With no source of legitimate income and having lived for twelve years with a spouse later convicted of drug dealing whilst accumulating an Auckland residential property, a Ferrari 458, a Porsche Cayman, a collection of designer handbags and jewellery plus having unbanked cash lying around the house meant Chien-Hui Wu must have been aware her assets were purchased with proceeds of crime, the Court of Appeal ruled when confirming a court order to pay $5.3 million.
After Ka Kit Yim was sentenced to eleven years and six months’ imprisonment on conviction for possession and dealing in methamphetamine, his spouse Chien-Hui Wu challenged seizure of her assets as proceeds of crime. Ms Wu came to New Zealand from Taiwan as a student in 1994, later gaining New Zealand citizenship. She met Yim in 2003. She said purchase of her assets were funded with gifts from her parents, successful foreign exchange trading and a one million dollar loan from a Hong Kong friend: Lilian Liu. The existence of Ms Liu was challenged at a High Court hearing when a loan document supposedly prepared by Ms Liu misspelt her name. A person at the contact address provided for Ms Liu declined to admit to her existence.
Under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act assets are ‘tainted’ if purchased with proceeds of criminal activity. It is not necessary to prove owner of the assets was responsible for, or aware of, the criminal activity. Separately, assets can be seized and sold as part of a ’profit forfeiture order’ where owner of the assets benefitted from significant criminal activity, whether or not the assets were ‘tainted’ or not.
Ms Wu challenged a High Court ruling that assets she owned be seized; the assets were not ‘tainted’ and she was not aware of any criminal activity by her husband, she said.
Ms Wu’s extensive trading in foreign currencies through money remitters was evidence the money was more likely than not derived from significant criminal activity, the Court of Appeal said. Significant amounts of cash available to pay off her house mortgage and possession of luxury items evidenced her knowledge of criminal activity, the Court ruled.
Collectively, Yim and Ms Wu were ordered to pay $5.3 million.
Wu v. Commissioner of Police – Court of Appeal (18.03.22)
22.063