New law to strip money and assets from criminals

Phil Goff

The Government hopes to haul in up to $14 million a year using a new law to seize money and assets raised through crime, but opponents say it will affect innocent people.

Green MP Nandor Tanczos said the Criminal Proceeds and Instruments Bill, introduced to Parliament, would strip people of their rights.

However, National law and order spokesman Tony Ryall said the bill - targeting gangs - did not go far enough.

Under the current Proceeds of Crime Act 1991, a person must be convicted of a crime before assets can be seized. But under the new bill assets thought to be acquired through criminal means can be seized without a criminal conviction being imposed.

Mr Tanczos said that was unacceptable and innocent people would be affected.

"It's absolutely outrageous - it's an attack on justice really," he said.

"What they are doing is saying that if we can't convict you of a crime to a criminal standard of proof, we'll just punish you to a civil standard of proof."

Justice Minister Phil Goff said the Crown would be able to seek a High Court order restraining a person's assets if it could show the person benefited directly or indirectly from serious criminal activity.

"The court can then order confiscation if it is satisfied the Crown has proven to the civil court standard of the balance of probabilities that the person did in fact derive some benefit from criminal activity. No specific criminal offence, or value of benefit, need be proved," Mr Goff said.

"International experience shows that civil forfeiture regimes are the best way to target gang bosses who keep themselves at arm's length from actual offending but still benefit from it."

The legislation would reduce the profitability of gangs and make it harder for them to finance future crimes.

People who could prove assets were not funded by crime would be refunded, but if they failed their whole estate might be confiscated.

Mr Goff said the bill would have an immediate impact when passed because it would apply retrospectively to all assets and benefits derived from crime over the seven years before a restraining or forfeiture order being made by the court.

It was estimated that up to $14 million a year would be recovered.

Mr Tanczos said Parliament generally avoided making laws that applied to the past because "it is intrinsically problematic".

"Here you've got a fundamental attack on the principles of justice - innocent until proven guilty to a criminal standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt - and to make it retrospective on top of that is a further undermining of justice."

The Green Party was further concerned by a clause in the bill that would uphold seizures even when convictions were quashed.

Mr Goff said it was not a breach of the Bill of Rights to make the bill retrospective.

National law and order spokesman Tony Ryall said the bill was a missed opportunity.

"I don't think it goes nearly far enough. There's insufficient punitive elements in it."

Mr Ryall said the bill did not cover all serious crimes and would allow some serious offenders to keep their "ill-gotten gains".

"The Government has missed this opportunity to really tackle these gangs."

The bill has a threshold for who can be subject to the seizures - those believed to have committed an offence that carries a minimum five-year jail term, such as theft, drug dealing, burglary and fraud, or otherwise manages to net $30,000 or more from crime over seven years.

Mr Goff said an asset recovery team of around 20 staff would be set up within the Serious Fraud Office to implement the new regime.

They would be able to demand documents from alleged offenders and financial institutions and those who refused to comply or lied could be jailed for six months.

"However, it is critical that civil action is not seen as an alternative to criminal charges. Convicting criminals and putting them behind bars remains the top priority."

Mr Goff said the existing Proceeds of Crime Act had been only moderately successful compared with overseas models. Between 1995 and July 2003, $8.84 million in assets had been confiscated - including a record $3.7 million in 2003 - through 57 forfeiture orders.

In comparison, New South Wales in Australia took $NZ84 million over the same period.

- NZPA