Re Moran, Armour & Environmental Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd
Application for forfeiture
On 10 August 2011, Lasry J delivered his ruling in Re Moran, Armour & Environmental Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 377.
In that proceeding, the DPP sought forfeiture under section 32 of the Confiscation Act (being discretionary forfeiture) in respect of the proceeds of sale of a property in Ascot Vale and a Land Rover vehicle.
The Facts
Moran, together with Armour, were convicted of murder. Moran had been the registered proprietor of the property at the time of the murder. She drove the shooters, including Armour, to the scene of the murder from the property and returned with him to the property thereafter. She then hid the murder weapon and various other paraphernalia at the property.
The motor vehicle had been purchased by Moran and given to Armour for his use in partial consideration of his participation in the murder.
The Issues
The DPP sought discretionary forfeiture of the property and the motor vehicle. In order to obtain forfeiture, the DPP needed to satisfy the court that they were “tainted property” within the meaning of the Confiscation Act.
No question arose as to whether the property was derived, directly or indirectly from the offence of murder. The issue was whether the property was directly or indirectly used, in or in connection with, the offence of murder.
Lasry J helpfully analysed the authorities and ultimately formed the view that the property was not “tainted property”. It followed that the DPP failed in his application seeking forfeiture of the proceeds of sale of the property.[1]
Relying upon the decision in DPP v Milieno (1991) 22 NSWLR 489, his Honour found that there was an insufficient temporal connection between the commission of the offence of murder and the use of the property by storing the murder weapon and concealing other paraphernalia used in connection with the murder.
The case provides a helpful analysis in relation to the present state of the law concerning “tainted property”.
[1] The DPP did obtain a forfeiture order in respect of the motor vehicle, but that part of the application was unopposed.
