23 May 2024

Asset Forfeiture: Commissioner of Police v. Nicholas

 

The end game may see bulldozers used to demolish Maketu buildings owned by senior Mongrel Mob member Valentine Barclay Nicholas if he persists in blocking a court-ordered sale to meet the $914,000 still owed following a proceeds of crime forfeiture order.  Justice Wilkinson-Smith signalled forced demolition of unconsented structures on site might be the necessary first step.

In 2016, the High Court ordered sale of multiple properties in which Mr Nicholas has an interest: three properties on Maketu Road, a half-interest in an eight hectare property on Odey Road at Whakamarama, plus a forestry block.

The court ruled he was party to significant criminal activity: supply of drugs, money laundering and benefit fraud.  He was ordered to pay $1.17 million.

Recovery was delayed while Mr Nicholas pursued a series of ultimately unsuccessful appeals to both the Court of Appeal and the Maori Land Court.

Attitude of his associates to the confiscation order surfaced with an August 2016 Facebook post aimed at police in the name of ‘Motorcycle Clubs New Zealand.’  With an obscenity-laced heading highlighted in full capitals, this post railed against the perceived injustice of asset seizures as proceeds of crime despite no prior conviction.

Under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, it is for suspected criminals to prove legitimate sources for assets they control; police do not have to prove to the criminal standard of proof that any crime has been committed.    

Public knowledge of the confiscation orders became apparent following wide media coverage of a protest at Maketu in September 2020.  There were veiled threats that ‘a couple of hundred gangsters’ supported Mr Nicholas.

Insolvency Service enforces proceeds of crime orders.

The High Court was told the forestry block has been sold, netting some $255,000.  This reduced the amount due to $914,000.

Insolvency Service costs have escalated.  Enforcement of sale orders for Maketu Road have been blocked by Mr Nicholas’ refusal to allow access and his further refusal to vacate.

Sale of his half interest in Odey Road is complicated by the fact that the other half interest is held by Mr Nicholas’ brother.  As the High Court pointed out, the potential pool of purchasers for a half interest at Odey Road is very limited.

Justice Wilkinson-Smith ruled Mr Nicholas’ forfeited half share of Odey Road is to be offered first to his brother at market value.  If no agreement is reached, the half share is to be offered to members of their Pirirakau hapu.  If again there is no sale, Insolvency Service is free to sell at any price to anyone, she ruled.

As regards the three Maketu Road properties, Justice Wilkinson-Smith ruled Insolvency Service is entitled to possession.  This ruling is a precursor to Mr Nicholas’ eviction.

Commissioner of Police v. Nicholas – High Court (23.05.24)

24.131