Asset Forfeiture: Commissioner of Police v. Allen

 

Pleading guilty to charges of cannabis supply, William James Allen then faced a proceeds of crime application seeking to sell a suite of six properties he owns in Wellington, Napier and Hastings all mortgaged to ANZ Bank.  In a structured sell-down akin to corporate restructuring, the High Court approved a self-managed asset realisation with Allen agreeing to hand over $1.3 million as proceeds of crime. 

Whilst admitting to dealing in cannabis, Allen disputes that his property purchases were funded in any way by proceeds of crime.  Nevertheless, he agreed to a court-approved Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act settlement in which he will self-manage sale of as many properties as may be needed to generate $1.3 million payable as proceeds of crime.

It was earlier agreed that $1.08 million was generated from illegal cannabis sales.  The amount payable to settle the proceeds of crime claim was increased to $1.3 million, to cover the contingency that Allen may not sell properties as promised, forcing further action by police to recover payment.

Terms of the High Court order give Allen time to make full payment: August 2026.

All six properties are currently subject to restraining orders.

Allen’s lawyer was empowered to liaise with Insolvency Service to have restraining orders lifted sequentially on properties as they are sold.  His lawyer was further empowered to liaise with Insolvency Service to temporarily lift restraining orders over properties not being sold but requiring refinancing to accommodate ANZ Bank’s lending criteria.

Net proceeds of each sale are to be handed over in reduction of the court approved settlement.

Justice Churchman ruled that any properties remaining after full payment of $1.3 million are removed from restraint and return to Allen’s full control.

The restrained properties are: (in Wellington) at Wainuiomata and Lower Hutt; (in Napier) at Maraenui; (and in Hastings) at Flaxmere.

Commissioner of Police v. Allen – High Court (6.11.25)

26.004

Family Trust: Darlow v. Pilbrow

 

Holding up distribution of a $2.5 million family trust, Anne Pilbrow was warned failure to promptly file her claim in court alleging wrongdoing by an Auckland lawyer as trustee meant she would get trust legal costs to date charged against her share, resulting in some $22,000 deducted from her final payout.

Final distribution of the Pilbrow Property Trust was delayed first by a dispute over Owen Pilbrow’s will, and second by Anne Pilbrow’s demand to be compensated for what she claims are currency exchange losses.  She lives in Australia.

Mr Pilbrow died in 2020, survived by nine children.

Another daughter, Vicky, challenged potential distributions from both his will and the trust.  She was unsuccessful in a 2024 Family Court hearing on her Family Protection Act claim against her late father’s estate; her plans to sue the trust were settled out of court in 2022.

The way was now open to wind up both Mr Pilbrow’s estate and his Pilbrow Property Trust.  His nine children are equal beneficiaries of both the estate and the trust. 

The High Court was told daughter Anne mounted a letter-writing campaign against Pilbrow trustee, Auckland lawyer Chris Darlow, complaining that exchange rate movements in the intervening years had cost her in excess of AUD 64,000.  This was later extended to allegations by her that Mr Darlow concealed financial information and manipulated trust finances.

All these allegations are denied.

She sent letters of complaint to the High Court and threatened to write to the Law Society and the Ombudsman.

Mr Darlow said distribution of $2.5 million trust assets could not be finalised until this dispute was sorted out.

In the interim, Mr Darlow paid out her eight siblings their $277,000 share, paying Anne a reduced sum of $200,000 while holding back the balance as security towards his costs as trustee.  The Pilbrow trust deed gives trustees a right of payment out of trust assets for expenses incurred as trustee.

A Trusts Act notice was served on Anne in Australia giving her 90 days to make progress, filing in court her claim against the trustee seeking damages.  She failed to do so.

The High Court subsequently ruled she was barred from later filing any claim.

A Trusts Act 90 day notice is designed to cut through any impasse, forcing claimants to start legal action or lose the right to sue.

The court order also stated the trustee’s ongoing legal fees of $22,000 are to be deducted from the balance of $77,000 still to be distributed to Anne as her share of the Pilbrow Trust.

Darlow v. Pilbrow – High Court (3.11.25)

26.003