Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Courtenay Investments Ltd

(2016) 117 ACSR 301; [2016] WASCA 194

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Proceeds of crime
3. › Forfeiture orders
4. › Instrument of serious offence
5. › Whether offence intended to cause benefit of at least $10,000
6. › Whether non-disclosure of interest in shares intended to affect voting outcome
7. › Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), ss 49, 329, 330, 338
1. Appeal
2. › New arguments on appeal
3. › Whether appellant permitted to advance case not put at first instance
4. › Prejudice to respondent
5. › No explanation for failure to advance case below
6. › Coulton v Holcombe applied
1. Criminal Law
2. › Proceeds of crime
3. › Forfeiture orders
4. › Causation
5. › Meaning of 'cause' in definition of serious offence
6. › Whether criminal or civil law test of causation applies
7. › Proceedings declared civil not criminal
8. › Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), ss 315, 338
1. Evidence
2. › Jones v Dunkel
3. › Failure to call witnesses
4. › Whether inference open on the evidence as distinct from whether inference should be drawn

Quick Take

The word 'cause' in the definition of 'serious offence' in s 338 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) bears its ordinary legal meaning as understood in the law of tort, not the criminal law test of causation. Where the Commissioner confines the alleged offence to non-disclosure of a relevant interest, the Commissioner must establish that the non-disclosure itself (not some other act) was intended to cause the relevant benefit. An improvement in the prospects of renewing an unprofitable contract has no positive value and cannot satisfy the $10,000 threshold.