Young Jonathan: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Young Jonathan: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6649. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 What an outrageous speech! For the member Metiria Turei to bring out some of those claims and comments is absolutely outrageous. We understand in this Parliament that nobody supports harm that comes from gambling. We understand these things but I wonder where that member’s research comes from—research that says that casinos per se are major drivers of crime. That is what I say is outrageous. Some of those quotes and comments were outlandish. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: What planet do you live on? 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: I live on a planet of reality sir and we on this side of the House are not supporting this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill for some very good reasons. 
We on this side of the House are committed to building a safer New Zealand. I think that New Zealanders out there in our country know that. We have seen crime and criminal activity reduce in this country because of the legislation we have put through this House. We have seen public confidence in our law-keeping forces rise and increase when in past years under past administrations that confidence decreased. I think New Zealanders know that the National-led Government is working hard to build a safer New Zealand. 
In fact this bill that is being proposed is a bill that is a late starter in a race that has already been run and is over. The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 already puts enhanced obligations on casinos to detect and deter money-laundering and already has enforcement mechanisms and that legislation comes into force in July 2013—it comes into force in July 2013. We also know that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 already contains a civil forfeiture regime and a profit forfeiture order may be made by a court if it is satisfied that a person has knowingly derived benefit from significant criminal activity. 
So much of this member’s bill is nefarious—for example the words “should have known” and other wordings in the bill such as “derived or likely to be derived”. How is one to define “should have known” and how is it to be defined that it is “likely to be derived”? So what we have here is I think very poor drafting in a bill. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: It’s very good drafting. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: There is no doubt some good intent but its application and its working-out is fraught with great difficulty. 
There are a number of good reasons why we do not support this bill. We understand that money-laundering involves transforming money from crime and that it is called dirty money. If we are talking about anything that is dirty that is where it comes from—it is money from crime. It has the appearance of coming from a legitimate source and it makes its criminal origin difficult to trace. It is therefore deemed as clean money—so that is where the laundering component or understanding comes from. We understand that effective money-laundering enables criminals to remove themselves from their criminal activities and makes it harder to prosecute them and confiscate their proceeds. We understand these difficulties. This is what Governments over the years have always grappled with and we believe that we have instituted a law which is going to take effect shortly that is going to work very very strongly to stop that. 
This bill would amend the principal Act to apply the profit forfeiture regime to casinos that benefit from significant criminal activity and either knew that or should have known that. How does one determine “should have known”? How do you determine that they should have known that the benefit is derived or likely to be derived from criminal activity? 
Key issues the bill tries to address are returning proceeds to people from whom they were acquired or stolen. I understand that there is good intent in wanting to see that happen but I would say that a majority of people who have an item stolen whether it be in cash or in property would have that item insured and most people would receive some benefit from an insurance policy. Yet they are going to receive under this bill the cash return or the value return if somehow the proceeds of those funds are deemed to be received by a casino. I am not quite sure how that would happen in fact. There are not many criminals out there who carry a receipt book and actually write down exactly where and when and how they have been able to arrive at their proceeds-of-crime amount whether it is $1000 $10000 or $20000 or whatever. 
So somebody might take a stash of cash a handful of money into a casino and gamble it. And perhaps by international best practice by observation and technology and technique somebody or a system could discern that this person has peculiar activities that could profile them as a person who ought not to have such a large amount of money or as someone who has come there time and again with a large amount of money and could start to identify that person as a person who is suspect. How would you then determine that that person may have received that money through an act of crime? We are starting to delve into the area of guessing double-guessing and not being sure about these things and I think that our laws need to be better constructed and stronger in regard to these issues. In terms of the assets recovered under the Act’s civil forfeiture regime they are not returned to those persons from whom they have been stolen or acquired; they are returned to the Crown. That is simple. That is not complicated and there are other mechanisms by which a person who has suffered loss can recover that loss. 
Also under the bill there are lowered thresholds of liability for casinos. There is no reason why a casino that knowingly profits from significant criminal activity cannot be the subject of a profit forfeiture order under the Act currently. The bill effectively imposes a lower threshold of liability on casinos by the statement “who should have known” compared with other persons who knowingly derived a benefit. I think that this is an area that I feel very uncomfortable about and I think that many people in this House would feel uncomfortable about it as well. There is no clear evidence that casinos currently are not taking reasonable care to detect problem gambling and criminal activity. 
So this bill does not appear to achieve its aims of encouraging best practice or returning proceeds of crime to those from whom the proceeds were acquired or stolen. I believe that the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 places enhanced obligations on casinos to detect and deter money-laundering and contains enforcement mechanisms that will achieve much of what this bill intends. As I said earlier this bill is a late starter in a race that has already run and is over. Thank you.