Borrows Chester: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:652;Page:1900] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 The purpose of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill is articulated as being “to make more effective provision for the confiscation of property that either represents the profits of criminal offending or was used to facilitate the commission of crime”. In thinking of what examples of that might be and noting some of the points that have been raised by other speakers in respect of this we think about land. 
A point was raised by the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell in respect of jointly owned land—Maori freehold land and Maori customary land—but it applies equally to any land. Co-owners who may be in the position of losing their interest in a piece of land can easily be called to mind. We could take as an example somebody who allows a property like a flat to be used by extended family—or a family bach or some rural land. A young person may grow cannabis on that land for profit without the knowledge of the co-owners and as a result of a subsequent police operation the young person is caught and is prosecuted. Perhaps the land is sublet to somebody who grows cannabis on it without the knowledge of other co-owners. 
So an action is commenced by the recovery body to have that land forfeited. Obviously a co-owner who makes an application has the right under clause 33 to appear before the court and to adduce some evidence. The co-owner can eventually make an application against that forfeiture because the co-owner should not be deprived of his or her co-ownership of or interest in that land by the activities of a third party or another co-owner if he or she did not have any idea that the activity was going on. So if someone is doing something on land that is co-owned and other people with an interest in that land do not know about it then it does not mean that the land will be forfeited at the expense of those co-owners’ interests. 
Vessels and vehicles that are used in the commission of crime are frequently forfeited. Other people could have interests in a vessel or vehicle that has been used for a drug-dealing offence and that is the subject of a forfeiture application. It could well be that other people—maybe the spouse or the children—rely on that vehicle to go about their business. They similarly could make application and be heard or have someone else make application on their behalf and be heard in argument against that forfeiture. 
Thirdly there is the issue of money in the bank. If money in the bank is going to be confiscated then there needs to be a provable track of the illegitimacy of that money. If money has been stashed away in some form—in a TAB account in a bank or stuffed in a mattress somewhere—and if the recovery body is able to prove the illegitimacy of that money and the fact that it is there then it would be the subject of an action before the court for forfeiture. 
Just returning to the issue of land for a moment it is important to make the point that in respect of Maori land the claimant’s interest would be captured under the legislation as it is written now. The National Government has indicated that it will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell in respect of Maori freehold land and Maori customary land because we believe that the protection is already contained within the legislation as it is written. 
Another point that has been made is that Supplementary Order Paper 7 which is being promoted by the Minister of Justice talks about foreign restraining orders to attack those who have unlawfully benefited from significant crimes.