VadeLab
AllowedSupreme Court of New South Wales·

Restraining Order Issued for Suspected Serious Criminal Activity

Case No.

📌 In brief

The court granted a restraining order and an unexplained wealth order based on the suspicion that the defendant was involved in serious criminal activity, specifically obtaining a financial advantage through deception.

⚖️ Legal holding

An authorised officer can obtain a restraining order if they suspect a person of engaging in serious criminal activity.

Topics

serious criminal activityrestraining order

Provisions

Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), ss 10A, 10B, 12, 28ACrimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 192ECriminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 134.2

📚 Full judgment

The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.

📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The authorized officer suspected the defendant of engaging in serious criminal activity.
  • The officer's suspicion was based on reasonable grounds.
  • The defendant was going to be charged with obtaining financial advantage by deception.
  • The court found the requirements for issuing a restraining order under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act were met.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect the defendant of engaging in serious criminal activity.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to grant the orders because the authorised officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the defendant of serious criminal activity.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990, Crimes Act 1900, and Criminal Code Act 1995 were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the reasonable suspicion held by the authorised officer that the defendant was involved in serious criminal activity.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the New South Wales Crime Commission.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation might also be able to obtain a restraining order if there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious criminal activity.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence included the affidavit of the authorised officer and documents from the New South Wales Police.

Official source: Supreme Court of New South Wales this page does not reproduce the decision; it links to the court's own publication. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Supreme Court of New South Wales and is reproduced from NSW Caselaw (© State of New South Wales) under its published republication policy. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.