Partnership law principles underlie Police ability to selectively recover unlawful gains from ‘joint enterprise’ criminal activity; participants having the most readily accessible assets can wind up bearing the cost, their impecunious colleagues escaping proceeds-of-crime liability.
Meth production in Northland through 2021 saw Martin John Piper and Troy Kakau both facing asset forfeitures under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act.
The High Court was told of Piper sourcing precursor chemicals, supplied to Kakau who oversaw production of methamphetamine.
Both were convicted of drug offences.
Police calculation of the volume produced, and revenue earned, was helped by communication intercepts in which the two congratulated themselves on their meth cook’s skills; yielding 90 per cent meth from each kilogram of ephedrine supplied by Piper.
Forfeiture of assets to the value of $639,500 was ordered, as revenue earned from their criminal activity.
For Piper, in dispute at the High Court was: what credit could be claimed for an earlier criminal proceeds recovery against co-offender Kakau, and; whether a house on Admiralty Drive at Haruru in the Bay of Islands, registered in the name of Piper’s partner, could be confiscated.
Evidence was given of Piper and his partner Lisa May O’Sullivan jointly purchasing Admiralty Drive back in 2015.
Whilst in custody, and before his criminal trial for meth dealing, Piper gifted his Admiralty Drive half share to Ms O’Sullivan; to ease insurance difficulties, he later told the High Court.
Insurance was difficult to obtain when he faced criminal charges, he claimed.
Justice O’Gorman subsequently ordered forfeiture of Admiralty Drive, being financed from proceeds of crime. Ms O’Sullivan either knew mortgage payments came from proceeds of crime or deliberately refrained from asking questions that might confirm her suspicions, Justice O’Gorman ruled.
The High Court was told of assets previously being seized from Piper’s co-offender Troy Kakau to the value of $114,900; forfeited by court order as proceeds of crime for Kakau’s involvement in their joint meth activities.
Piper claimed a credit on any asset forfeiture order made against him for this earlier recovery from his co-offender.
Justice O’Gorman ruled a credit is necessary to avoid double-counting, unless the precursor chemicals provided by Piper were unrelated to batches of meth cooked by Kakau for which his assets were confiscated.
For Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act forfeitures, joint criminal ventures are treated as if they were law-abiding business partnerships.
With co-offenders jointly and severally liable to forfeit proceeds of their criminal activity, authorities may choose to chase all, or just one, for the amount due.
The High Court was told assets to the value of $114,900 previously confiscated from Kakau as proceeds of crime amounted to the full value of his then available assets: $79,300 cash plus proceeds from sale of his Holden ute and Harley Davidson motor bike.
Piper was held liable for the balance of their joint criminal enterprise ‘proceeds of crime debt:’ $524,600.
The High Court ordered sale of Admiralty Drive, together with sale of Piper’s two Land Rovers and his boat. Cash totalling $26,200 was also confiscated.
The court was told Piper has form; previously in 2014 having cash, cars and a boat seized following a court-ordered proceeds of crime forfeiture.
Commissioner of Police v. Piper – High Court (3.03.26)
26.091