Each Australian state has laws intended to strip criminals of rewards gained from their criminal activities. It is not unusual to see expensive cars, jewellery and all the " toys for the boys " associated with a rich lifestyle confiscated by the state when a leading drug dealer is convicted and sent to gaol.
It seems that ever hungry state treasuries are seeking to expand the reach of this acquisition law way beyond the intended targets - and this has been nipped in the bud by a Victorian appeals court.
Judy Moran was the matriach of a leading Melbourne crime family and she was recently convicted of having a hand in the murder of her brother in law, Des Moran. The Director of Public Prosecutions ( DPP ) launched a court action to seize the proceeds from the sale of Judy Moran's family home, sold for $ 1.07 million - on the basis that it was " used in a crime ".
They lost this action in the Supreme court, had a second bite at the cherry in the Court of Appeal - and lost again. It was drawing a very long bow to claim that the murder over a family falling out constituted a crime which somehow involved the family home of one of the participants being the " proceeds of that crime ".
Both the Supreme court and the Court of Appeal declined to see a connection that would establish the family home of many years as the " proceeds of the crime of murder " - and that was exactly what the DPP was proposing.
The law is a constantly changing interpretation of it's original intention. Barristers submit arguments on how they think the law should be applied in certain different circumstances, and judges decide and rule on each of those submissions. In many cases, a superior court examines this new finding and either gives it the nod - or strikes it down.
Had this extension of recognising assets not directly associated with criminal activity in gaining them as legal targets for seizure by the crown, we would have opened up a brand new revenue stream. The DPP could have gone after any and all assets of any individual convicted of a crime by using this new interpretation of the " proceeds of crime " law.,
No comments:
Post a Comment