❓ A WA parliamentary question asks if the Criminal Property Confiscation Act will be used against those found guilty of corruption exposed by the Corruption and Crime Commission. The Attorney General confirms it can and will be used after successful convictions.
AnsweredQoN 29Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION - CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY
Can the Attorney General advise the house whether the Criminal Property Confiscation Act will be used to confiscate the property of those people found guilty of corrupt behaviour who are exposed before the Corruption and Crime Commission? The SPEAKER : Attorney General, the proviso of giving you the call is only to the extent that your answer is not a legal opinion. Mr J.A. McGINTY
Can the Attorney General advise the house whether the Criminal Property Confiscation Act will be used to confiscate the property of those people found guilty of corrupt behaviour who are exposed before the Corruption and Crime Commission? The SPEAKER : Attorney General, the proviso of giving you the call is only to the extent that your answer is not a legal opinion. Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
The Criminal Property Confiscation Act is the strongest act in Australia when it comes to dealing with the confiscation of property from people involved in criminal activities. Generally speaking, it has been used to deal with drug traffickers and outlaw motorcycle gangs but it is not confined in any sense to those classes of people. It can be used to deal with the property of people associated with white-collar crime and public sector corruption if there is a successful conviction against those people. Property can be confiscated in five circumstances under that act: firstly, crime-used property - that is traditionally a getaway car and, perhaps in this context, mobile phones; secondly, criminal benefits, which is quite classically the proceeds of crime, such as the money raised from a bank hold-up or something of that nature; and two other circumstances that I do not think are particularly relevant to the circumstances that have been revealed at the CCC hearings - that is, unexplained wealth and the property of declared drug traffickers. We have a further area that deals both directly and indirectly with the circumstances that have arisen at the CCC - that is, crime-derived property. Crime-derived property is not limited to property that has been obtained directly by a person who has been convicted of a crime, but it includes everyone who benefits from the commission of a crime. This act has been used in the past to deal with people other than drug traffickers and others organised by outlaw motorcycle gangs. It has been used to deal with white collar criminals in the past. Since we are in this chamber, it is appropriate that I refer to the use of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to confiscate the property of the former Clerk of the Legislative Council, Laurie Marquet, who behaved in a corrupt and criminal way, as a result of which $227 820 worth of property from his estate was confiscated after his death. The act has been used in the past, not only in the case of the corrupt Laurie Marquet, but also in cases of other white-collar crime. I advise the house that it will be used to freeze and confiscate the property of those convicted of criminal charges, because we will not tolerate people benefiting from corrupt activities, be they present or former members of Parliament, public servants or anyone else who is exposed as having been behaving corruptly by the CCC. I think people should take into account that this is a very strong act and will be used against people who have acted corruptly so they are not seen to benefit from their corrupt activities.
The SPEAKER : Attorney General, the proviso of giving you the call is only to the extent that your answer is not a legal opinion. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: The Criminal Property Confiscation Act is the strongest act in Australia when it comes to dealing with the confiscation of property from people involved in criminal activities. Generally speaking, it has been used to deal with drug traffickers and outlaw motorcycle gangs but it is not confined in any sense to those classes of people. It can be used to deal with the property of people associated with white-collar crime and public sector corruption if there is a successful conviction against those people. Property can be confiscated in five circumstances under that act: firstly, crime-used property - that is traditionally a getaway car and, perhaps in this context, mobile phones; secondly, criminal benefits, which is quite classically the proceeds of crime, such as the money raised from a bank hold-up or something of that nature; and two other circumstances that I do not think are particularly relevant to the circumstances that have been revealed at the CCC hearings - that is, unexplained wealth and the property of declared drug traffickers. We have a further area that deals both directly and indirectly with the circumstances that have arisen at the CCC - that is, crime-derived property. Crime-derived property is not limited to property that has been obtained directly by a person who has been convicted of a crime, but it includes everyone who benefits from the commission of a crime. This act has been used in the past to deal with people other than drug traffickers and others organised by outlaw motorcycle gangs. It has been used to deal with white collar criminals in the past. Since we are in this chamber, it is appropriate that I refer to the use of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to confiscate the property of the former Clerk of the Legislative Council, Laurie Marquet, who behaved in a corrupt and criminal way, as a result of which $227 820 worth of property from his estate was confiscated after his death. The act has been used in the past, not only in the case of the corrupt Laurie Marquet, but also in cases of other white-collar crime. I advise the house that it will be used to freeze and confiscate the property of those convicted of criminal charges, because we will not tolerate people benefiting from corrupt activities, be they present or former members of Parliament, public servants or anyone else who is exposed as having been behaving corruptly by the CCC. I think people should take into account that this is a very strong act and will be used against people who have acted corruptly so they are not seen to benefit from their corrupt activities.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: The Criminal Property Confiscation Act is the strongest act in Australia when it comes to dealing with the confiscation of property from people involved in criminal activities. Generally speaking, it has been used to deal with drug traffickers and outlaw motorcycle gangs but it is not confined in any sense to those classes of people. It can be used to deal with the property of people associated with white-collar crime and public sector corruption if there is a successful conviction against those people. Property can be confiscated in five circumstances under that act: firstly, crime-used property - that is traditionally a getaway car and, perhaps in this context, mobile phones; secondly, criminal benefits, which is quite classically the proceeds of crime, such as the money raised from a bank hold-up or something of that nature; and two other circumstances that I do not think are particularly relevant to the circumstances that have been revealed at the CCC hearings - that is, unexplained wealth and the property of declared drug traffickers. We have a further area that deals both directly and indirectly with the circumstances that have arisen at the CCC - that is, crime-derived property. Crime-derived property is not limited to property that has been obtained directly by a person who has been convicted of a crime, but it includes everyone who benefits from the commission of a crime. This act has been used in the past to deal with people other than drug traffickers and others organised by outlaw motorcycle gangs. It has been used to deal with white collar criminals in the past. Since we are in this chamber, it is appropriate that I refer to the use of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to confiscate the property of the former Clerk of the Legislative Council, Laurie Marquet, who behaved in a corrupt and criminal way, as a result of which $227 820 worth of property from his estate was confiscated after his death. The act has been used in the past, not only in the case of the corrupt Laurie Marquet, but also in cases of other white-collar crime. I advise the house that it will be used to freeze and confiscate the property of those convicted of criminal charges, because we will not tolerate people benefiting from corrupt activities, be they present or former members of Parliament, public servants or anyone else who is exposed as having been behaving corruptly by the CCC. I think people should take into account that this is a very strong act and will be used against people who have acted corruptly so they are not seen to benefit from their corrupt activities.
The Criminal Property Confiscation Act is the strongest act in Australia when it comes to dealing with the confiscation of property from people involved in criminal activities. Generally speaking, it has been used to deal with drug traffickers and outlaw motorcycle gangs but it is not confined in any sense to those classes of people. It can be used to deal with the property of people associated with white-collar crime and public sector corruption if there is a successful conviction against those people. Property can be confiscated in five circumstances under that act: firstly, crime-used property - that is traditionally a getaway car and, perhaps in this context, mobile phones; secondly, criminal benefits, which is quite classically the proceeds of crime, such as the money raised from a bank hold-up or something of that nature; and two other circumstances that I do not think are particularly relevant to the circumstances that have been revealed at the CCC hearings - that is, unexplained wealth and the property of declared drug traffickers. We have a further area that deals both directly and indirectly with the circumstances that have arisen at the CCC - that is, crime-derived property. Crime-derived property is not limited to property that has been obtained directly by a person who has been convicted of a crime, but it includes everyone who benefits from the commission of a crime. This act has been used in the past to deal with people other than drug traffickers and others organised by outlaw motorcycle gangs. It has been used to deal with white collar criminals in the past. Since we are in this chamber, it is appropriate that I refer to the use of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to confiscate the property of the former Clerk of the Legislative Council, Laurie Marquet, who behaved in a corrupt and criminal way, as a result of which $227 820 worth of property from his estate was confiscated after his death. The act has been used in the past, not only in the case of the corrupt Laurie Marquet, but also in cases of other white-collar crime. I advise the house that it will be used to freeze and confiscate the property of those convicted of criminal charges, because we will not tolerate people benefiting from corrupt activities, be they present or former members of Parliament, public servants or anyone else who is exposed as having been behaving corruptly by the CCC. I think people should take into account that this is a very strong act and will be used against people who have acted corruptly so they are not seen to benefit from their corrupt activities.
Property can be confiscated in five circumstances under that act: firstly, crime-used property - that is traditionally a getaway car and, perhaps in this context, mobile phones; secondly, criminal benefits, which is quite classically the proceeds of crime, such as the money raised from a bank hold-up or something of that nature; and two other circumstances that I do not think are particularly relevant to the circumstances that have been revealed at the CCC hearings - that is, unexplained wealth and the property of declared drug traffickers. We have a further area that deals both directly and indirectly with the circumstances that have arisen at the CCC - that is, crime-derived property. Crime-derived property is not limited to property that has been obtained directly by a person who has been convicted of a crime, but it includes everyone who benefits from the commission of a crime. This act has been used in the past to deal with people other than drug traffickers and others organised by outlaw motorcycle gangs. It has been used to deal with white collar criminals in the past. Since we are in this chamber, it is appropriate that I refer to the use of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to confiscate the property of the former Clerk of the Legislative Council, Laurie Marquet, who behaved in a corrupt and criminal way, as a result of which $227 820 worth of property from his estate was confiscated after his death. The act has been used in the past, not only in the case of the corrupt Laurie Marquet, but also in cases of other white-collar crime. I advise the house that it will be used to freeze and confiscate the property of those convicted of criminal charges, because we will not tolerate people benefiting from corrupt activities, be they present or former members of Parliament, public servants or anyone else who is exposed as having been behaving corruptly by the CCC. I think people should take into account that this is a very strong act and will be used against people who have acted corruptly so they are not seen to benefit from their corrupt activities.
Since we are in this chamber, it is appropriate that I refer to the use of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to confiscate the property of the former Clerk of the Legislative Council, Laurie Marquet, who behaved in a corrupt and criminal way, as a result of which $227 820 worth of property from his estate was confiscated after his death. The act has been used in the past, not only in the case of the corrupt Laurie Marquet, but also in cases of other white-collar crime. I advise the house that it will be used to freeze and confiscate the property of those convicted of criminal charges, because we will not tolerate people benefiting from corrupt activities, be they present or former members of Parliament, public servants or anyone else who is exposed as having been behaving corruptly by the CCC. I think people should take into account that this is a very strong act and will be used against people who have acted corruptly so they are not seen to benefit from their corrupt activities.
The SPEAKER : Attorney General, the proviso of giving you the call is only to the extent that your answer is not a legal opinion. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: The Criminal Property Confiscation Act is the strongest act in Australia when it comes to dealing with the confiscation of property from people involved in criminal activities. Generally speaking, it has been used to deal with drug traffickers and outlaw motorcycle gangs but it is not confined in any sense to those classes of people. It can be used to deal with the property of people associated with white-collar crime and public sector corruption if there is a successful conviction against those people. Property can be confiscated in five circumstances under that act: firstly, crime-used property - that is traditionally a getaway car and, perhaps in this context, mobile phones; secondly, criminal benefits, which is quite classically the proceeds of crime, such as the money raised from a bank hold-up or something of that nature; and two other circumstances that I do not think are particularly relevant to the circumstances that have been revealed at the CCC hearings - that is, unexplained wealth and the property of declared drug traffickers. We have a further area that deals both directly and indirectly with the circumstances that have arisen at the CCC - that is, crime-derived property. Crime-derived property is not limited to property that has been obtained directly by a person who has been convicted of a crime, but it includes everyone who benefits from the commission of a crime. This act has been used in the past to deal with people other than drug traffickers and others organised by outlaw motorcycle gangs. It has been used to deal with white collar criminals in the past. Since we are in this chamber, it is appropriate that I refer to the use of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to confiscate the property of the former Clerk of the Legislative Council, Laurie Marquet, who behaved in a corrupt and criminal way, as a result of which $227 820 worth of property from his estate was confiscated after his death. The act has been used in the past, not only in the case of the corrupt Laurie Marquet, but also in cases of other white-collar crime. I advise the house that it will be used to freeze and confiscate the property of those convicted of criminal charges, because we will not tolerate people benefiting from corrupt activities, be they present or former members of Parliament, public servants or anyone else who is exposed as having been behaving corruptly by the CCC. I think people should take into account that this is a very strong act and will be used against people who have acted corruptly so they are not seen to benefit from their corrupt activities.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: The Criminal Property Confiscation Act is the strongest act in Australia when it comes to dealing with the confiscation of property from people involved in criminal activities. Generally speaking, it has been used to deal with drug traffickers and outlaw motorcycle gangs but it is not confined in any sense to those classes of people. It can be used to deal with the property of people associated with white-collar crime and public sector corruption if there is a successful conviction against those people. Property can be confiscated in five circumstances under that act: firstly, crime-used property - that is traditionally a getaway car and, perhaps in this context, mobile phones; secondly, criminal benefits, which is quite classically the proceeds of crime, such as the money raised from a bank hold-up or something of that nature; and two other circumstances that I do not think are particularly relevant to the circumstances that have been revealed at the CCC hearings - that is, unexplained wealth and the property of declared drug traffickers. We have a further area that deals both directly and indirectly with the circumstances that have arisen at the CCC - that is, crime-derived property. Crime-derived property is not limited to property that has been obtained directly by a person who has been convicted of a crime, but it includes everyone who benefits from the commission of a crime. This act has been used in the past to deal with people other than drug traffickers and others organised by outlaw motorcycle gangs. It has been used to deal with white collar criminals in the past. Since we are in this chamber, it is appropriate that I refer to the use of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to confiscate the property of the former Clerk of the Legislative Council, Laurie Marquet, who behaved in a corrupt and criminal way, as a result of which $227 820 worth of property from his estate was confiscated after his death. The act has been used in the past, not only in the case of the corrupt Laurie Marquet, but also in cases of other white-collar crime. I advise the house that it will be used to freeze and confiscate the property of those convicted of criminal charges, because we will not tolerate people benefiting from corrupt activities, be they present or former members of Parliament, public servants or anyone else who is exposed as having been behaving corruptly by the CCC. I think people should take into account that this is a very strong act and will be used against people who have acted corruptly so they are not seen to benefit from their corrupt activities.
The Criminal Property Confiscation Act is the strongest act in Australia when it comes to dealing with the confiscation of property from people involved in criminal activities. Generally speaking, it has been used to deal with drug traffickers and outlaw motorcycle gangs but it is not confined in any sense to those classes of people. It can be used to deal with the property of people associated with white-collar crime and public sector corruption if there is a successful conviction against those people. Property can be confiscated in five circumstances under that act: firstly, crime-used property - that is traditionally a getaway car and, perhaps in this context, mobile phones; secondly, criminal benefits, which is quite classically the proceeds of crime, such as the money raised from a bank hold-up or something of that nature; and two other circumstances that I do not think are particularly relevant to the circumstances that have been revealed at the CCC hearings - that is, unexplained wealth and the property of declared drug traffickers. We have a further area that deals both directly and indirectly with the circumstances that have arisen at the CCC - that is, crime-derived property. Crime-derived property is not limited to property that has been obtained directly by a person who has been convicted of a crime, but it includes everyone who benefits from the commission of a crime. This act has been used in the past to deal with people other than drug traffickers and others organised by outlaw motorcycle gangs. It has been used to deal with white collar criminals in the past. Since we are in this chamber, it is appropriate that I refer to the use of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to confiscate the property of the former Clerk of the Legislative Council, Laurie Marquet, who behaved in a corrupt and criminal way, as a result of which $227 820 worth of property from his estate was confiscated after his death. The act has been used in the past, not only in the case of the corrupt Laurie Marquet, but also in cases of other white-collar crime. I advise the house that it will be used to freeze and confiscate the property of those convicted of criminal charges, because we will not tolerate people benefiting from corrupt activities, be they present or former members of Parliament, public servants or anyone else who is exposed as having been behaving corruptly by the CCC. I think people should take into account that this is a very strong act and will be used against people who have acted corruptly so they are not seen to benefit from their corrupt activities.
Property can be confiscated in five circumstances under that act: firstly, crime-used property - that is traditionally a getaway car and, perhaps in this context, mobile phones; secondly, criminal benefits, which is quite classically the proceeds of crime, such as the money raised from a bank hold-up or something of that nature; and two other circumstances that I do not think are particularly relevant to the circumstances that have been revealed at the CCC hearings - that is, unexplained wealth and the property of declared drug traffickers. We have a further area that deals both directly and indirectly with the circumstances that have arisen at the CCC - that is, crime-derived property. Crime-derived property is not limited to property that has been obtained directly by a person who has been convicted of a crime, but it includes everyone who benefits from the commission of a crime. This act has been used in the past to deal with people other than drug traffickers and others organised by outlaw motorcycle gangs. It has been used to deal with white collar criminals in the past. Since we are in this chamber, it is appropriate that I refer to the use of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to confiscate the property of the former Clerk of the Legislative Council, Laurie Marquet, who behaved in a corrupt and criminal way, as a result of which $227 820 worth of property from his estate was confiscated after his death. The act has been used in the past, not only in the case of the corrupt Laurie Marquet, but also in cases of other white-collar crime. I advise the house that it will be used to freeze and confiscate the property of those convicted of criminal charges, because we will not tolerate people benefiting from corrupt activities, be they present or former members of Parliament, public servants or anyone else who is exposed as having been behaving corruptly by the CCC. I think people should take into account that this is a very strong act and will be used against people who have acted corruptly so they are not seen to benefit from their corrupt activities.
Since we are in this chamber, it is appropriate that I refer to the use of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to confiscate the property of the former Clerk of the Legislative Council, Laurie Marquet, who behaved in a corrupt and criminal way, as a result of which $227 820 worth of property from his estate was confiscated after his death. The act has been used in the past, not only in the case of the corrupt Laurie Marquet, but also in cases of other white-collar crime. I advise the house that it will be used to freeze and confiscate the property of those convicted of criminal charges, because we will not tolerate people benefiting from corrupt activities, be they present or former members of Parliament, public servants or anyone else who is exposed as having been behaving corruptly by the CCC. I think people should take into account that this is a very strong act and will be used against people who have acted corruptly so they are not seen to benefit from their corrupt activities.
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.