Borrows Chester: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
Borrows Chester: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2222] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and I am speaking to Part 2. I note a number of issues that were raised in debates when this matter was previously before the House that drew some concern from people particularly from the Maori Party who were concerned about parcels of land or assets that were held as joint property or where a number of people had an interest in that property. It is important to note that there are a number of protections within the legislation that provide for that interest and for the protection of that interest. For instance where the matter is brought before the court and in proceedings before the court whether it is on the initial application or whether it is for an extension of an application for an order anybody with an interest in the land or in the property has an ability to be heard in that respect. 
That is important obviously from an interest of justice point of view because it could well be that where there is an interest in a particular property by a large number of people there needs to be the ability to protect that interest not only for the people who are aware of it but for those who will come later and will take over that interest further down the track. 
It is interesting to note too that where a search order has been made in respect of any item of property the person who is holding the property or facilitating the execution of the order is not to disclose the existence of the order or the execution of the order to certain people. Those people may well have had a duty to disclose in any other circumstances under any other legislation or under another provision. Of course the reason for that obviously is to protect the integrity of the investigation or the examination that is being carried out to make sure for instance that the property is not dealt with in some way that would prevent the public interest in being able to restrict the use of that property or to prevent the disposal of that property. 
I turn to Subpart 9 which looks at offences including clause 156 “Contravention of restraining orders or foreign restraining orders” clause 157 “Contravention of forfeiture orders or foreign forfeiture orders” and clause 158 “Failing to comply with orders and search warrants”. It is those particular clauses that protect the integrity of that investigation and prevent those parties who are the respondents in these actions from being able to dispose of that property. It is an offence to disclose the existence or operation of a search order not just when it has been actioned—for instance if it is to do with proceeds of a crime being held in a bank account or a security box within a bank’s premises—and not just when it has been executed but also as soon as a person becomes aware of it. Then of course it is an offence to obstruct in any way the execution of such an order. That is important too because when one is executing a search warrant the ability of one person or another to hinder the execution of that order or warrant has the ability to affect the evidence that can be brought before the court at a later date. 
 Clause 163 makes the point that compliance with the order is not actionable. So it could be for instance that if an order were being executed on a legal firm then clients who would normally expect their lawyer to operate with a duty to them to not disclose information may try to take some action against their legal counsel—the person whom the clients would expect to act in their best interests—to prevent disclosure of what remains on their file or within the confines of the law firm from being disclosed to those who might come and look for it. So it prevents an action against people such as solicitors accountants bank managers and so on. 
Clause 164 provides an indemnity for enforcement officers who are acting out and executing the order as required by the documents. Once those documents are signed before the court the enforcement officers’ actions are protected from contest on behalf of the respondent. 
It is legislation that works very hard to protect those members of the public who are the victims of crime. Obviously if there are organisations or individuals who work towards gaining property and profit at the expense of others we need to do all we can to prevent them from moving down that track and creating more victims. In the past a much higher standard of proof has been required and these particular actions could be taken only when someone had been before the court and convicted of an offence. 
Part 2 allows for an explanation of how the whole bill will work once it is enacted. It provides for a reverse onus of proof in cases where some significant piece of property is found—whether it be land motorbikes vehicles houses or homes as we have heard before—in circumstances where there does not appear to be any explanation to show that the property items were gained legitimately. There is a reverse onus on the respondent to prove that it was gained legitimately and then only to a standard of the balance of probabilities. And with the balance of probabilities being less than within the criminal jurisdiction a heavy weight is put upon those people who most of us would say have been getting away with it for years. 
We all know of such people within our communities. We have all looked around the neighbourhood and seen someone who is driving a new car or riding up and down the street on a brand-new motorbike or towing a big boat behind a big four-wheel drive. We have then wondered how that person on the dole is able to afford that late model Toyota Land Cruiser with the $30000 boat being towed behind it. We all know that it is the fruit of ill-gotten gains. We want to live in a society where those people are held to account. It is not so much a matter of Big Brother watching over our shoulders but of it being a protection for those of us who work hard to earn a living support our families and pay our taxes. 
I am pleased to be part of an administration and a Parliament—because this bill has received wide support right across the House—where these people will be brought before a court and held to account if there is no clear explanation as to how they obtained that property. I am pleased to stand in support of this bill and I encourage the whole of the House to continue in their support for it.