Cosgrove Clayton: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2215] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I also rise to support the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. As we know much of this bill was authored by the previous Labour Government. I think the member opposite has made some valid points. I was over in South Australia—and I believe the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power was there—recently. It has had similar legislation to this bill for some time. 
Hon Simon Power 
: No they haven’t had this one yet. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am sorry; South Australia is getting it. The member who just spoke made an interesting point. He said that the tentacles if you will of crime can extend right through to secondary and tertiary parties. In this country we know that they often extend with regard to gangs to kids—to children. Children are often used to use the previous speaker’s term as mules: as people who can traffic drugs or act as couriers. Those young people are often used because a different standard of law applies to them if they are caught and put through the court system than applies to adults. The forfeiture regime within the bill allows the tentacles of the law to go right to secondary and tertiary parties in order to recover money and assets. 
This bill in Part 2 particularly strikes at the heart of organised criminal activity. As members have already said crime should not pay but we know that some members of our society are uniquely placed as criminals with devious criminal minds to be able to hide assets and funds and to accrue income well beyond their means unless it has come directly from criminal activity. The bill deals with that problem. It gives the Crown the ability to move in and confiscate those assets and profits if they have been obtained by criminal activity on the basis of the civil standard of proof as the previous speaker said. I think that will strike at the heart of some of the organised crime and gang activity that we see in this country. 
I am not sure who it was but I think a member of this House has said previously that if we do many of these measures some people in our society will accuse us of driving gang activity underground. Well I would argue that the real gang activity the organised criminal activity is always underground. The real activity is always the stuff that we do not see—the heavy-duty crime—and many organised criminal groups and gangs do not want the light to be shone upon them. They do not seek any profile because they want to carry on very quietly and stealthily in the criminal activities that they engage in in order to amass substantial assets and dollars. 
 When we look at the provisions within Part 2 we see that they are common-sense substantial provisions. There are a number of safeguards and that is appropriate. In its report the Law and Order Committee has argued that the police should be the recovery body and that the definition of the owner of property should be extended to include those who might have as the previous speaker Simon Bridges has said an interest in that property. The easiest thing for criminals to do is to sign over all the assets—the boat the Porsche the flash cars and all the shares—because some of these criminals are involved in quite substantial so-called legitimate commercial activities to their family members trusts or whatever so that the criminal appears to be asset-less or penniless when the recovery body in respect of the police comes around to do its duty. As I say these provisions give the ability to extend the tentacles of the law into secondary and tertiary parties. 
I think the bill is a good solid bill. It will have a very solid and practical effect. It does not deal with apparel as we have done recently. I mean no disrespect to the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill but although it is well intentioned I do not think that bill will deal to and cut to the heart of gang activity. There is an old saying that we should follow the money and I think that is right. We should follow the money and the assets when we really want to hurt harass and deal with the activities of gangs and organised criminals. Those criminals do not really mind what they wear but they do mind when we take their cheque books out of their pockets their wallets off them and their boats and flash cars away and when we do not allow them to make money or accrue those assets. That is at the heart of this bill and that is what we support.