IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-Ō-MARU ROHE	
CIV-2018-476-50
[2018] NZHC 2750	

BETWEEN	COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Applicant	
AND	THOMAS LIONEL TE RAWARAKI SNOW
First Respondent

SHENGNI (ANNIE) ZHANG
Second Respondent	
AND	BANK OF NEW ZEALAND
Interested Party	

Hearing:	24 October 2018 (On the papers)	
Counsel:	A R McRae for the Applicant	
Judgment:	24 October 2018	

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1]	The Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) makes a without notice application for a restraining order under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) in respect of a property situated at 129 King Street, Temuka.

[2]	The Commissioner brings his application on the basis that some or all of the King Street property is tainted property and that the first respondent, Mr Timothy Snow, and the second respondent, Ms Shengni (Annie) Zhang, have unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity. Additionally, Mr Snow has been charged with qualifying instrument forfeiture offence, including, together with others conspiring to sell a Class C controlled drug, cultivation of cannabis, theft of electricity

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SNOW [2018] NZHC 2750 [24 October 2018]

and possession of a Class C controlled drug for sale. It is alleged that the King Street property is an instrument of crime used to facilitate those qualifying instrument forfeiture offences.

[3]	I have read an affidavit sworn by Detective Bryan Gillespie who is an officer attached to the Southern Asset Recovery Unit of the Christchurch Police. He deposes that as a result of a search warrant executed at the King Street property, a large and highly sophisticated cannabis growing operation was discovered. The property which was being rented to another person who also faces charges arising out of the drug growing operation is owned and registered in the name of the two respondents.

[4]	Based on the information contained in Detective Gillespie’s affidavit, I am satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the King Street property is tainted and that both respondents have unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity. Furthermore, it is apparent, having regard to the use the property was being made, that it is an instrument of crime used to facilitate the cultivation of cannabis and its subsequent commercial distribution.

[5]	I am also satisfied that there is a risk of the proposed restrained property being disposed of if the application is not dealt with on a without notice basis. I understand the property has already been put up for sale. Based on the current asking price, if the property were to be sold, some $230,000 would be realised after the mortgage was repaid. It follows that there is a real risk should the respondents become aware of the Commissioner’s intention to restrain the property the sale process may be expedited in order to liquidate the asset.

[6]	For these reasons, there  will  be  an  order  that  the  property  situated  at  129 King Street, Temuka, (identifier CB32A/650 being an estate in fee simple of an

area of 1396 square metres more or less, part Lot 38-39, town of Willingford), is not be disposed, or dealt with, in any way, and is placed in the official assignees custody and control.

..........................................................
Mander J