Under s 22(a)(i) of the Confiscation Act 1997 (Vic), 'lawfully acquired' is not confined to the lawfulness of the immediate transaction of acquisition but necessarily involves consideration of the source of funds used to acquire the property. An applicant for an exclusion order who cannot adduce credible evidence as to the lawful source of funds used to acquire property will fail to satisfy s 22(a)(i). The amendments to s 22(a)(ii) in 2004 (substituting 'tainted property') did not narrow the meaning of 'lawfully acquired' in s 22(a)(i). The interaction between the money laundering provisions in Division 2A of the Crimes Act 1958 and the construction of 'lawfully acquired' was raised but not decided.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 22 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 22 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.