1
00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:02,680
Speaker 1: Now a young couple are fighting with the police in

2
00:00:02,800 --> 00:00:05,760
Speaker 1: court over two hundred and thirty thousand dollars in cash

3
00:00:05,760 --> 00:00:07,800
Speaker 1: that they found in the roof. So what happened is

4
00:00:08,200 --> 00:00:11,280
Speaker 1: they bought the house. Money was sealed in plastic bags

5
00:00:11,280 --> 00:00:13,800
Speaker 1: sometime before the couple moved in, and as soon as

6
00:00:13,800 --> 00:00:15,760
Speaker 1: they found it they handed it in. Now the police

7
00:00:15,760 --> 00:00:17,799
Speaker 1: say it's drug money and it should be forfeited to

8
00:00:17,800 --> 00:00:19,640
Speaker 1: the crown, but the couple think that since they haven't

9
00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:22,960
Speaker 1: they themselves haven't committed any crimes, they should be allowed

10
00:00:22,960 --> 00:00:25,400
Speaker 1: to keep it. Warren brook Banks is a law professor

11
00:00:25,440 --> 00:00:28,760
Speaker 1: at aut and with US. Now, hey, Warren, hi, do

12
00:00:28,840 --> 00:00:30,280
Speaker 1: you reckon the cops have got a case.

13
00:00:32,080 --> 00:00:36,559
Speaker 2: Well, unfortunately for the couple, I rather suspect they have

14
00:00:37,040 --> 00:00:42,040
Speaker 2: because it goes to the It goes to a legislation

15
00:00:42,240 --> 00:00:45,839
Speaker 2: called the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Proceeds of

16
00:00:45,880 --> 00:00:50,080
Speaker 2: Crime Act. The whole purpose of it is to ensure

17
00:00:50,159 --> 00:00:56,880
Speaker 2: that where money's discovered which is strongly suspected of being

18
00:00:56,880 --> 00:00:59,400
Speaker 2: the proceeds of crime, there is provision for it to

19
00:00:59,440 --> 00:01:00,360
Speaker 2: be confisusated.

20
00:01:00,680 --> 00:01:03,240
Speaker 1: So Warren, does it have to just be the suspicion

21
00:01:03,240 --> 00:01:04,559
Speaker 1: that doesn't have to be any proof.

22
00:01:06,840 --> 00:01:09,959
Speaker 2: Well, no, there has to be proof and for the

23
00:01:10,040 --> 00:01:15,640
Speaker 2: for the for the Broceeds of Crime Act to actually function,

24
00:01:15,880 --> 00:01:20,959
Speaker 2: and this is where it becomes problematic. Normally it would

25
00:01:21,040 --> 00:01:26,520
Speaker 2: require somebody having been convicted of a serious offense that

26
00:01:26,560 --> 00:01:29,759
Speaker 2: the money is related to. And where they can establish

27
00:01:29,880 --> 00:01:33,320
Speaker 2: a particular offender having been convicted of an offense and

28
00:01:33,360 --> 00:01:37,000
Speaker 2: this money is associated with that offense, then the Act

29
00:01:37,120 --> 00:01:40,640
Speaker 2: gives the power to the police to confiscate it and

30
00:01:40,680 --> 00:01:44,720
Speaker 2: so that it becomes the owned by the state. It

31
00:01:44,920 --> 00:01:49,040
Speaker 2: certainly depends on the person having been convicted of an

32
00:01:49,080 --> 00:01:52,279
Speaker 2: offense or a person who is suspected of a crime

33
00:01:52,360 --> 00:01:55,720
Speaker 2: having absconded so that the branch can't brace them.

34
00:01:55,840 --> 00:01:57,960
Speaker 1: So the closest that the cops have come to any

35
00:01:58,080 --> 00:02:00,440
Speaker 1: kind of proof that maybe maybe there was some crime

36
00:02:00,480 --> 00:02:02,840
Speaker 1: going on is that the house was previously owned by

37
00:02:02,840 --> 00:02:05,360
Speaker 1: a family trust and one person who was a beneficiary

38
00:02:05,360 --> 00:02:07,840
Speaker 1: of the family trust, who did have a conviction for

39
00:02:07,920 --> 00:02:10,680
Speaker 1: possession of cannabis five years ago, had known connections to

40
00:02:10,720 --> 00:02:13,440
Speaker 1: the Mongrel mob. I would say that's pretty tenuous, wouldn't you.

41
00:02:14,040 --> 00:02:16,359
Speaker 2: I would think it's probably pretty tenuous, because I think

42
00:02:16,360 --> 00:02:19,080
Speaker 2: there would be necessary to establish that that person is

43
00:02:19,120 --> 00:02:22,000
Speaker 2: the person who is in the police's sights, is having

44
00:02:22,000 --> 00:02:25,760
Speaker 2: committed a serious crime that the money is related to.

45
00:02:27,440 --> 00:02:31,400
Speaker 2: But of course I guess the difficulty is actually making

46
00:02:31,440 --> 00:02:36,880
Speaker 2: that connection between the person who's been nominated and the

47
00:02:36,919 --> 00:02:40,200
Speaker 2: commission of a particular offense that the money has been

48
00:02:40,200 --> 00:02:44,040
Speaker 2: derived from. So it's a difficult one because as a

49
00:02:44,040 --> 00:02:48,200
Speaker 2: general matter of law, where property is abandoned and there

50
00:02:48,280 --> 00:02:51,880
Speaker 2: is no prospect of finding the owner and the person's

51
00:02:51,919 --> 00:02:57,320
Speaker 2: made reasonable efforts to identify the owner, normally the property

52
00:02:57,320 --> 00:03:00,720
Speaker 2: would defer to that person as the law full finder.

53
00:03:02,000 --> 00:03:05,440
Speaker 2: And obviously that that would have been the case. Hef if,

54
00:03:05,480 --> 00:03:09,880
Speaker 2: for example, it had been something like a gold brooch

55
00:03:10,680 --> 00:03:12,240
Speaker 2: that had been in the house for a long time

56
00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:15,720
Speaker 2: there was no possible possibility of tracing the owner and

57
00:03:15,840 --> 00:03:18,160
Speaker 2: all like that, that would have evolved to the to

58
00:03:18,280 --> 00:03:21,120
Speaker 2: the new owners of the house, is their property, provided

59
00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:24,120
Speaker 2: that made honest efforts to find out who the original

60
00:03:24,200 --> 00:03:26,760
Speaker 2: owner was. But this is in a different league because

61
00:03:26,800 --> 00:03:30,040
Speaker 2: of this is a significant sum of money which is

62
00:03:30,120 --> 00:03:34,400
Speaker 2: clearly up there for no good purpose and is presumptibly

63
00:03:35,080 --> 00:03:38,320
Speaker 2: the product of serious criminal affirm making.

64
00:03:38,120 --> 00:03:40,280
Speaker 1: An assumption there might have been an old lady there

65
00:03:40,320 --> 00:03:43,960
Speaker 1: who was like a conspiracy theorist and didn't like banks.

66
00:03:44,240 --> 00:03:46,720
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, you're right, I mean, that's that's that's true,

67
00:03:46,760 --> 00:03:49,240
Speaker 2: that is a possibility. So in a case like this,

68
00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:51,360
Speaker 2: the crowding that the police are going to have to

69
00:03:51,360 --> 00:03:55,440
Speaker 2: work very hard to establish a link with a probable

70
00:03:55,480 --> 00:04:00,280
Speaker 2: offender who was involved in in in major crime, drug

71
00:04:00,360 --> 00:04:05,080
Speaker 2: dealing particularly, and that for that reason it's just for

72
00:04:05,640 --> 00:04:09,760
Speaker 2: a forfeiture order to be made in favor of the police.

73
00:04:09,840 --> 00:04:13,120
Speaker 2: But I can see why the covery wanted to continue.

74
00:04:13,120 --> 00:04:15,200
Speaker 1: Don't they just mount the argument the cops are being

75
00:04:15,240 --> 00:04:18,560
Speaker 1: dicks about it? I mean because like these the young people,

76
00:04:18,640 --> 00:04:20,960
Speaker 1: they found two hundred and thirty thousand dollars, they didn't

77
00:04:20,960 --> 00:04:23,680
Speaker 1: do anything wrong, finders keepers, what a win for Why

78
00:04:23,680 --> 00:04:24,800
Speaker 1: don't the cops just let them held?

79
00:04:24,839 --> 00:04:27,599
Speaker 2: Well, you're right, you're right, But I mean, we have

80
00:04:27,640 --> 00:04:29,920
Speaker 2: a system of law that depends on the law being

81
00:04:30,000 --> 00:04:33,560
Speaker 2: applied fairly improperly, and we have an Act the purpose

82
00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:36,120
Speaker 2: of which is to ensure that we're a money which

83
00:04:36,160 --> 00:04:40,680
Speaker 2: has been obtained through crime is forfeited. Yeah, and so

84
00:04:40,960 --> 00:04:45,000
Speaker 2: that's the policy issue, and emotionally we feel very sympathetic

85
00:04:45,040 --> 00:04:47,799
Speaker 2: to the young couple, but unfortunately the law doesn't reflect

86
00:04:47,800 --> 00:04:51,279
Speaker 2: the same degree of sympathy because of the statute.

87
00:04:51,400 --> 00:04:53,520
Speaker 1: Warren, I appreciate your time. Thank you for talking us

88
00:04:53,520 --> 00:04:55,800
Speaker 1: through at Warren brook Banks, aut law professor. What's the

89
00:04:55,880 --> 00:04:58,960
Speaker 1: lesson If you find the cash, don't tell the cops.

90
00:04:59,400 --> 00:05:01,279
Speaker 1: That's the lesson in this I think this is going

91
00:05:01,320 --> 00:05:02,880
Speaker 1: to backfire on the mind. I think they should have

92
00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:05,360
Speaker 1: just let the young people have it anyway. For more

93
00:05:05,400 --> 00:05:08,719
Speaker 1: from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to news talks.

94
00:05:08,760 --> 00:05:11,960
Speaker 1: It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast

95
00:05:12,040 --> 00:05:13,040
Speaker 1: on iHeartRadio.