Risk of double recovery due to potential enforcement action by Inland Revenue does not prevent profit forfeiture orders under proceeds of crime regime
The Court of Appeal granted the COP’s appeal, agreeing with the COP and CIR that where tax has been evaded and not subsequently paid to the CIR, the tax evader has benefited from significant criminal activity, and a profit forfeiture order should be made. The court rejected the view that the CIR’s ability to recover unpaid tax means there can be no benefit to the offender.
Companies Act 1993, sch 7 cls 1(2)(aa), (d), (g), (ga) and 1(5);
Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (CPRA), ss 3, 5, 6, 7, 28, 33-35, 50, 50C, 53, 55, 67, 83
Goods and Services Tax Act 1985, s 43
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, 21
Tax Administration Act 1994 (TAA), ss 6A, 143, 143A, 143B, 157, 169, 177C
Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 45
High Court Rules 2016, r 5.61
Cheah v Commissioner of Police [2020] NZCA 253
Commissioner of Police v Cheng [2023] NZHC 606
Commissioner of Police v Nabawi [2021] NZHC 2413
Commissioner of Police v Snook [2018] NZHC 2537
Erceg v Balenia Ltd [2008] NZCA 535
Fuati v Jin [2023] NZCA 165
Fortex Group Ltd (In Receivership and Liquidation) v MacIntosh [1998] 3 NZLR 171 (CA)
Li v Commissioner of Police [2022] NZHC 514
Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd (Further Evidence) (No 1) [2006] NZSC 59, [2007] 2 NZLR 1
R v Cheng [2018] NZDC 3344
R v Pedersen [1995] 2 NZLR 386 (CA)
R v Waya [2012] UKSC 51, [2013] 1 AC 294
Re Diplock [1948] Ch 465 (CA)
Rodriguez v Commissioner of Police [2020] NZCA 589
Solicitor-General v Beckham [2015] NZHC 2816
Solicitor-General v Rhodes HC Auckland, CIV-2007-404-3773, 16 February 2010
Zhou v Commissioner of Police [2023] NZCA 137