# New Zealand Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

The Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act 2009 (the CPRA) expanded the legal framework for seizing and forfeiting property derived from criminal activity in New Zealand. A key purpose was to target the illegal activities of gangs, including profits achieved from drug dealing and other organised crime. Section 6 of the CPRA states that property which may be seized is that which is acquired from “significant criminal activity” - defined as behaviour that, if prosecuted as a criminal offence, would lead to a maximum term of imprisonment of five years or more; or behaviour from which property or proceeds to the value of NZ$30,000 or more have been acquired.
The Act was designed to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes, and limit their ability to continue criminal enterprises. It allows authorities to seize not just the direct proceeds of crime, but also any assets that represent an "unlawful benefit" derived from criminal activity. To make it workable, the property or benefits that are seized do not need to be related to a particular crime.
In fact, the Act enables the Crown to confiscate property linked to criminal activity without requiring a criminal conviction, effectively reversing the onus of proof onto the asset holder who has to prove that they obtained the seized assets legitimately. Instead, property which is perceived to be linked to criminal activity is seized through a civil process, meaning in court, the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities that the property is tainted - substantially lower than the beyond reasonable doubt burden of proof required in a criminal trial.

## Background

The Act replaces the Proceeds of Crime Act (PCA) 1991, which only allowed the confiscation of property and assets of individuals convicted of a crime. Between 1991 and 2003, the PCA recovered only $14,200,000. This was significantly less than expected, largely due to the difficulty obtaining convictions against the leaders of organised crime groups, and the fact that confiscation under the PCA was only possible when a criminal conviction was achieved.
In addition, while it may have been possible to establish an evidentiary link between criminal activity and particular property acquired by that activity, this meant that under the PCA, confiscations were generally limited to the instruments of crime, rather than the proceeds of crime.
While the PCA was in force, the distribution of methamphetamine, driven largely by gangs, increased dramatically. The failure of the PCA to deal with organised crime and the growing use of methamphetamine suggested the need for tougher legislation. In 2009, the CPA was replaced by the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act.

## Mechanism of recovery under the CPRA

The Police have established Asset Recovery Units (ARUs) made up of police and investigative accountants. These teams are dedicated to the confiscation of assets derived from crime or the benefits derived from criminal activity and have the power to compare income declared in tax returns with a person's apparent wealth. If Police believe certain assets, property or profits have been derived from illegal activity, they can apply to the High Court for a restraining order on that property. The Official Assignee takes control of the property until legal proceedings have been resolved.
The High Court must approve any settlement. The Court may decide that the property should be returned to the owner, given to another party, or given to the Crown. If the Court decides in favour of the police, the assets are sold and the money put into the Proceeds of Crime Fund.
Between 2009 and January 2025, police had initiated over 1,100 restraining orders on assets and properties.

## Human rights concerns

Legal scholars have argued that the seizure of property by the State is, in fact, a criminal sanction and that it is inappropriate to use punitive civil sanctions to deal with drug dealing and organised crime which are serious criminal offences.
Criminal lawyer Ian Dearden, president of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, says a similar measure in Australia has caused some appalling miscarriages of justice. Sydney lawyer Lesly Randle says it's the wives and children of criminals who suffer the most from such seizures, often losing their homes and means of transport. She says: "Maybe seven times out of 10, the Government has every right to take their home, but a lot of wives I deal with wouldn't have a clue what their husbands have been up to."
The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties argues that:
* In regard to deterring criminal activity, the CPRA has failed entirely - since the Act does not address the drivers of crime and the deterrence effect the Act depends on is a myth.
* Describing the recovery of property as a ‘civil action’ is just a convenient fiction to seize the assets of people who have not been convicted of any crime. Those affected are subject to the same interventions as if they were being prosecuted in criminal courts: search warrants, examination orders, production orders and the seizure of property.
* Section 5B(2)(b) even penalizes people who have been acquitted, which is contrary to natural justice; that penalising someone who has been acquitted of a crime is only possible within the fiction that the Act involves ‘civil action’.
* The police are the primary actors in the recovery of assets and the primary beneficiaries of such seizures - which has the potential to lead to corruption. The Council recommends that no government agencies should be allowed to apply for funds, which instead, should be reserved for registered charities.

## Value of seized assests

Between 2009 when the Act came into effect and 2021, the Police had confiscated assets and property derived from criminal activity to the value of $1 billion.
In 2022, police seized assets and cash to the value of $563,061,183.
In 2024, Police seized another $1.26 billion worth of property, assets and cash under the Act.

## Distribution of funds

The funds are contestable. Any of the 39 service departments, as defined by the Public Service Commission, can apply. There are two rounds annually.

### Criteria

Applications to utilise funding must adhere to at least one of the following four categories:
* Expansion of alcohol and other drug treatment services
* Initiatives to fight organised criminal groups dealing in methamphetamine and other drugs
* Initiatives to address mental health issues within the criminal justice system
* Initiatives that address crime-related harm to communinities and improve community wellbeing
A panel made up of senior representatives from the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Corrections, Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the New Zealand Police, the Treasury, Oranga Tamariki and the Chief Science Advisor considers the applications for shortlisting. The final decision on which applications should be funded is made by the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice.

### Initiatives

The majority of the funding has been dispersed to the Police, the Corrections Department, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Health and Oranga Tamariki.
Initiatives which have been funded include the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court, Youth Engagement (MSD) and Crime Prevention Programmes, Kahukura (methamphetamine treatment programme run by the Mongrel Mob), Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) and neurodevelopmental issues response prototype service.