In Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of South Australia v Dansie [2023] SASC 21, the offender had been the joint registered proprietor of a property with his wife. Dansie was convicted of the murder of his wife. Upon her death, and despite the common law rules of forfeiture which operate in murder cases, the entire title vested in Dansie by survivorship. The vesting of the title occurred by reason of the murder. Given property may be proceeds even where it is only partly acquired with proceeds of crime, the court determined that Dansie’s interest in the property was “proceeds” and dismissed his exclusion application.
Whilst there are examples of properties being forfeited by reason of their use in connection with a murder (see Chalmers v R: used in or in connection with offence of murder (13 March 2012)), this is the first example of property held to be “proceeds” in the context of a murder conviction.
