Neil Sands
A Christchurch couple who found more than $200,000 cash hidden in the attic of their recently purchased home have agreed with police to split the money, in a case High Court Justice Rob Osborne described as “highly unusual”.
In May 2022, the couple were having electrical work done in the house they had bought six months previously when they found what turned out to be $232,440 in banknotes concealed in insulation in the attic space.
They immediately called police, who took the bundled cash and subsequently applied for its forfeiture to the Crown under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 on the grounds that it was almost certainly the “tainted” proceeds of illicit activity.
The couple, whose identities are suppressed, opposed the application, arguing they had “a possessory interest on the cash which had been found on their property”, which precedent says applies regardless of whether they were aware of its existence.
Both the couple and the police wanted all the money, prompting Osborne to tell than at a hearing last month “that neither party’s ‘100%’ position was sustainable and that the interested parties needed to avail themselves of the court’s discretion under s 66 to grant relief it considers appropriate”.
He revealed in a written decision released on Wednesday that they had thrashed out a deal under which the couple receive $40,000 of the find and the Crown keeps the balance.
‘Wholly innocent citizens’
The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 seeks to deter significant criminal activity by allowing police to seize property that is derived from illicit activity, denying criminals the income they have generated by breaking the law.
The issue with this crime-doesn’t-pay approach was that the couple who found the money had committed not offence and had actually done the right thing by calling police as soon as they made the discovery.
“The highly unusual feature of this case lies in the fact the interested persons are wholly innocent citizens who discovered the cash and handed it to the police,” Osborne said.
“But for their locating the cash in the first place and then handing it in, there would be no cash available to the Crown.”
Osborne said the criminal origins of the money was not in doubt.
“Unsurprisingly, in the course of the hearing, there was no real challenge to the conclusion that the cash constituted tainted property. The focus of submissions was on what orders if any should flow from the fact the cash was tainted,” he said.
In approving the agreement reached between police and the couple, Osborne said that allowing the Crown to keep all the cash would deter anyone who found such a windfall from contacting the authorities.
“There are strong public policy considerations weighing in favour of the approval of the proposed settlement responsibly reached by the parties,” he said.
“It is in the interests of the efficacy of the forfeiture regime under the Act that finders of potentially tainted property bring the property to the attention of the police.
“If this Court were to strip from innocent finders of cash such as these interested parties any prospect of some cash recognition for handing the cash to the authorities, dishonesty could be unintentionally promoted.”
He said that allowing the couple to keep $40,000 would not undermine the aims of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act.
Osborne said his decision should not be read as a precedent determining that 20% of the amount is the correct proportion to grant to the finder in such situations.
He said what it meant was that in this particular case “the settlement has been reached fairly and responsibly and having full regard to the purposes of the Act”.
0 Comments