❓ A parliamentary question seeks details on seized assets under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, including amounts in cash, real estate, and other property, as well as legal challenges and account payouts. The Attorney General provides some answers, but notes a discrepancy in the question.
AnsweredQoN 1476Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
CRIMINAL PROPERTY CONFISCATION ACT, CONFISCATION PROCEEDS
I refer to the Attorney General’s recent announcement in the Press that some $23 million worth of assets have been seized pursuant to the Criminal Property Confiscation Act. I refer to the article in The West Australian that included a photograph of the Attorney General and Robert Cock, QC sitting on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Hon Tom Stephens: It was better than the photo of you on a stage with an elephant. Hon PETER FOSS: I did not see that one. Hon Ken Travers: I prefer your Andy Warhol photo. Hon PETER FOSS: I like that one. Hon Kim Chance: If you have been on a stage with an elephant and forgotten it, that is a real pity. Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS
I refer to the Attorney General’s recent announcement in the Press that some $23 million worth of assets have been seized pursuant to the Criminal Property Confiscation Act. I refer to the article in The West Australian that included a photograph of the Attorney General and Robert Cock, QC sitting on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle. Hon Tom Stephens: It was better than the photo of you on a stage with an elephant. Hon PETER FOSS: I did not see that one. Hon Ken Travers: I prefer your Andy Warhol photo. Hon PETER FOSS: I like that one. Hon Kim Chance: If you have been on a stage with an elephant and forgotten it, that is a real pity. Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon Tom Stephens: It was better than the photo of you on a stage with an elephant. Hon PETER FOSS: I did not see that one. Hon Ken Travers: I prefer your Andy Warhol photo. Hon PETER FOSS: I like that one. Hon Kim Chance: If you have been on a stage with an elephant and forgotten it, that is a real pity. Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon PETER FOSS: I did not see that one. Hon Ken Travers: I prefer your Andy Warhol photo. Hon PETER FOSS: I like that one. Hon Kim Chance: If you have been on a stage with an elephant and forgotten it, that is a real pity. Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon Ken Travers: I prefer your Andy Warhol photo. Hon PETER FOSS: I like that one. Hon Kim Chance: If you have been on a stage with an elephant and forgotten it, that is a real pity. Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon PETER FOSS: I like that one. Hon Kim Chance: If you have been on a stage with an elephant and forgotten it, that is a real pity. Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon Kim Chance: If you have been on a stage with an elephant and forgotten it, that is a real pity. Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property?
(c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property?
(d) was and remains in other property?
(3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case?
(7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property.
Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon Tom Stephens: It was better than the photo of you on a stage with an elephant. Hon PETER FOSS: I did not see that one. Hon Ken Travers: I prefer your Andy Warhol photo. Hon PETER FOSS: I like that one. Hon Kim Chance: If you have been on a stage with an elephant and forgotten it, that is a real pity. Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon PETER FOSS: I did not see that one. Hon Ken Travers: I prefer your Andy Warhol photo. Hon PETER FOSS: I like that one. Hon Kim Chance: If you have been on a stage with an elephant and forgotten it, that is a real pity. Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon Ken Travers: I prefer your Andy Warhol photo. Hon PETER FOSS: I like that one. Hon Kim Chance: If you have been on a stage with an elephant and forgotten it, that is a real pity. Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon PETER FOSS: I like that one. Hon Kim Chance: If you have been on a stage with an elephant and forgotten it, that is a real pity. Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon Kim Chance: If you have been on a stage with an elephant and forgotten it, that is a real pity. Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon PETER FOSS: I do not even remember it. I think that Hon Tom Stephens is making that up - not that I would like to suggest that he would not tell the truth. Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon Tom Stephens: What was the role you played in Aida? Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon PETER FOSS: I am asking the questions. (1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(1) How much of this sum: (a) was in cash; (b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property? (2) How much of each of the above sums is now absolutely forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings to challenge the forfeiture? (3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(b) has been converted into cash; (c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property?
(c) was and remains in real estate; and (d) was and remains in other property?
(d) was and remains in other property?
(3) Of the remainder, how much has been challenged? (4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(4) How many proceedings by way of challenge have been commenced? (5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(5) How many of those have been resolved: (a) in favour of the Crown; (b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case? (6) What amount has actually been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account to date? (7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(b) unfavourably to the Crown, and what is the total amount involved in each case?
(7) How much has been paid out of the confiscation proceeds account and for what purpose? (8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(8) What is the reason for the significant difference between amounts that have been seized and the realisation of actual sums paid into the account as disclosed by the budget papers? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(1) (a) A total of $2.2 million was in cash. (b) A total of $45 169.33 has been converted into cash. (c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property. (2) The sum of - Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(c) Approximately $21 million remains in other property.
Hon Peter Foss: What about part 1(d)? Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Hon N.D. GRIFFITHS: The document I have in front of me does not have a part 1(d). The member must have changed the question. The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
The sum of $784 274.50 in cash and $358 169.33 of other property has been forfeit and is not subject to actual or possible court proceedings. (3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(3) Of the property for which the time to object has expired, all except approximately $390 000 is subject to rejection. (4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(4) At least 112 proceedings by way of challenge have commenced. (5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(5) (a) Twenty-five cases have been resolved in favour of the Crown. (b) No cases have been subject to an unfavourable determination by a court. However, in a number of instances the Crown has not proceeded. (6) The amount of money that has been paid into the confiscation of proceeds account to date is $1 177 000. (7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(7) Nil. (8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
(8) The principal reason is that property has been frozen on the basis that a person could be declared to be a drug trafficker and, because objections have been filed, the determination of confiscation must await the outcome of the criminal trial.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.