The Supreme Court has ruled that new evidence challenging the confiscation of alleged criminal assets must be heard in the interests of justice.
The appeal arose from orders secured by the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) against Routeback Media AB and its director Harry Zeman, concerning over $650,000 frozen and ultimately confiscated as suspected proceeds of online fraud. The High Court and Court of Appeal previously upheld the orders, rejecting attempts to introduce fresh evidence and limiting the scope for cross-examination.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Peter Charleton, the Court held that the legislation must be interpreted to safeguard against injustice, particularly where new, credible evidence emerges after the initial orders have been made. The Court stressed that the Act’s purpose - to deprive criminals of illicit gains - must be balanced with the right to a fair process and the avoidance of wrongful deprivation of property.
Importantly, the Court recognised the broader constitutional interest in ensuring that State powers to seize property are exercised with procedural rigour. It found that section 4 of the Act, which allows for final disposal of assets after seven years, does not foreclose the possibility of a respondent producing new evidence to show that the property did not originate from criminal activity.
The Court also clarified the limits of cross-examination in such proceedings, noting that while respondents have a right to test CAB’s belief evidence under section 8, that right must be exercised appropriately and at the correct stage of proceedings.
The case has been remitted to the High Court for a limited hearing on the new evidence.