High Court of Australia

Lordianto v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2019] HCA 39

Kalimuthu v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police

13 Nov 2019

Case Number: S110/2019 P17/2019


Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Gordon, Edelman JJ


Criminal practice – Forfeiture of tainted property – Where appellants remitted money to Australia using money remitters or money changers in foreign country – Where large number of cash deposits, usually each less than $10,000, made into appellants' bank accounts in Australia in process known as "cuckoo smurfing" – Where deposits proceeds or instrument of structuring offence under s 142 of Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) – Where Commissioner of Australian Federal Police successfully applied for restraining orders over appellants' bank accounts under s 19 of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) ("POCA") – Where appellants applied under ss 29 and 31 of POCA to have property excluded from orders – Whether property "ceased" to be proceeds or instrument of offence under s 330(4) of POCA – Whether property acquired by third party for sufficient consideration without third party knowing, and in circumstances that would not arouse reasonable suspicion, that property proceeds or instrument under s 330(4)(a) of POCA.

Words and phrases – "acquisition of property", "cuckoo smurfing", "for sufficient consideration", "in circumstances that would not have aroused a reasonable suspicion", "instrument of a serious offence", "money changers", "money laundering", "money remitters", "proceeds of an indictable offence", "proceeds of crime", "reporting threshold", "structuring offence", "third party", "volunteer".

Anti –Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), ss 5, 142.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) – ss 19, 29, 31, 317, 329, 330, 338.

PDF MD5: df1b2f7e405fd332ca0033dc16b327ea
RTF MD5: 76eced9c876bcd1808a8062f2452c6f6