The proceeds of crime act was quoted as the reason, my opinion was considered stupid. I have given this some thought...cause there is always a possibility that i could be wrong. Hard to believe, i know...but it is true.
I started wondering, about that Proceeds of Crime Act...and it had always been my understanding that, that act had been put in place to prevent anyone who actually commits a crime, from profiting from their own crime. I was not aware that the long arm of the law could stretch as far as, someone who had legally earned money by providing legal services to a person who had acquired that money illegally.
So i looked up the actual act. While i have not read the whole thing...it appears that my interpretation of that law was correct. It appears that one actually has to be convicted of the crime in question, for a confiscation order to be placed on the proceeds.
Applications for confiscation orders
8 Application for confiscation order
(1) Where a person is convicted on indictment of a serious offence, the Solicitor-General may, at any time before the expiration of the relevant application period, apply to the appropriate Court for one or both of the following orders:
(a) A forfeiture order against property that is tainted property in respect of the offence:
(b) A pecuniary penalty order against the person in respect of benefits derived by the person from the commission of the offence.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the appropriate Court, in relation to the person in respect of whose conviction for a serious offence a confiscation order is sought, is—
(a) The Court before which that person was sentenced, or is due to appear for sentence, in respect of that offence; or
(b) Where that person is treated as having been convicted of the offence by reason of section 3(1)(c) of this Act, the High Court.
(3) An application may be made under this section in relation to one or more serious offences.
(4) If an application under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section has been made and finally determined in respect of a person's conviction, no further application may be made under that paragraph in relation to the same conviction, except with the leave of the Court.
(5) The Court shall not grant leave under subsection (4) of this section unless it is satisfied—
(i) The tainted property or, as the case requires, the benefit to which the new application relates was identified only after the previous application was determined; or
(ii) Evidence necessary to support the new application was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing of the previous application; and
(b) That it is in the interests of justice to grant the leave.
Compare: Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Aust), s 14
So, after reading this, it would be my understanding, that my original opinion, that unless this woman, is actually convicted of some kind of criminal charge...say blackmail, as some people have suggested she should be... or, if prostitution was still illegal in New Zealand, there is no way that ASB will win this case.
The crazy thing about this whole thing, is that the only reason the ASB are going after this woman, is because she was actually smart and used her money wisely, which is very very rare in that world. Why are the ASB not pursuing the other hooker that he paid over one million bucks to? Because she wasted it and has nothing to show for it...that is why.
So if the 2.4 million dollar hooker had wasted all her money on crap ( probably drugs ) like the 1 million dollar hooker...she would have no worries right now.
Hardly seems right.
I do realise that there was recently an amendment to this in relation to organised crime, however that would not apply in this case.
But anyway...just thought i would point out the obvious, by way of actually pointing out the law, just for the benefit of people that like to quote the law and certain acts, without actually understanding them.
If the ASB do happen to win this case, it sets a terrible precedent. Every single service provider in every single industry, will have to make themselves responsible for finding out exactly where the money is coming from that is being paid to them in exchange for their services. It would seem the Privacy Act 1993 would have to be revisited, in that case.
Right...on that note. It's Nixon's walk time!
Back later....with my crime/meth findings!