Raymond Law was nicked mid-afternoon breaking into machines at a self-service laundromat carrying in his bag a chisel, hammer, crowbar and … two gold bars valued then at $73,200. The gold bars were not ‘proceeds of crime’ ruled the High Court; yes they were said the Court of Appeal.
Law pleaded guilty to stealing $11,000 in cash after breaking into machines at five Auckland laundromats. The gold bars in his bag were not stolen property, he said. He told police the gold bars were gifted to him, picked up by his father from Law’s grandmother in Canada. Law said he was carrying them around for safekeeping after an argument with his girlfriend.
When police applied to have the gold bars confiscated as ‘proceeds of crime,’ Law did not bother to appear in court to contest the claim. Nevertheless, Justice Palmer in the High Court ruled police had not proved their case. While Law had multiple convictions for driving, drugs and dishonesty offences there was no clear evidence the gold bars were acquired or derived from criminal activity, Justice Palmer ruled. The police appealed.
It was implausible that gold bars were being carried in the course of a burglary because of an earlier domestic argument, the Court of Appeal said. Law’s claim that his father received the gold from his grandmother lacked credibility. Law said his father was given the gold bars in 1993. This did not fit with evidence that the gold bars had a Perth Mint brand stamp which was first used in 2010. Law could produce no documentary evidence proving ownership. It was irrelevant that there had been no reports of stolen gold bars, the Court of Appeal ruled. Gold bars are a useful store of wealth derived from criminal activity.
Circumstantial evidence pointed to the gold bars being proceeds of crime, the Court of Appeal ruled. They were confiscated under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act.
Commissioner of Police v. Law – Court of Appeal (8.10.21)
21.165