Name suppression was refused for Girish Chandra and Rameet Prasad who negotiated a $986,000 proceeds of crime settlement for their part in a social welfare fraud, cashing out benefit payments disbursed as payment for essential furniture.
Police forensic accounting staff looked at two million dollars worth of social welfare benefits processed over a six year period by Auckland-based company, ABC Furniture & Appliances Ltd. The 2019 investigation uncovered a fraudulent ‘cash-back’ scheme with social welfare beneficiaries receiving cash instead of furniture as required by ABC Furniture’s then contract with Social Development.
Messrs Chandra and Prasad controlled ABC Furniture.
In a court-approved Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act settlement, they agreed to surrender $986,000 as proceeds of crime. The agreed settlement specifically stated there was no admission as to criminal liability.
The two sought name suppression, arguing their names and their business would be improperly painted as being party to criminal activity when no crime had been proved or admitted.
Police said the effect of a court-approved out of court settlement is to judicially recognise that named individuals have unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity.
In the High Court, Justice Gardiner said Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act settlements are civil proceedings. Normal rules for name suppression apply. There is a presumption in favour of publication; a principle of open justice.
Name suppression requires evidence of specific adverse consequences likely to follow publication.
In this case, claims of potential social stigma and reputational damage are insufficient, Justice Gardiner said. These are an ordinary consequence of their court proceedings being published.
Messrs Chandra and Prasad had not met the high standard required for proof of adverse consequences, she ruled.
It is in the public interest for customers of ABC Furniture to be aware of the company’s past role in misappropriation of public funds, she said.
Commissioner of Police v. Chandra & Prasad – High Court (24.11.25)
26.021