Adams Amy: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Adams Amy: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1902] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 Along with my fellow members of the House who have spoken on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill I can say that it is a great pleasure to speak on the bill and on its Part 1 which has the purpose clause and the like in it. It really is pleasing as a member of the House to be able to stand and hear from around the House support for what is good legislation. It will give some real teeth to the crime-fighting initiatives in this country. 
I acknowledge that the bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government and I commend it for doing that. I would have been more impressed if Labour had got around to passing it but none the less that is something we will rectify. 
As we have heard the bill in its essence creates a new civil forfeiture regime for property that has been acquired through crime. Although we already have the Proceeds of Crime Act it has become apparent that that Act is not sufficient to get to where the real money is being made in crime today. We know that a lot of money is being made through advanced criminal organisations many of which are the motorcycle gangs and similar gangs that we see and we know that it is simply not enough to have a forfeiture regime that necessitates the linking of the owner of the property and the actual committing of the offence. 
Here we have a bill that sets out to establish a forfeiture regime that enables property to be taken not just from those directly involved in the committing of the offence—and that is the important point—but from anyone who has directly or indirectly profited from that crime. In doing that we are able to really strike at the heart of the people who are making a massive industry from crime. 
The clauses that really set out the overall tenor of the legislation are clause 3 which is the purpose clause and clause 4 which sets out the general overview of restraint and forfeiture of property. But there are some other key clauses in Part 1 that I think are worth touching on. Certainly the lawyer in me is always drawn first in a bill like this to look at the interpretation clause. Anyone who has worked in law understands that that is often where the real teeth and meat of the provisions are. 
There are a couple of clauses that I really want to highlight. My friend Chester Borrows has already talked about one of the provisions which is the definition of “property”. That is an important point. Too often we forget that property is far more than just property in the common parlance meaning land; it is any form of property including cash shares Harley Davidsons and debts—any form of property at all. 
Hon Member 
: Dope. 
AMY ADAMS 
: Well quite often it is dope. Equally it is not necessary for there to be whole ownership of that property. This measure cannot be defeated simply by having joint ownership with a spouse a girlfriend the guy down the road or whomever. Those are important points to note. 
It is also important to comment on the definition of “relevant period of criminal activity” in clause 5. This bill will set up a forfeiture provision that can look back 7 years and if there has been relevant criminal offending in that time then the provisions can apply. Relevant and significant criminal offending in this sense includes offences where the maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years or more or—and this is important—offences from which the proceeds or benefit amount to a value of $30000 or more. 
When a person has unlawfully benefited from that type of offending over that 7-year period and has knowingly directly or indirectly benefited from that offending and just as important whether or not he or she was involved in undertaking the committing of the offence then this provision will kick into gear. 
Anybody who seriously suggests that we do not need this sort of reach-through provision in our proceeds of crime legislation needs to think again. By way of example I offer the Killer Bees and Tribesmen sting last year in Auckland and the Waikato that was much written about which resulted in 51 arrests and the seizure of $200000 in cash 538 grams of pure methamphetamine with a street value of more than half a million dollars 400 grams of cannabis 15 vehicles and 12 firearms. 
Certainly the extent power and influence that gangs are gaining through this profitable trade cannot be understated but those sorts of seizures should not fool us into thinking that the legal system we have is working. We know that the seizures of property under the existing Proceeds of Crime Act has fallen away considerably both in number and in value. That tells us that we need reach-through provisions such as those we have in this bill.