As the proceeds of crime regime beds in, it is becoming a simple cost/benefit analysis as police and dealers negotiate over the dollar amount to be forfeit as revenue from drug dealing; police are never exactly sure how much cash dealers took in and the cost of any detailed investigation to get a better picture just chews up police resources. Payment of $200,000 satisfied all parties following one week’s police surveillance of dealing from a Waiuku property.
Evlyn Dawn Marshall, David Simon Marshall and Zach Marshall faced proceeds of crime forfeiture orders after police surveillance of their Waiuku property. Police told the High Court that on average nearly 120 people each day visited the property over the four full days and two half days of surveillance. It was conservatively assumed twenty dollars was paid for a drug purchase on each visit. Police said that if this level of dealing had started three years previously, revenue over three years would total $1.67 million.
Police found $26,700 cash at the property. The Marshalls’ bank accounts contained unexplained banking of some $47,000. Restraining orders were placed over the Waiuku house and all their bank accounts.
Forfeiture of assets requires High Court approval. In approving the $200,000 proceeds of crime settlement, Justice Jagose said he was in no position to second guess the parties’ calculation of $200,000 as being the value of income unlawfully received by the Marshalls.
If the Marshalls cannot pay $200,000 from cash resources including their frozen bank accounts, the Waiuku property is to be sold to make up the shortfall.
Commissioner of Police v. Marshall – High Court (18.04.23)
23.049