of all important to observe that despite previous orders for substituted service and freezing orders none of the third, fourth or fifth defendants have ever filed an appearance or made any communication indicating an intention to resist orders against them.
Summary judgment under r 13.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) is available where there is evidence of the facts on which the claim is based, and there is evidence from a responsible person expressing the belief that there is no defence to the claim. The affidavits of Mr Robinson cover both of these requirements, in respect of the latter requirement, Mr Robinson states in his affidavit of 21 August 2024:
“I believe Alpha Group, Secure Group and AKP Group have no defence to the claims of the Plaintiff for the assets forfeiture orders.”
Summary judgment is not easily granted. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the requirements have been met, an attitude which is enforced by the many years of no interest being displayed in the proceedings by the relevant defendants. The third, fourth and fifth defendants were joined to the proceedings in July 2019. They have not been heard from since.
It is also important to note the safety net provided by orders 7 and 8 in case the defendants wish to challenge any of the orders against them.
Finally, in respect of substituted service, it is permitted pursuant to r 10.14(1). The evidence provided by Mr Robinson establishes that service cannot practically be effected on the defendants, leaving Mr Pahwa as the only available avenue for service.
I make the following orders:
In the notice of motion filed by the plaintiff on 22 August 2024: Orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 against the third, fourth and fifth defendants as applicable respectively.
In the amended notice of motion filed by the plaintiff on 18 September 2025: Orders 12, 13 and 14 against the third, fourth and fifth defendants as applicable respectively.
The third, fourth and fifth defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings against them.
**********
New South Wales Crime Commission
Pahwa [2025] NSWSC 1141