The Supreme Court of NSW has handed down judgment in Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Memon [2025] NSWSC 967, concerning the operation of the forfeiture regime provided for in ss 92 and 92A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) (Act).
Greg O’Mahoney and Diana Tang successfully appeared for the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police.
Ms Memon’s children sought declarations that certain residential properties had not been forfeited to the Commonwealth following Ms Memon’s conviction in respect of a substantial fraud on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, on the basis that: Ms Memon held 50% of each property on trust for their benefit; and the Commissioner had failed to give them notice of forfeiture under s 92A of the Act.
The Court rejected arguments that the relevant restraining orders did not apply to the properties, and that property could not be forfeited under s 92 of the Act without compliance with s 92A. Having regard to the textual framing of those provisions and the legislative context (including the objects of the Act), the Court held that satisfaction of s 92A was not a precondition for valid forfeiture under the relevant regime.
The Court found, following cross-examination of multiple witnesses called by the interested parties, that there was no basis for the Commissioner to have reasonably believed that the children had an interest in the properties, such that there had been no failure to comply with s 92A in any event.
The full decision can be found here.
Back to all