The cash and assets forfeited need not be directly linked to specific offending, the court says.
The cash and assets forfeited need not be directly linked to specific offending, the court says.
A man involved in manufacturing several kilos of meth has been stripped of $524,000 in cash and assets, including a Northland property.
Police did not allege the property or other forfeited assets were directly bought with drug proceeds or “tainted” in the classic sense.
They instead pursued forfeiture under provisionsof the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 aimed at removing the overall financial advantage gained from serious crime.
Martin John Piper, 57, was convicted in 2022 after pleading guilty to charges relating to manufacturing methamphetamine and supplying precursor chemicals.
The offending took place between August 2020 and February 2021. It involved a joint operation with other defendants, including Troy Kakau, who was convicted separately and forfeited about $115,000 in assets.
Court documents show police relied on surveillance, intercepted communications and Piper’s admissions to establish that he sourced ephedrine and played a central role in producing between 3.3kg and 4kg of methamphetamine at clandestine laboratories that associates ran.
One batch was seized before it could be distributed. However, at a two‑day civil forfeiture hearing in the High Court at Auckland last November, Justice Laura O’Gorman ruled its value could still be counted.
Justice O’Gorman, in an online decision last month, listed the assets to be forfeited as: an investment property in Admiralty Drive, Haruru, near Kerikeri; the proceeds from two Range Rovers; a launch named Stryka; more than $12,000 seized at Piper’s arrest; and a $14,000 deposit paid towards a cancelled Jaguar purchase.
Piper’s domestic partner, Lisa May O’Sullivan, was listed as an interested party.
On their behalf, counsel argued the financial‑advantage calculation overstated Piper’s role, claiming he acted mainly as a middleman, briefly held drugs for others and received only small quantities for personal use.
But Justice O’Gorman found Piper was closely involved in the manufacturing enterprise, understood yields and volumes, and exercised control over valuable drugs at multiple stages.
The law was clear, she said, that participants in a joint criminal venture could be held liable for the full value of drugs produced, not just the portion they kept or sold.
Piper and O’Sullivan also sought relief from forfeiture on hardship grounds. They argued the Northland property had been bought years earlier and largely serviced through legitimate income and refinancing.
The court was unconvinced. Justice O’Gorman noted Piper’s history of drug offending, prior forfeiture, and modest declared income.
Explanations for vehicles and other assets were “implausible”, the judge said. The couple were known to have lived in Auckland during some of the offending and the Haruru property was held as an investment rather than a home.
The court rejected arguments that forfeiture should be limited because the property was in O’Sullivan’s name. It foundthe post‑arrest transfer of Piper’s interest appeared designed to shield the asset from forfeiture.
O’Sullivan’s legitimate earnings — largely from work as a bus driver — could not account for the acquisition of high‑value assets, and for forfeiture purposes she was at least wilfully blind to Piper’s offending, Justice O’Gorman said.
Justice Laura O'Gorman.
The total estimated benefit of the offending was nearly $640,000. However, this was reduced to avoid double‑counting the amount recovered from Kakau.
The court said the Act was deliberately written to reach beyond directly traceable criminal proceeds to ensure offenders did not retain any overall advantage.
Sarah Curtis is a news reporter for the Northern Advocate, focusing on a wide range of issues. She has nearly 20 years’ experience in journalism, most of which she spent court reporting in Gisborne and on the East Coast.
